Next Article in Journal
HRM Strategies for Bridging the Digital Divide: Enhancing Digital Skills, Employee Performance, and Inclusion in Evolving Workplaces
Previous Article in Journal
When Institutions Cannot Keep up with Artificial Intelligence: Expiration Theory and the Risk of Institutional Invalidation
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Adoption of Modern Sports Technologies from Professional Settings to Everyday Life
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Administrative Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 7
10.3390/admsci15070265
admsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Game-Based Intervention as a Tool for Enhancing Team Adaptation

by
Katarína Stachová
1,
Zdenko Stacho
1,* and
Michal Hamar
2
1
Faculty of Social and Economic Relations, Alexander Dubček University of Trenčín, Študentská 3, 911 50 Trenčín, Slovakia
2
Faculty of Management, Comennius University, Odbojárov 10, 820 05 Bratislava, Slovakia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Adm. Sci. 2025, 15(7), 265; https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15070265
Submission received: 22 May 2025 / Revised: 3 July 2025 / Accepted: 4 July 2025 / Published: 9 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Human Capital Development—New Perspectives for Diverse Domains)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

In light of the changing demands of the labor market and the digital orientation of today’s student population, this study aims to examine the effectiveness of a digital game-based intervention as a tool for enhancing team adaptation and social perception in an academic environment. This research was designed as an experiment involving 90 university students who were randomly assigned to either an experimental group (n = 45) or a control group (n = 45). The experimental group participated in a multiplayer cooperative MOBA-type game, in which each participant assumed a specific team role. Before and after the intervention, participants completed a standardized questionnaire focused on team dynamics, including trust, orientation towards shared goals, and mutual awareness. The results from the Wilcoxon test and Mann–Whitney U test revealed statistically significant improvements in identifying team members’ strengths and weaknesses, a reduction in the perceived lack of trust, and an increased orientation toward shared goals. The findings confirm that a digital gaming environment can activate key mechanisms of team dynamics and may serve as an effective tool for supporting the adaptation of young employees in practice. Future research should include more diverse samples and incorporate objective observation alongside self-assessment.

1. Introduction

The current business environment is undergoing significant changes that demand new approaches to cooperation not only among organizations but also among employees themselves. The rapid pace of technological development—driven by digitalization and the rise in artificial intelligence (AI)—is profoundly transforming organizational processes and the competencies required of employees. In this context, teamwork is emerging as a key condition for successful adaptation to change, as well as a means of increasing performance and resilience among workers facing increasing pressure (Trenerry et al., 2021; Fajčíková & Urbancová, 2019; Piwowar-Sulej et al., 2024). Effective team communication, mutual trust, and the ability to adapt to new technological tools are critical success factors for organizations undergoing digital transformation. When the team dimension is considered, it becomes clear that it is not only technology, but also interpersonal relationships and collaboration that determine success (Mirbabaie et al., 2022; Arslan et al., 2022).
Teamwork is therefore one of the fundamental prerequisites for the functioning of efficient, adaptable, and innovative organizations. Many contemporary tasks are so complex and interconnected that they cannot be effectively addressed on an individual basis. In many workplaces, teamwork has already become indispensable (Shuffler et al., 2020), and various studies have confirmed that collaborative problem solving, and cooperation contribute to the better handling of uncertainty and market turbulence (Saga et al., 2024). This trend is further reinforced in the context of the increasing prevalence of remote work, where virtual teams are increasingly replacing the traditional forms of collaboration (Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2020). In today’s dynamic and uncertain environment, teams are becoming the basic organizational unit that enables knowledge sharing, synergistic problem solving, and participatory decision-making (Mathieu et al., 2019; Salas et al., 2018). Teams combine diverse skills, perspectives, and experiences, thereby creating a foundation for creative and practical solutions to complex tasks. Ultimately, effective teamwork leads to increased productivity, innovation, and employee satisfaction (Mathieu et al., 2019).
The use and forms of teamwork have undergone substantial development over the past decades, from self-managed teams in industry to the introduction of team structures in services, and now to today’s hybrid and virtual teams relying on digital tools and flexibility. Increasingly, modern agile management methodologies, such as Scrum, are being adopted to systematically support team collaboration through continuous communication, collective planning, and the active involvement of all stakeholders (Dingsøyr et al., 2012). This evolution responds to the changing market demands, globalization, and technological advances, which affect not only modes of working but also the very understanding of collaboration (Dulebohn & Hoch, 2017; Skorupińska et al., 2024; Štaffenová & Kucharčíková, 2023; Vetráková & Smerek, 2019).
Given the specific characteristics of Generation Z and the importance of teamwork in the digital age, this study focuses on examining the effectiveness of a digital game-based intervention as a tool for enhancing team adaptation and social perception in an academic context. This research stems from the need to strengthen interpersonal competencies through innovative methods and addresses the underexplored potential of digital games in fostering team identity among students.

