SAG39197
5
SAG43110.1177/1046878110391975Lisk et al.Simulation & Gaming
Leadership in
Multiplayer Online
Gaming Environments
Simulation & Gaming
43(1) 133­–149
© 2012 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1046878110391975
http://sag.sagepub.com
Timothy C. Lisk1, Ugur T. Kaplancali2,
and Ronald E. Riggio3
Abstract
With their increased popularity, games open up possibilities for simultaneous learning
on multiple levels; players may learn from contextual information embedded in the
narrative of the game and through the risks, benefits, costs, outcomes, and rewards
of the alternative strategies that result from fast-paced decision making. Such
dynamics also contribute to building relationships and sharing/delegating authority
with others, in other words, acquiring leadership skills. Games and simulations have
long histories as tools to facilitate learning and training, especially in formats such
as board games, role-playing games, and real-life simulations. However, multiplayer
online games are rarely used outside military training for leadership development.
With its emphasis on transformational leadership skills in distributed teams (DTs),
this study presents several findings on leadership in multiplayer online environments,
such as INFINITEAMS and EVE ONLINE. To cope with globalization, technological
change, and highly competitive environments, leaders of DTs must have a better
understanding of the contextual variables in online environments, and massively
multiplayer online video games provide robust platforms to test their skills.
Keywords
online games, leadership, online environments, video games, distributed teams, massively multiplayer online environments, relationships, training, transformational, transactional, simulation/gaming
1
Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA
Yeditepe University, Istanbul, Turkey
3
Claremont McKenna College, Claremont, CA
2
Corresponding Author:
Timothy C. Lisk, Claremont Graduate University, School of Behavioral and Organizational Sciences,
123 East Eighth Street Claremont, CA 91711, USA
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
134
Simulation & Gaming 43(1)
With millions of subscribers and a growing appeal to broader audiences, massively
multiplayer online environments (MMOEs or MMOs) provide robust platforms for
social interaction to take place in groups formed within these online worlds. These
groups are typically goal oriented when formed inside a MMO game and community
oriented in a MMO social world. Both settings call for leadership and leaders to steer,
select, guide, and facilitate across temporal, technological, geographic, and cultural
boundaries, the same boundaries faced by distributed teams (DTs).
Examples of leadership can be found everywhere in life. When the topic of leadership comes up in the media or in casual conversation, the leaders in question tend to
come from politics, business and industry, the military, or even the media itself.
However, leaders are also found in video games. From the MMO EVE ONLINE
(EVE) comes a story of one such group of leaders who developed and released an
inspirational YouTube video to thousands of their followers (Talamasca, 2008).
Although their video articulated a shared vision with which team members identified,
the leaders behind it were neither politicians nor CEOs. They were leaders in a video
game. Multiplayer video gaming is growing at a tremendous rate and offers multiple
research avenues for leadership scholars. This article explores leadership within the
context of video games to examine the ways in which they can bolster our understanding
of leadership in DTs.
The limited research on leadership in DTs suggests that successful DTs need guidance, at least some structure, and effective communication, but leadership is typically
examined indirectly if at all (Martins, Gilson, & Maynard, 2004). How does one go
about developing leadership in DTs and what effect does it have on individual and DT
performance? In recent years, game technologies have evolved into a driving force for
interactive learning, training, and development. The inherent technological basis of
video games and the dueling levers of malleability and control that can be manipulated
by game developers are well suited to researchers tackling these questions.
Leadership
Early leadership research focused on individuals and the traits that might determine
their success. However, these studies often failed to account for longitudinal processes—
they did not account for the context of time. As research designs became more powerful, researchers moved into the realm of the behavioral, where they attempted to link
leader behaviors to leadership effectiveness. In a sense, these studies added the context of various behaviors. More recently, followers and their relationships with leaders
and each other added an interpersonal context to leadership research. When a situational
context is added on top of these other layers, our understanding of leadership becomes
even more nuanced. By examining leadership in context, researchers can understand
leadership in a specific situation, and they can use this knowledge to inform predictions in a similar situation that has not yet fallen under the lens of science.
A useful framework for examining leadership behavior in context is that of transformational and transactional leadership (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1997; Burns, 1978).
Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
135
Lisk et al.
