Good gamers, good managers? A proof-of-concept study with Sid Meier’s Civilization

The_J

Say No 2 Net Validations
Administrator
Supporter
Joined
Oct 22, 2008
Messages
39,567
Location
DE/NL/FR
manag.PNG


The "Review Of Managerial Science" has a few days ago puliblished an article called "Good gamers, good managers? A proof-of-concept study with Sid Meier’s Civilization". In this article, 4 scientist of the University of Lichtenstein, the University of Rotterdam and the University of Münster had the hypothesis that being good at games, which require managing skills, might also indicate that a person is a good manager. They picked Civilization 5 for their research. The basic setup in this case was that participants were recruited at an university, and they got time to play Civ5. After some time to get used to the game, they got split into groups, and could play against each other. At the end the score was assesed. Afterwards, the gamers had to participate in various tests regarding management capabilities. It turned out that persons with higher scores in the game also scored better in these tests for management skills. This does not necessarily mean that playing Civ5 makes you a good manager, but that the same skills are required for both.

An excerpt:

"Our results should be useful to researchers from various felds who are becoming increasingly aware of video games’ potential to indicate several skills other than gaming skills. Our study revealed signifcant and positive relationships between the participants’ game success and how they performed during our assessments.
As explained, assessment centers can provide a comprehensive picture of an applicant’s knowledge and abilities, thus they are increasingly used to predict future job performance. Therefore, we also used the data collected from the assessments to calculate an overall assessment rating, a commonly used job-performance predictor (e.g., Russell and Domm 1995). In creating an overall assessment rating, there are different approaches to data aggregation (Thornton and Rupp 2006, p. 161), and we tested two purely quantitative approaches: First, we aggregated the skill-dimension ratings into overall assessment ratings, with weightings based on the relevance of the skill dimensions to the exercises; second, we used the skill ratings to calculate exercise ratings, which we then aggregated into overall assessment ratings, with weightings based on the length of the exercises. For both aggregation approaches, we explored how the overall assessment results correlated with participants’ game results, using the same model specifcation as before, and found that the students’ overall assessment ratings were signifcantly related to their game scores. Accordingly, video games may not only be used to assess specifc skills but could also be useful to predict performance at a more general level. In fact, assessment centers are one of the most commonly used tools to predict the future job performance of university graduates (see, e.g., Ballantyne and Povah 2004) who apply for managerial positions but typically lack work experience"

The article is freely available here.
 
Good Gamers, good managers: so this study is based on a sample size of one, and from just one genre'? I wonder what results they would've gotten had they chosen one FPS type game to base their study on (brief glimpse into that scenario: "no - you can't hit/whip/shoot/nuke your fellow co-workers just because they said something you don't like!")?

Anyways, as more of a Project Lead, I've always used the Sid Meier's paradigm that a game should be "an interesting series of choices" (which all of the Civ series, including the sci-fi versions such as Alpha Centauri and Beyond Earth that I play embody) as a comparison to the projects I work on: there is the inception of the project (which can be compared to the game setup), the initial kick-off (i.e. your starting position), and the initial phases of the project (the exploration of your initial surroundings, initial interactions with your nearest neighbors, etc.). From there things become more complex as the program progresses/ matures, and you get into the phase where the "rubber meets the road" (i.e. where you are doing what you said you'd do in those lofty proposals), including the unexpected such as recalcitrant customers. Eventually after a lot of difficulties the apex is reached, and from there its more a matter of cleanup at that point. But continually throughout the project (i.e. a game) it is making the right choices at the right time that is paramount to success, and I think that is why the Civ series is a good training ground/ good aptitude indicator for those successful in these family of games.

D
 
For your first point: It does say“proof of concept“. Means this was a first attempt to show that something can work.

Ah, OK - thanx for pointing that out!

I wonder if it might be a more efficient (and more viable) approach to review the candidates' gaming habits and see if the ones who play TBS games (and specifically games which embody the "a game should be an interesting series of choices" mantra) show a higher aptitude in the management tests they administer?

D
 
Top Bottom