2. Theoretical Framework

Team cohesion represents the degree of internal connectedness and sense of belonging among team members (Kozlowski, 2018). A high level of cohesion is considered a prerequisite for trust, open communication, and orientation toward shared goals. There is a strong correlation between team cohesion and performance, both in routine tasks and in challenging, high-pressure projects (G. Wang et al., 2011).
The theory generally distinguishes between two primary types of team cohesion. While social cohesion fosters a supportive environment, including the development of interpersonal relationships, trust building, and a positive team atmosphere, task cohesion ensures performance orientation and promotes engagement in the pursuit of shared objectives (Forsyth, 2011; Salas et al., 2018). Social cohesion reflects the extent to which team members feel attracted to one another and the team as a whole, influencing their satisfaction and willingness to cooperate (Carron & Brawley, 2000). It is manifested through friendship, mutual support, and overall team satisfaction. Trust enables team members to rely on one another and to believe in each other’s abilities (Mach et al., 2022).
The determinants of team cohesion are diverse, including clearly defined goals and roles, effective communication, openness, mutual respect, and psychological safety. Psychological safety, defined as the perceived space to express oneself freely without fear of negative consequences, is especially crucial for fostering trust and cooperation (Edmondson, 2019; Rozovsky, 2015). Team cohesion directly influences engagement, that is, the emotional, cognitive, and behavioral commitment of individuals at work. An engaged employee identifies with the team’s goals, is motivated to contribute, and is more likely to remain in the organization in the long term (Clack, 2021). Teams with high cohesion exhibit greater member engagement, leading to higher productivity, satisfaction, and reduced turnover (L. Wang et al., 2024). From the perspective of work psychology, this relationship can be explained through self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017), which emphasizes the importance of fulfilling the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Team cohesion creates an environment where these needs are met, thus naturally increasing engagement and team identity.
Team building is a strategic process of selecting, developing, and integrating individuals into an effectively functioning unit (Franken et al., 2022). It requires not only identifying complementary competencies and clearly defining goals but also fostering interaction and relationships within the team. Models such as Tuckman’s (forming—storming—norming—performing—adjourning) (Bonebright, 2010) or Belbin’s (nine team roles) provide tools to improve team structure and dynamics (Belbin, 2010).
In connection with the importance of team collaboration, the approach of social and experiential learning is particularly relevant. This approach emphasizes the development of competencies through direct experience in a social context. Rooted in Kolb’s experiential learning theory and Bandura’s social learning theory, this form of learning enables students to engage actively in authentic situations in which they acquire not only knowledge but also ethics, responsibility, and teamwork skills (Al Issa et al., 2025; Phan, 2024). Students involved in activities such as project development, community engagement, or structured interactions via social platforms demonstrate higher levels of self-confidence, engagement (Jim et al., 2024), and the ability to apply theory in practice (Lane & Grape, 2024). The social dimension of learning, especially in collective environments, fosters knowledge sharing, collaborative problem solving, and the creation of inclusive settings, positively influencing both the academic and personal development of students (Zou et al., 2024). Integrating these approaches into education is particularly important in the context of developing competencies for collaboration, adaptability, and active participation in society.
Practical tools for developing team cohesion include teambuilding and team spirit activities, which may take formal forms (coaching, performance evaluations, training) (Dincă et al., 2023; Zahrádková, 2005) or informal ones (shared activities, trips, games). Teambuilding contributes to improved communication, increased trust, and overall organizational performance (Mughal, 2020). Modern teambuilding activities often incorporate various technological innovations, such as virtual reality or interactive workshops (Keller et al., 2021; Garg et al., 2024). According to a study by C&IT the main reasons for organizing teambuilding activities are to improve morale, motivation, and employee engagement.