Table 1. Selected Domains of Leadership Research
Leadership domain
Transformational
Authentic
Cognitive
LMX
Readings
Distinguishing features
Bass (1985)
Luthans and Avolio (2003)
Lord and Brown (2001)
Gerstner and Day (1997)
Visionary, charismatic
Explicit moral component
Self-concept; leader prototypicality
Dyadic leader-follower level of analysis
Note: LMX = leader-member exchange. For a comprehensive review, see Avolio, Walumbwa, and
Weber, 2009.
Although many theories of leadership exist (Table 1), charismatic and transformational
leadership have received more attention than any other in the past few decades (Avolio,
Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009). Transformational leaders seek to empower, challenge,
and inspire their followers to achieve goals benefiting the group (Bass & Riggio, 2006).
Successful transformational behavior encourages employees to focus on the organization’s goals while satisfying individual higher order needs. Transactional leadership
involves a request and comply exchange between the leader and follower (Yukl, 2006).
In addition, it is more concerned with detecting and correcting mistakes and rewarding
compliance. Although effective leaders exhibit transformational and transactional
leadership behavior, evidence suggests transformational leadership, when given a
choice, is the preferred style (Bass & Riggio, 2006). That said, a clear distinction
between transformational and transactional leadership is not always supported by the
literature (Yukl, 2006). At a broader level, those leadership behaviors traditionally
deemed most useful face unique challenges in DTs. The subtle nuances of personal
communication are often lost in the zeroes and ones that delineate the digital world
(Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). Traditional teams consist of interdependent members who
share a common goal or purpose and hold each other accountable (Greenberg, 2005;
Katzenbach & Smith, 2005). In cross-functional teams, teams that consist of members
from different backgrounds and occasionally different organizations, research suggests
leaders need technical expertise and cognitive, interpersonal, project management,
and political skills (Ford & Randolph, 1992; Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, & Strange, 2002;
Yukl, 2006).
Technical expertise is the ability to communicate with team members on the technical aspects of the project while cognitive skills help leaders solve complex problems.
Interpersonal and political skills help the leader influence others and relate to team
members. Project management skills are needed for planning and organization. Crossfunctional teams share some similarities with DTs. DTs, or virtual teams, are teams
that span temporal, technological, geographic, and cultural boundaries, often simultaneously. Research on leadership skills necessary for DTs is less clear, although speculation often assumes the skills that help leaders perform well in cross-functional teams
are also important in DTs (Yukl, 2006). This is not always the case as research indicates
Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
136
Simulation & Gaming 43(1)
leaders of DTs have an even tougher time establishing communication, task monitoring,
and group identification (Yukl, 2006).
The research on leaders of face-to-face (FTF) teams and DTs indicates that leader
behavior and ratings of leadership should be predictive of team performance in an
online game (Bass, Jung, Avolio, & Berson, 2003; Elenkov, 2002; Hoyt & Blascovich,
2003; Russell, 2001; Streufert, Pogash, & Piasecki, 1988; Xenikou & Simosi, 2006).
Research suggests transactional leadership may be more useful than it is normally as
it is difficult for transformational leaders to leverage their interpersonal skills in a DT.
This must be interpreted cautiously because the same research has typically overlooked previously established DTs in favor of studying newly created, ad hoc DTs.
Transformational leadership may still be a strong component of an established DT
(Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005). According to Yukl (2006), transformational leadership is “important in a dynamic, unstable environment that increases the need for
change” (p. 265) and in organizations with an “entrepreneurial culture” (p. 265).These
are the same environments where we might expect to find DTs.
Leadership Development in Video Games
Several games have been designed specifically to develop leadership skills through
individual trial and error or team building. Facilitator-led sandboxes are software packages designed for either a single player or a team. An example of a single player,
facilitator-led sandbox that focuses on leadership is VIRTUAL LEADER (see Table 2
for a summary of selected programs). VIRTUAL LEADER is presented alongside a
clear leadership framework and encourages players to try different approaches to pregenerated scenarios. Players can try different leadership styles and receive feedback
after each meeting, but despite the digital nature of the program, the training is actually
intended for leaders of FTF teams, not DTs.
A game that can tackle leadership training for DTs, INFINITEAMS, places multiple team members in the same session and assigns a single team leader. Players can be
anywhere in the world and must work together to complete various puzzles to meet
their end goal. Although designed as a game, simulation aspects of INFINITEAMS’
virtual world are reasonably realistic. Bartlett and Amsler (1979) stress that a simulation provides a valid learning experience if it is realistic in three respects:
1. In appearance: The detailed view of the rich graphics in INFINITEAMS
offers a truly immersive visual virtual environment.