Generation Z, shaped by a digital and globalized environment, is entering the labor market with expectations that differ from those of previous generations. This cohort is characterized by a high level of digital literacy, a preference for flexibility, personal development, and work–life balance (Meret et al., 2018). They expect immediate feedback, rapid progress, and opportunities to be actively involved in decision-making. Traditional motivational factors such as stability or benefits are less relevant to them (Schwabel, 2014). Instead, meaningful work, fair compensation, and emotional recognition are more important (Kirchmayer & Fratričová, 2017). These characteristics must be considered when designing team collaboration and adaptation mechanisms in both academic and professional settings.
In recent years, gamification has re-emerged as a tool to support team management. Gamification—the use of game-based mechanisms in the workplace or educational settings—has the potential to increase motivation, activity, and collaboration among team members. Mechanisms such as points, levels, rewards, feedback, and competition create a motivational framework that stimulates not only individuals but entire teams (Cardador et al., 2017; Gerdenitsch et al., 2020).
Gamification is particularly relevant for Generation Z, which has grown up in a digital environment and responds naturally to game elements, visual interfaces, and immediate feedback. Through gamified processes, it is possible to effectively develop team collaboration and create conditions for building cohesive teams (Kirchmayer & Fratričová, 2017; Hamari et al., 2014).
The growth of gamification in human resource management has been significantly driven by digital innovations. New technologies have enabled the creation of immersive, interactive, and personalized experiences (Hamari et al., 2014), which considerably enhance the effectiveness of educational, adaptative, and developmental processes. Virtual and augmented reality allow for safe simulations of real work scenarios, enabling employees to acquire practical skills, improve team collaboration, and address conflict situations without real-world risks (Dahl et al., 2024). For example, onboarding programs can use realistic and interactive training to help new employees adapt more quickly (Lund et al., 2023). Digital technologies not only increase engagement but also enable the continuous monitoring of effectiveness and adaptive adjustments to gamified activities, thereby contributing to their strategic use in modern HRM. Digital game-based tools can also be employed in diagnosing team roles, building trust, or overcoming team member disengagement. As such, gamification serves not only as a performance enhancement tool but also as a form of informal education and a means of fostering team member socialization.
Although there is a growing body of research exploring the effects of gamification in education (Zeybek & Saygi, 2024; Folomieieva et al., 2024; El-Tanahi et al., 2024; Lyons et al., 2023) and in work-related motivation (Justin & Joy, 2024; Luarn et al., 2023; Kam & Umar, 2024), only a limited number of studies have systematically examined how digital game-based interventions influence the formation of team cohesion and social perception in group contexts such as student teams engaged in academic projects. The research has specifically focused on university students shaped by digital environments, and research on their learning, collaboration, and feedback preferences remains notably scarce. Given the need to strengthen team competencies in both academic and professional contexts, and considering the digital orientation of today’s students, it is reasonable to direct research toward exploring the potential of digital games in developing team adaptation, interpersonal understanding, and trust-building. This is precisely the research gap addressed by the present study.
Its primary aim is to examine the effectiveness of a digital team-based game as an intervention tool for supporting social perception and team adaptation among students with a digital orientation, preference for feedback, and specific expectations regarding collaboration. In line with this aim, the following research hypotheses were formulated:
Hypothesis H1. 
Participation in a digital team-based game increases mutual understanding among group members.
Hypothesis H2. 
A digital team-based game leads to an increased perception of team cohesion and orientation toward shared goals.
The research experiment identifies the social adaptation competencies of students and focuses on strengthening cooperation within newly formed social groups. However, an implicit objective of this research is for the findings to contribute not only to the improvement of students’ team skills in an academic setting but also to offer the potential for application in broader business practice, specifically in enhancing the adaptation processes of young employees.

3. Materials and Methods

This research aimed to examine the impact of a digital game-based intervention on team cohesion and social perception in an academic setting, specifically among university students. This study focused on identifying changes in mutual understanding, trust, orientation toward shared goals, and perceptions of team identity. An experimental research strategy was employed, involving two parallel groups, an experimental group and a control group. This design allowed for the evaluation of the intervention’s effects by comparing pre- and post-game results within the intervention group, as well as between groups exposed and not exposed to the intervention. Emphasis was placed on internal validity and the structured observation of changes in social indicators of team dynamics.
This research involved 90 participants, primarily university students aged 20–21 years (M = 20.3; SD = 0.9), including 46 women. The experimental group (n = 45; 25 women) participated in the game-based intervention, while the control group (n = 45; 21 women) did not. For the statistical analysis of changes before and after the intervention, a paired sample was used, consisting of respondents from the experimental group who completed the questionnaire both before and after the intervention (n = 45).
The digital intervention consisted of a multiplayer cooperative game of the Multiplayer Online Battle Arena (MOBA) genre, in which each participant was assigned a specific team role (e.g., Bruiser, Ganker, Healer, Marksman, Jungler). Each role represented different aspects of team collaboration, thereby simulating the diversity of real-world work teams. Participants were assigned to teams based on the results of the Belbin Team Roles questionnaire, aiming to ensure a balanced representation of different team profiles. Subsequently, they selected in-game characters that were recommended according to their dominant Belbin role. Although the alignment between roles and characters was not exact due to the limited number of in-game archetypes, this process allowed for an approximate matching of roles in line with participants’ strengths. Participants were tasked with solving interactive challenges requiring communication, coordination, trust, and flexibility, targeting the development of key social skills for teamwork. Each gaming session lasted approximately 60 min and followed an identical scenario for all teams. Participants were divided into two opposing five-member teams, with each player controlling a character that had distinct abilities, such as speed, strength, healing, resource gathering, or tactical overview. Team success depended on coordinated action and real-time communication. Before gameplay, participants completed the Belbin Team Roles inventory. Based on their dominant profiles, they were assigned roles that corresponded to Belbin’s team typology, such as implementer, coordinator, or monitor–evaluator. These roles were linked to specific in-game responsibilities and character functions. After the session, participants received a summary table showing individual in-game activities, supporting reflection and discussion of team contributions.
Data collection was conducted in two phases—before the intervention and immediately after its completion. Respondents completed a standardized questionnaire assessing the following aspects of team dynamics: level of trust, perception of shared goals, awareness of team members’ strengths and weaknesses, feedback, engagement, responsibility, and other indicators of social cohesion. Responses were recorded using a Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 6 = strongly agree). A substantial part of the questionnaire items was derived from the standardized LMI questionnaire, which has been previously validated for use in the Slovak academic context. Its psychometric properties have been confirmed on university student samples, making it a reliable tool for measuring intrinsic motivation and social adaptation factors in this population.
To compare pre- and post-test results within the experimental group, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was applied for non-parametric ordinal data. To analyze differences between the experimental and control groups after the intervention, the Mann–Whitney U test for two independent samples was used. The results were evaluated at the statistical significance level of p < 0.05 and were supplemented with effect size values (r) to interpret the practical significance of the findings.