2. In its internal process: The simulation activities imitate the real-world without the inclusion of blood and gore. For example, fights with wild animals
are animated as a small tornado action but those clashes can cost declines in
health. Therefore important decision making is involved.
3. In the outcomes it generates: Playing the missions with predefined goals gives
students a sense that their efforts have purpose and their accomplishments
are valid.
Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
137
Lisk et al.
Table 2. Features and Intended Use of Selected Video Games
Software
Simultaneous users
Distinguishing features
EVE ONLINE
>40,000
WORLD OF
WARCRAFT
<3,000
INFINITEAMS
<10
Shared virtual world;
intricate player driven
economy
Shared virtual world;
millions of players
worldwide
Distinct leader and follower
interfaces; modular team
building scenarios
Workplace simulation
designed specifically for
leadership development
VIRTUAL LEADER
1
Intended use
Entertainment
Entertainment
Team & leadership
development
Leadership
development
Note: Simultaneous users refer to the maximum number of players who can interact in the same game
space at the same time. For example, WORLD OF WARCRAFT has millions of subscribers, but players
are spread across multiple servers.
In leadership development video games, scenarios tend to be restricted to the sandbox and users can retry the same scenarios with different approaches, learning through
trial and error. A facilitator, either a live person or the software itself, guides players
through the scenarios and supplements the experience with theory-based training on
effective leadership behaviors. Due to their relative rigidity, training with these software packages is often a one-shot affair. After following the facilitator’s path, returns
diminish for anyone tackling the program a second time as the challenges and decisions
are already known.
Although the majority of games are ultimately restrictive and attempt to “facilitate”
users along a somewhat linear path, many video games not originally intended for
formal leadership development have so many paths (Bonk & Dennen, 2005) that
exhausting them is much more difficult. Classic examples such as SIM CITY represent a less restrictive, more free-form sandbox that allow players to attempt new strategies as many times as they would like. Although performance feedback is provided by
the game, the players are largely free to develop their own criteria for success.
Games
Games have an impact on players’ motivation due to their uncertain outcome and the
focus on a goal, providing a sense of challenge for players. This is fed by the opportunities to explore and discover new information and solutions (Bonk & Dennen, 2005).
The motivational power of gaming was mentioned by educators (Bowman, 1982), and
Yee (2007) found that players have a wide array of varied motivations to play and interact with others in his studies of player motivations in massively multiplayer online
Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
138
Simulation & Gaming 43(1)
role-playing games (MMORPGs, a subset of MMOs). Video games are engaging
because of a combination of 12 elements (Prensky, 2001). For instance, games have
goals that give players motivation. The element of interaction in games provides the
structure for social groups and teamwork required for achieving game goals. Forming
social groups and teamwork are common practice for the players in MMOs. Team
formation, goals, and individual motivation are frequently studied topics in DTs (Hertel,
Geister, & Konradt, 2005), and effective teamwork is one of the top five learning objectives in business simulations (Faria, Hutchinson, Wellington, & Gold, 2009).
All games and instructional simulations are virtually risk-free environments that
encourage exploration and trial-and-error actions with instant feedback and therefore
stimulate curiosity, discovery learning, and perseverance (Kirriemuir, 2002). Triggered
by immediate feedback, simultaneous learning on multiple levels can be expected
through games. The social context of MMO environments also provides immersive
and built-in creative elements for social learning (Tomlinson, 2005).
Nonlinear learning is another key strength of game-based learning (GBL). More
general terms used to explain this kind of learning in games are “experiential learning”
(Ncube, 2007) and “learning by doing” (Aldrich, 2005). In addition, repeatability or
replayability, an inherent feature of most games, is a contributor to the nonlinear learning environment of games. Replayability allows a learner to try again with a modified
approach when they fail or do not quite deliver the desired outcome. In addition, replay­
ability makes it possible for a learner to make mistakes and learn from those mistakes
without suffering the consequences as they would in real life (Benson, 1996). Games
are inherently adaptive and will suit different learning styles. In many games, the difficulty is adjusted according to the performance of the player (Moreno-Ger, Burgos, &
Torrente, 2009). A game discounting the knowledge and skill level of the learner will
be less successful (Wilson et al., 2009).
Cognitive engagement is a necessary condition for learning (Sawyer, 2006). Tradi­
tional classroom-based methods of learning make individual cognitive interaction
more difficult. GBL produces immediate feedback, active participation, and high levels of interactivity, thus increasing the retention of the information supplied (Ricci,
Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1996). Games provide well-structured and open-ended opp­
ortunities for practice with that information in new and novel situations (Squire, 2005).
Game Development for Leadership
Advances in technology have brought with them a variety of digital development
alternatives to traditional leadership development. On a rough scale of structured to
unstructured, these run from digitized games for simulation to video games, with
facilitator-led digital sandboxes somewhere in between (Klabbers, 2009). Digitized
simulations often take a traditional simulation or assessment center and place it on a
computer. These may be designed for a single user or a team. The benefit is faster processing and feedback between “rounds” but the underlying structure does not differ
Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
139
Lisk et al.
much from noncomputerized simulations. Situated toward the “unstructured” end of
the scale, the more free-form MMOs provide multiple paths to success as well as the
relative unpredictability of human opponents. Another important characteristic of
recent MMO games is that developers periodically add new challenges, levels, and
even worlds to an existing game universe to increase the complexity and number of
potential paths inside the game. They boast thriving virtual economies complete with
developer-issued economic updates and runs on corrupt virtual banks.
As MMOs are so free form, they offer many benefits for DT leadership development. MMOs with robust economies, such as EVE or SECOND LIFE, effectively
mimic real-world economies because the market is influenced by tens of thousands of
actual people. Conflicts can boil over into shipping lanes, impacting the price of raw
materials. The frameworks of these MMOs are so open they are now being used to
create customized training programs. The WORLD OF HEALTHCRAFT project
(Robinson, 2008) is one such attempt to adapt a MMO to create an engaging leadership development program for a health care organization. The U.S. Army, an organization with a long history of simulations and leadership development, has run a MMO
since 2002, AMERICA’S ARMY, whose basic underlying purpose is to recruit and
train future soldiers. The U.S. Army also sponsored the development of FULL
SPECTRUM WARRIOR, released in 2004, to train squad leaders for urban warfare
(Fong, 2006). Experiments at the Kravis Leadership Institute run participants through
experimental scenarios in software designed for team and leadership training as well
as experiments built within MMOs like EVE to study DTs “in the wild.”
Video games and MMOs additionally provide the opportunity for exposure to technology. Today’s virtual worlds, either social or game oriented, are becoming more
adaptable and intense, making them more appealing as learning platforms. Reeves,
Malone, and O’Driscoll (2008) described the temporary nature of leadership in MMOs
as “the way in which leaders naturally switch roles, directing others one minute and
taking orders the next” (p. 62), which in turn makes MMO leaders better followers and
helps them avoid burnout. They also stressed the importance of the right environment
and the potential benefits of “gamifying” (p. 63) the work environment to create systems
supporting leadership qualities.
Case Studies
To better understand leadership in the context of DTs, Kravis Leadership Institute has
conducted exploratory studies of leadership behavior in multiplayer video games.
What follows are the two case studies of leadership research in video games. The first
involves INFINITEAMS (Version 1), a virtual team survival scenario. Designed for
team building and leader assessment, the INFINITEAMS software presents teams
with obstacles that must be overcome cooperatively to survive after crash landing on
a deserted island. The second study asked players of popular MMOs about their transformational leadership behavior within the virtual environment and at work.
Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
140
Simulation & Gaming 43(1)
INFINITEAMS—Transformational
and Transactional Leadership
In a study of 48 undergraduate college students between the ages of 18 and 22, Kaplancali
(2008) ran small teams of four to five participants through INFINITEAMS. With
randomly assigned leaders, team members completed pretests measuring Motivation
to Lead (Chan & Drasgow, 2001), Leadership Self-Efficacy (Murphy, 1992; Murphy
& Ensher, 1999), and a measure of prior gaming experience created for the study. They
then took part in two back-to-back, 30-minute sessions, followed by posttest ratings
of the team leader using Bass and Avolio’s (1997) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ Form 5x-Short).
Kaplancali (2008) found no consistent link between Motivation to Lead, Leadership
Self-Efficacy, or prior gaming experience to transformational and transactional leadership behavior as measured by MLQ leader self-report and subordinate report. The
teams in this study were comprised of students who had already been assigned to small
FTF groups for an unrelated class project. This prior familiarity and the continuous
nature of the team’s work relationship (beyond the study), along with a presumably
higher team cohesiveness than one would find in a team of strangers, may have muted
the effects of individual leadership behavior.