4. Results

A comparison of the assessments of individual indicators of perceived team dynamics before and after the game-based intervention was conducted using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for ordinal variables. An overview of the descriptive indicators is presented in Table 1.
Statistically significant changes were identified in several indicators of team collaboration. A notable improvement following the intervention was observed in the indicator “mutual awareness of strengths and weaknesses within the group” (W = 9.5, p = 0.012, r = 0.791), suggesting that after participating in the game, respondents were better able to identify the abilities of other team members and had a clearer understanding of their contributions. This result can be interpreted as an indicator of more effective team adaptation, as mutual awareness is a prerequisite for effective task coordination and role alignment.
Another significant change was a reduction in the level of reported “lack of trust” among team members (W = 23.0, p = 0.036, r = 0.617). This shift indicates a strengthening of mutual trust, one of the fundamental aspects of team cohesion. The game-based intervention, which required coordinated cooperation, likely contributed to the creation of a psychologically safe environment, which is essential for effective communication and openness within the team.
A similar trend was observed for the indicator “lack of interest in shared goals”, which showed a statistically significant decrease (W = 10.5, p = 0.025, r = 0.731). This suggests that after the game, there was an increased orientation of the group toward common outcomes and team performance. The group likely gained a better understanding of its goals and experienced a stronger sense of unity in pursuing them.
Interestingly, the indicator “responsibility for one’s attitudes and behavior” showed a decline after the intervention (W = 99.0, p = 0.027, r = 0.650). This paradoxical result may be interpreted as a manifestation of the so-called “diffusion of responsibility”—a psychological phenomenon in which individuals in a team shift responsibility to the group as a whole. In the context of the game-based collaboration, this may reflect the perception that success was a collective effort, with less emphasis placed on individual performance (Figure 1).
The results of this experiment demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in the indicator “mutual awareness of strengths and weaknesses within the group” following the game-based intervention (W = 9.5, p = 0.012, r = 0.791). Respondents thus had a better understanding of their peers’ abilities after the game, indicating improved readiness for team collaboration.
Hypothesis H1, “Participation in a digital team-based game increases mutual understanding among group members”, was confirmed.
The results of the comparison between the experimental and control groups after the intervention, analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test, revealed statistically significant differences in several indicators in favor of the participants who engaged in the game activity. A summary of the descriptive indicators is presented in Table 2.
Significantly higher ratings were observed in the indicator “satisfaction with performing and evaluating one’s own work” (U = 205.0, p = 0.015, r = 0.486), suggesting an increased level of self-confidence and a more positive perception of one’s individual contribution to the team following the game. Higher scores also emerged in the area of “encouragement for creative solutions” (U = 202.5, p = 0.022, r = 0.467), indicating that participants perceived the environment as supportive and open to new ideas and creativity. An interesting difference was also found in the indicator “responsibility for one’s own attitudes and behavior” (U = 193.0, p = 0.050, r = 0.399), where, paradoxically, the control group reported a higher score. This result may indicate that participants who did not undergo the intervention retained a more individual orientation toward personal responsibility, while those who took part in the game may have perceived responsibility as more distributed within the team. Lastly, a higher score in the indicator “the group has the necessary resources to achieve its goals” (U = 203.0, p = 0.020, r = 0.471) suggests that the game activity created an environment perceived by participants as well-prepared, with clearly divided tasks and effective tools for achieving shared goals (Figure 2).
Hypothesis H2, “A digital team-based game leads to an increased perception of team cohesion and orientation toward shared goals”, was confirmed by the results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Statistically significant changes were observed in the reduction in “lack of interest in shared goals” (W = 10.5, p = 0.025, r = 0.731) and “lack of trust” (W = 23.0, p = 0.036, r = 0.617) within the group. Following the game-based intervention, group members demonstrated a stronger focus on shared goals and an increase in mutual trust.
The confirmation of Hypothesis H2 is further supported by the results of the comparison between the experimental and control groups, analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test. Significantly higher ratings in the experimental group were recorded for the indicators “satisfaction with performing and evaluating one’s work” (U = 205.0, p = 0.015, r = 0.486), “encouragement within the group for creative solutions” (U = 202.5, p = 0.022, r = 0.467), and “the group has the necessary resources to achieve its goals” (U = 203.0, p = 0.020, r = 0.471). These findings suggest that participants in the digital team-based game perceived their groups as better equipped and more prepared for cooperation, while also viewing the team environment as supportive of creative problem solving and positively influencing their satisfaction with their performance. These findings reinforce the conclusion that digital game-based interventions are an effective tool for enhancing team cohesion and team members’ orientation toward shared goals.