Self-reported transformation and transactional leadership behavior was strongly
linked to final team scores. However, although teams did not receive their raw scores,
leaders should have had a good idea of how well they were performing, and team performance may have influenced leadership self-ratings, not the other way around. To
support this conclusion, follower ratings of the team leader were not significantly predictive of team scores. This may be due to the fact that team members did not have an
omniscient view of the scenario (as did team leaders) and did not have as strong a
sense of the team’s success or failure. The fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977)
likely also played a part. Team members, both leaders and followers, may have attributed team success to themselves and not other team members. Former small group
research has identified a number of factors that negatively affect team performance
and member satisfaction, for example, overdependence on a dominant leader or diffusion of responsibility and tendency to make more risky decisions (Kayes, Kayes, &
Kolb, 2005). Future research should compare pre and post self-reported leadership
behavior at the leader and subordinate level.
Popular MMOs—Transformational Leadership
Kravis Leadership Institute also studied transformational leadership among players
of popular MMOs. Participants who were subscribers to WORLD OF WARCRAFT
(WOW; n = 41), EVE (n = 573), and GUILD WARS (GW; n = 80) responded to
recruitment posts in online forums. They answered questions pertaining to their guild’s
structure, their leadership role in their guild, and self-rated transformational leadership
behavior (MLQ) in their primary MMO and at work.
Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
141
Transformational Leadership
Lisk et al.
3.5
3
2.5
World of Warcraft
EVE Online
2
Guild Wars
1.5
Guild Leadership Structure
Figure 1. Self-report MMO transformational leadership scores by guild leadership structure
Note: MMO = massively multiplayer online environments. Scores range from 0 (transformational
leadership behavior is used “not at all”) to 4 (behavior occurs “frequently, if not always”); the data scale begins
above 0 to illustrate between-group comparisons.
Among participants who were members of a guild, little difference was detected
among one guild leader, a group of guild leaders, or no guild leader (consensus or
majority rule). However, participants who were guild members tended to report less
transformational leadership behavior in both settings, MMO and work (Figures 1 and 2).
The exception, although not significant, was WOW players who reported more transformational leadership behavior when they were not in a guild. Transformational leadership declined in GW as central leadership declined, from one leader, to many leaders,
down to no leader. Although the effects were not significant, the trends in EVE and WOW
appeared to nearly mirror each other (Figure 2).
A significant or nearly significant positive linear trend was found for leadership
and guild authority level (Table 3, Figure 3). In WOW and EVE, participants leading
guilds reported significantly higher leadership than participants who were not in
guilds. In EVE, guild leaders reported higher leadership scores than those who had no
leadership authority in their guilds and those who were the equivalent of middle managers. Although we would expect leaders to self-select and exhibit more leadership
behavior, these findings show that leadership exists and matters in an online “for fun”
video game not at all designed for leadership training. The findings also highlight differences between the games.
Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
Transformational Leadership
142
Simulation & Gaming 43(1)
3.5
3
2.5
World of Warcraft
2
EVE Online
Guild Wars
1.5
Guild Leadership Structure
Figure 2. Self-Report workplace transformational leadership scores by guild leadership
structure
Note: Scores range from 0 (transformational leadership behavior is used “not at all”) to 4 (behavior occurs
“frequently, if not always”); the data scale begins above 0 to illustrate between-group comparisons.
Table 3. Relationship Between Transformational Leadership Behavior and Guild Authority
Level by MMO
WORLD OF WARCRAFT (WOW)
EVE ONLINE (EVE)
GUILD WARS (GW)
F
p
12.154
47.142
3.432
<.001
<.001
<.068
Note: WOW F(1, 34); EVE F(1, 546); GW F(1, 68).
These differences may have to do with the varying natures of the games examined.
At the time of the study, high-level WOW players could not complete portions of the
game on their own. In EVE, it is possible to be successful as a solitary player even
after years of character advancement. People who play WOW without a guild may
already be transformational leaders and find it easier to recruit strangers for spur-ofthe-moment activities. They may not need the built-in supply of partners that guilds
offer, so they see no reason to join one. In EVE, one does not need to lead others in
Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
143
Lisk et al.
Transformational Leadership
3.5
3
2.5
World of Warcraft
2
EVE Online
Guild Wars
1.5
Sole top level One of the top
leader
level leaders
Middle level
leader
Not a leader
Participant's Guild Leadership Role
Figure 3. Self-report MMO transformational leadership scores by guild leadership role
Note: MMO = massively multiplayer online environments. Scores range from 0 (transformational leadership behavior is used “not at all”) to 4 (behavior occurs “frequently, if not always”); the data scale begins above
0 to illustrate between-group comparisons.
order to prosper. Some players even control several characters simultaneously, essentially
running a team of one.
Among only those participants who were members of a guild (see Figure 3), an
overall downward trend occurs in MMO transformational leadership moving down the
hierarchy from the guild leader to players on the bottom who are not in leadership
roles. When examining workplace leadership, EVE players flatten out—their workplace transformational leadership has very little to do with their guild leadership position. Scores for top guild leaders fall across all three MMOs when examining workplace
leadership and no clear trend emerges across the MMOs. No clear relationship appears
between self-ratings of workplace transformational leadership behavior and guild
leadership role.
Conclusion
In the last two decades, the organizational and institutional interconnections made
possible by information technology have challenged leaders to be more responsive to
their followers. Borderless connectivity of organizations’ divisions and subunits and the
underlying communications technology infrastructure constitutes a new context for
Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
144
Simulation & Gaming 43(1)
how to lead. As the online technologies became more interactive through multiplayer
games, social networking sites, and blogs, today’s leaders need to understand the dynamics of these specific technology-related interactions which go beyond conventional
leadership communications.
Leadership research in multiplayer games is only beginning to scratch the surface.
The next generation of workers will have grown up with the Internet, YouTube, and
Facebook, and a small but growing percentage will have leadership experience stemming from online groups in games like WOW. What this leadership experience means
in the workplace, and how training and development can be geared more effectively
toward employees of all backgrounds, is an important question. Research may need to
more closely examine self-leadership and distributed leadership. For example, in the
study of EVE, only 25% of respondents indicated their guild was run by a single leader.
Researchers interested in pursuing leadership in video games would be well served
to start by seeing if the foundation is strong. Do classic, previously established theories of groups, teams, and leader behavior hold up in online settings? We certainly find
evidence that differences exist. Leading a DT is not as simple as applying the same
techniques one would use when leading a traditional team (Balthazard, Potter, &
Warren, 2004; Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Hoyt & Blascovich, 2003; Zigurs,
2003). Where differences do exist, what are the contextual and temporal moderators?
Longitudinal research on leadership in online multiplayer games is sparse at best.
Theories such as the social information processing model of computer-mediated
communication (Walther, 1992) place great emphasis on training and experience in
the medium as a way to improve communication. Leaders who cannot wield the tools
at their disposal do not stand a chance. At the end of Kaplancali’s (2008) INFINITEAMS
study, after participants received an explanation of the study and the manipulations, a
number of participants volunteered to informally discuss the study with the researchers or provide additional comments about the experiment. During these debriefing,
one participant commented, “I usually think I am a good leader, but because I couldn’t
use the technology I was unable to lead in a successful way, not due to leadership but
[due to having] no skills in the program.” Team members who are not provided with
sufficient training in the medium are likely to blame the organization, their leader, or
both. Another participant wrote “[INFINITEAMS V1.0] didn’t provide any guidance
on how to improve leadership or point out areas where we could do better.”
In our study, INFINITEAMS was used as an assessment. Normally, as it is designed,
INFINITEAMS would be presented alongside formal leadership training. During the
presentation of our study in International Simulation and Gaming Association (ISAGA)
conference, audience members and fellow researchers were interested in specific gaming technologies and narratives that are ready to apply for leadership training of teams.
Simply throwing new training and development technology at a leadership deficit will
not help. DT leaders need to ensure their team is adequately prepared to use the group
communication technology and avoid technical frustration. Developers of training
software must be sure to include a framework of effective leadership and ample performance feedback for virtual leadership development to be a success. Researchers
Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
145
Lisk et al.
must also pay attention to this issue as a participant’s lack of experience with the software or medium may interfere with manipulations and muddy results.
In our view, the way a leader uses the technology must be visible—in all aspects—
to the team. Games usually do a better job in providing such visibility and warning
mechanisms than traditional groupware because their interfaces are inherently designed
to engage users. The industry has already capitalized on these virtues of game design
and integrated them into their products. For example, Seriosity (http://www.seriosity.
com) created a virtual economy platform (player-to-player transactions are common
practice in MMOs) for enterprise mail traffic, allowing users to signal the importance
of each message by assigning it a finite currency value.