5. Discussion

The research findings suggest that a digital game-based intervention may serve as an effective tool for supporting team cohesion and social perception in an academic setting. Statistically significant differences in pre- and post-game ratings—particularly in areas such as mutual awareness of strengths and weaknesses, reduced lack of trust, and increased focus on shared goals—reflect measurable improvements in team functioning. These findings are consistent with previous studies highlighting the importance of team cohesion for performance and engagement (Salas et al., 2018; Mathieu et al., 2019).
Changes in the perception of trust, shared goals, feedback, and awareness of team members’ strengths align with self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017), which posits that intrinsic motivation and engagement emerge in environments satisfying three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The game-based intervention in our study created conditions that supported these needs—participants were able to make autonomous decisions, solve tasks collaboratively, and receive feedback, which was reflected in significant changes in several variables.
The course of the gaming activity also fulfilled the assumptions of Tuckman’s model of team development (Bonebright, 2010), which describes teams progressing through the stages of forming, storming, norming, and performing. The results show that the intervention contributed significantly to the development of trust, orientation toward shared goals, and a sense of team preparedness—key indicators of the performing stage. The presence of clearly defined roles, objectives, and immediate feedback accelerated this progression. The distribution of tasks during the game enabled participants to encounter various approaches to problem-solving, strengthening their awareness of mutual complementarity within the team. This aspect corresponds with Belbin’s concept (Belbin, 2010), which posits that effective team collaboration depends on members’ ability to recognize and accept differences in individual strengths and preferred work styles.
Although the results confirm statistically significant changes in team dynamics, this study did not include a formal process evaluation to capture the specific mechanisms through which the intervention produced these effects. However, based on observed player interactions and post-game feedback, it can be inferred that the structured nature of the gaming task—emphasizing interdependence, real-time coordination, and feedback—played a mediating role. The presence of distinct functional roles and shared goals likely supported mutual awareness, trust-building, and goal alignment, in line with both Tuckman’s team development model and Belbin’s theory of complementary roles. Future studies could benefit from including mediator or moderator analyses to clarify the causal pathways underlying the observed improvements.
A systematic literature review by Kovalčík et al. (2023) confirmed that team-based video games can effectively promote team cohesion and the development of team skills, while also emphasizing the need for further research into the mechanisms driving these effects. Similarly, Latorre-Cosculluela et al. (2025) identified the positive impact of gamified educational approaches on the development of transversal competencies and students’ academic performance. The findings of our study build upon this knowledge with specific data showing that even a short-term game-based intervention in an academic environment can lead to statistically significant improvements in multiple aspects of team collaboration, including mutual understanding, trust, goal alignment, and support for creative solutions. Furthermore, the gaming environment was shown to strengthen interpersonal skills, such as the ability to provide feedback and recognize complementary roles, which directly corresponds with the broader potential of gamification in education. Our study, therefore, responds to the call for a deeper understanding of the effects of team games on team dynamics and simultaneously offers an empirical contribution to their pedagogical application.
A comparison with the control group revealed that the game-based intervention resulted in enhanced perceptions of team performance and readiness, particularly in terms of role clarity and task orientation. These findings underline the value of experiential approaches for developing collaboration skills in academic or training contexts. However, given the homogeneous nature of the sample, further research is needed to assess the generalizability of these effects to professional or intergenerational environments.
These differences may be attributed to the experiential nature of the intervention, which was designed to simulate real-time collaboration and task interdependence—elements not present in the control condition. The absence of these components in the control group likely limited their opportunity to develop comparable perceptions of team readiness or shared understanding. This reinforces the idea that active team-based experiences are essential for fostering effective collaboration.
In the context of the growing need for effective onboarding and adaptation of Generation Z employees in workplace teams, the results of this study represent a meaningful contribution to the optimization of educational and adaptation strategies. These findings may be particularly relevant for the onboarding and development of Generation Z, a cohort known for strong digital literacy, a preference for interactive learning, and a need for immediate feedback (Kirchmayer & Fratričová, 2017; Hamari et al., 2014).