In a cyclical process, DTs are driving flattening hierarchies, globalization, technological change, and an increased need for organizational flexibility, which in turn
necessitate the need for more distributed teamwork. These DTs will need leadership of
one form or another to build team cohesion, facilitate access to resources, and guide
teams along the path(s) to success. Preliminary evidence even suggests that smoothly
functioning DTs can be more effective than colocated or FTF teams (Siebdrat, Hoegl,
& Ernst, 2008). To develop leadership for DTs, we need to know them. One of the best
ways to understand the organizations of tomorrow is to study the closest thing to them
today: teams and guilds in video games. By studying DT leadership in video games,
we may be able to better delineate the contextual variables that hinder or help DT
performance faster than if we focus on workplace studies alone.
Acknowledgment
We thank Jonnie Hill and the anonymous reviewers for their assistance in greatly improving
this article. This article is a substantially augmented rewrite of a paper, Lisk, T. C., Kaplancali,
U. T., & Riggio, R. E. (2009). Leadership research in video games, presented at the 40th conference of the International Simulation and Gaming Association (ISAGA), organized by the
Society of Simulation and Gaming of Singapore (SSAGSg), Yeo Gee Kin (National University
of Singapore), and Cai Yiyu (Nanyang Technological University, Singapore), from 29 June to
3 July, 2009. This research was partially supported by a grant from Claremont Graduate University,
United States.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interests with respect to their authorship or
the publication of this article.
Funding
This research was partially supported by a grant from Claremont Graduate University, United
States.
References
Aldrich, C. (2005). Learning by doing: A comprehensive guide to simulations, computer games,
and pedagogy in e-learning and other educational experiences. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
146
Simulation & Gaming 43(1)
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research,
and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449.
Balthazard, P., Potter, R. E., & Warren, J. (2004). Expertise, extraversion and group interaction
styles as performance indicators in virtual teams. DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 35, 41-64.
Bartlett, R., & Amsler, C. (1979). Simulations and economics. In E. Thorson (Ed.), Simulations
in higher education. Hicksville, NY: Exposition.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership development manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Mindspring.
Bass, B. M., Jung, D. I., Avolio, B. J., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by
assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,
207-218.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group & Organization Management, 27, 14-49.
Benson, M. (1996). Effectiveness of computer technology in social studies: A review of the
literature. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28, 486-499.
Bonk, C. J., & Dennen, V. P. (2005). Massive multiplayer online gaming: A research framework
for military training and education. Madison, WI: Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative.
Bowman, R. F. (1982). A Pac-Man theory of motivation. Tactical implications for classroom
instruction. Educational Technology, 22(9), 14-17.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Chan, K., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and leadership:
Understanding the motivation to lead. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 481-498.
Elenkov, D. S. (2002). Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian companies. Journal of Business Research, 55, 467-480.
Faria, A. J., Hutchinson, D., Wellington, W. J., & Gold, S. (2009). Developments in business
gaming: A review of the past 40 years. Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal,
40, 464-487.
Fong, G. (2006). Adapting COTS games for military experimentation. Simulation & Gaming:
An Interdisciplinary Journal, 37, 452-465.
Ford, R. C., & Randolph, W. A. (1992). Cross-functional structures: A review and integration of
organization and project management. Journal of Management, 18, 267.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory:
Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827-844.
Greenberg, J. (2005). Managing behavior in organizations (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current
empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15, 69-95.
Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
147
Lisk et al.
Hoyt, C. L., & Blascovich, J. (2003). Transformational and transactional leadership in virtual
and physical environments. Small Group Research, 34, 678-715.
Kaplancali, U. T. (2008). Leadership in multiuser online environments: The effects of usergenerated content on leadership styles across crafting and creation environments in a multiplayer online game. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate University.
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (2005). The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review, 83,
162-171.
Kayes, A. B., Kayes, D. C., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Experiential learning in teams. Simulation &
Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 30, 330-354.
Kirriemuir, J. (2002). The relevance of video games and gaming consoles to the higher and further education learning experience (Techwatch Report online). Retrieved from http://www.
jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/tsw_02-01.rtf
Klabbers, J. H. G. (2009). Terminological ambiguity: Game and simulation. Simulation &
Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 40, 446-463.
Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2001). Leadership, values, and subordinate self-concepts. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 133-152.
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive developmental approach. In
K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 241-258). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and
where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 805-835.