6. Conclusions

The findings indicate that digital team-based games can be an effective means of enhancing team adaptation, social bonds, and mutual awareness in academic settings. These improvements were observed across several indicators of team cohesion and social perception, confirming the potential of structured, gamified interventions in educational contexts.
The results offer preliminary evidence that game activities combining clearly defined roles, feedback, and shared objectives can activate fundamental mechanisms of team dynamics while also supporting the fulfillment of participants’ psychological needs. Thus, this study contributes not only to the theoretical discussion on the impact of gamification on team cohesion but also provides an empirical basis for the use of game elements in educational and development strategies for student populations. However, the findings should be interpreted with caution when considering applications beyond academic settings. Given the specific characteristics of the sample, future studies should replicate the intervention in real workplace environments and with intergenerational teams to validate the robustness and practical applicability of the results in business contexts.
Although the results of this study demonstrate several positive effects of the game-based intervention on team dynamics, certain methodological limitations must be taken into account. The statistical analysis was limited to bivariate tests, which do not account for confounding variables or complex interrelations. Future research should therefore consider multivariate approaches for exploring the potential mediators or moderators of the intervention’s effects. While this will increase the internal consistency of the sample, it also significantly limits the generalizability of the results to organizational or intergenerational contexts, where team dynamics may be influenced by a broader range of variables, such as age, work experience, or hierarchical structure. Future studies should therefore replicate the intervention with more diverse samples, including workplace teams from various sectors, to test the robustness and practical applicability of the findings. Another limitation lies in the fact that this research relied exclusively on participants’ self-assessments, which are subject to bias, particularly due to current emotional states, social desirability, or limited self-awareness. Additionally, the intervention was implemented only once, and data were only collected immediately afterwards. This limits the ability to assess whether the observed effects are sustained over time. Future studies should therefore include follow-up measurements to examine the medium- and long-term impact of such interventions on team dynamics. These limitations are especially relevant for subjective constructs such as trust and mutual understanding. To enhance validity in future studies, it is recommended to include complementary methods such as behavioral observations, structured interviews, or performance-based assessments. Independent behavioral observation or data triangulation (e.g., interviews, observations, performance measures) would provide a more robust picture and represent a challenge for future research expansion.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.S. and Z.S.; Methodology, Z.S.; Software, M.H.; Validation, K.S. and Z.S.; Formal analysis, K.S.; Investigation, Z.S.; Resources, K.S.; Data curation, Z.S. and M.H.; Writing—original draft, K.S.; Writing—review & editing, Z.S.; Visualization, M.H.; Supervision, K.S.; Project administration, Z.S.; Funding acquisition, K.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by [Scientific Grant Agency Ministry of Education] grant number [No. 1/0498/25].