Moreno-Ger, P., Burgos, D., & Torrente, J. (2009). Digital games in eLearning environments:
Current uses and emerging trends. Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 40,
669-687.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people:
Orchestrating expertise and relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705-750.
Murphy, S. E. (1992). The contribution of leadership experience and self-efficacy to group
performance under evaluation apprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Washington, Seattle.
Murphy, S. E., & Ensher, E. A. (1999). The effects of leader and subordinate characteristics in
the development of leader-member exchange quality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
29, 1371-1394.
Ncube, L. B. (2007, October 10-13). Exploring the application of experiential learning in developing technology and engineering concepts: The Lean Lemonade Tycoon™. In The 37th
ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (pp. F1J-5-F1J-10). Milwaukee, WI.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Reeves, B., Malone, T. W., & O’Driscoll, T. (2008). Leadership’s online labs. Harvard Business
Review, 86, 58-66.
Ricci, K., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996). Do computer games facilitate knowledge
acquisition and retention? Military Psychology, 8, 295-307.
Robinson, M. (2008). World of HealthCraft. Retrieved December 12, 2008, from http://mdm
.gnwc.ca/projects/world-healthcraft
Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
148
Simulation & Gaming 43(1)
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 10, pp. 173-220).
New York, NY: Academic Press.
Russell, C. J. (2001). A longitudinal study of top-level executive performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 560-573.
Sawyer, K. (Ed.). (2006). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Siebdrat, F., Hoegl, M., & Ernst, H. (2008). The bright side of virtual collaboration: How teams
can profit from dispersion. In 2008 Academy of Management annual meeting proceedings.
Anaheim, CA.
Squire, K. (2005). Game-based learning: Present and future state of the field. An x-Learn Perspective paper. Retrieved April 22, 2006, from http://immersionfall09.pbworks.com/f/
Squire–2005–Game-Based_Learning.pdf
Streufert, S., Pogash, R., & Piasecki, M. (1988). Simulation-based assessment of managerial
competence: Reliability and validity. Personnel Psychology, 41, 537-557.
Talamasca, A. (2008). GoonSwarm takes on the Beatles with the “Little Bees” video. Retrieved
February 3, 2009, from http://www.massively.com/2008/04/23/goonswarm-takes-on-thebeatles-with-the-little-bees-video/
Tomlinson, B. (2005). Social characters for computer games [Special issue on social learning].
Internal Journal of Interactive Technology, 2, 101-115.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.
Wilson, K. A., Bedwell, W. L., Lazzara, E. H., Salas, E., Burke, C. S., Estock, J. L., . . .
Conkey, C. (2009). Relationships between game attributes and learning outcomes: Review
and research proposals. Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 40, 217-266.
Xenikou, A., & Simosi, M. (2006). Organizational culture and transformational leadership as
predictors of business unit performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 566-579.
Yee, N. (2007). Motivations for play in online games. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 9, 772-775.
Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice
Hall.
Zigurs, I. (2003). Leadership in virtual teams: Oxymoron or opportunity? Organizational Dynamics, 31, 339-351.
Bios
Timothy C. Lisk is a PhD candidate in industrial and organizational psychology at the School
of Behavioral and Organizational Sciences. His research interests include shared leadership
within distributed teams and massively multiplayer online games.
Ugur T. Kaplancali has been teaching at Yeditepe University since 2009. As an economist by
education, he received his PhD in management of information systems and technologies from
Claremont Graduate University. His research interests include design and development of interactive
learning environments in virtual worlds, gaming for leadership and community building, and localization of cross-cultural social networking technologies for new business development.
Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
149
Lisk et al.
Ronald E. Riggio, PhD, is the Henry R. Kravis professor of leadership and organizational
psychology and FORMER director of the Kravis Leadership Institute at Claremont McKenna
College. He is the author of more than 100 books, book chapters, and research articles in the
areas of leadership, assessment centers, organizational psychology, and social psychology. His
most recent books are The Art of Followership and the Practice of Leadership, Jossey-Bass,
2008, 2007), Applications of Nonverbal Behavior (coedited with Robert S. Feldman; Erlbaum,
2005), and Transformational Leadership (2nd ed.), coauthored with Bernard M. Bass (Erlbaum,
2006). He is an associate editor of Leadership Quarterly and is on the editorial boards of Leadership,
Leadership Review, Group Dynamics, and the Journal of Nonverbal Behavior.
Downloaded from sag.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016