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study also followed the ethical standards of the researchers’ institutions, and approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Ss. Cyril and Methodius in Trnava (protocol no. no. CEA/15/2021, date of approval 3 May 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data will be made available upon receipt of a reasonable request by the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Al Issa, H. E., Thai, M. T. T., & Saad, S. (2025). Empowering social entrepreneurial intentions through experiential learning and self-efficacy. International Journal of Management Education, 23, 101154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Arslan, A., Cooper, C., Khan, Z., Golgeci, I., & Ali, I. (2022). AI and human workers interaction at team level. International Journal of Manpower, 43, 75–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Belbin, R. M. (2010). Management teams: Why they succeed or fail. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bonebright, A. D. (2010). 40 years of storming: A historical review of Tuckman’s model of small group development. Human Resource Development International, 13, 111–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cardador, M. T., Northcraft, G. B., & Whicker, J. (2017). A theory of work gamification: Something old, something new, something borrowed, something cool? Human Resource Management Review, 27, 353–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Carron, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues. Small Group Research, 31, 89–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Clack, L. (2021). Employee engagement: Keys to organizational success. In S. K. Dhiman (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of workplace well-being. Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dahl, D., Winne, P. H., & Graham, S. (2024). The role of immersive simulations in team-based learning: A meta-synthesis of VR applications in professional training. Computers & Education, 205, 104963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dincă, M., Luştrea, A., Craşovan, M., Oniţiu, A., & Berge, T. (2023). Students’ perspectives on team dynamics in project-based virtual learning. SAGE Open, 13, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dingsøyr, T., Sridhar, N., Balijepally, V. G., & Moe, N. B. (2012). A decade of agile methodologies: Towards explaining agile software development. Journal of Systems and Software, 85, 1213–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dulebohn, J. H., & Hoch, J. E. (2017). Virtual teams in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 27, 569–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Edmondson, C. A. (2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  13. El-Tanahi, N., Soliman, M., Abdel Hady, H., Alfrehat, R., Faid, R., Abdelmoneim, M., Torki, M., & Hamoudah, N. (2024). The effectiveness of gamification in physical education: A systematic review. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 12, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Fajčíková, A., & Urbancová, H. (2019). Factors influencing students’ motivation to seek higher education—A case study at a State University in the Czech Republic. Sustainability, 11, 4699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Folomieieva, N., Pelekh, V., Haidamashko, I., Sivak, N., & Koriakin, O. (2024). Gamification in the educational process of higher education institutions. Amazonia Investiga, 13, 331–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Forsyth, R. D. (2011). Group dynamics. In R. L. Miller, E. Balcetis, S. R. Burns, D. B. Daniel, B. K. Saville, & W. D. Woody (Eds.), Promoting student engagement: Activities, exercises and demonstrations for psychology courses (pp. 28–32). Society for the Teaching of Psychology. [Google Scholar]
  17. Franken, A., Senderek, R., Knispel, J., Slavchova, V., & Arling, V. (2022, October 8–11). Design of learning and team-building processes in remote onboarding. 2022 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1–9), Uppsala, Sweden. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Garg, V., Singh, V., & Soni, L. (2024, February 16–17). Preparing for space: How virtual reality is revolutionizing astronaut training. 2024 IEEE International Conference for Women in Innovation, Technology & Entrepreneurship (ICWITE) (pp. 78–84), Bangalore, India. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gerdenitsch, C., Sellitsch, D., Besser, M., Burger, S., Stegmann, C., Tscheligi, M., & Kriglstein, S. (2020). Work gamification: Effects on enjoyment, productivity and the role of leadership. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 43, 101019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014, January 6–9). Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 3025–3034), Waikoloa, HI, USA. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jim, V. H., Chow, J. M., & Ward, D. F. (2024). Unleashing entrepreneurial potential: Venture creation and self-directed experiential learning on social media amongst secondary school-aged business owners. Education and Training, 66, 717–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Justin, M. A. E., & Joy, M. M. (2024). Gamification, intrinsic motivation, and task performance of employees: The moderating role of goal difficulty. Behaviour & Information Technology, 43, 3993–4015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kam, A. H., & Umar, I. N. (2024). Fostering autonomous motivation: A deeper evaluation of gamified learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 36, 368–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Keller, L., Gawron, O., Rahi, T., Ulsamer, P., & Müller, N. H. (2021, July). Driving success: Virtual team building through telepresence robots. In P. Zaphiris, & A. Ioannou (Eds.), Learning and collaboration technologies: Games and virtual environments for learning (Vol. 12785). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kirchmayer, Z., & Fratričová, J. (2017, May 3–4). On the verge of generation Z: Career expectations of current university students. Education excellence and innovation management through vision 2020. The 29th International Business Information Management Association Conference, Vienna, Austria. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kovalčík, J., Švecová, M., & Kabát, M. (2023). Viability of using digital games for improving team cohesion: A systematic review of the literature. Acta Ludologica, 6, 46–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kozlowski, S. W. (2018). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams: A reflection. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 205–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lane, M., & Grape, A. (2024). Utilizing experiential learning to deepen understanding in an MSW macro practice class: Impact on learning and EPAS competencies. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 44, 2–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Latorre-Cosculluela, C., Sierra-Sánchez, V., & Vázquez-Toledo, S. (2025). Gamification, collaborative learning and transversal competences: Analysis of academic performance and students’ perceptions. Smart Learning Environments, 12, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Luarn, P., Chen, C. C., & Chiu, Y. P. (2023). Enhancing intrinsic learning motivation through gamification: A self-determination theory perspective. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 40, 413–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lund, G. K., Ortova, M., & Syversen, A. G. (2023). Using VR technology in the pre-onboarding of temporary employees in a Norwegian SME. Procedia CIRP, 120, 320–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lyons, R. M., Fox, G., & Stephens, S. (2023). Gamification to enhance engagement and higher order learning in entrepreneurial education. Education and Training, 65, 416–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mach, M., Ferreira, A. I., & Abrantes, A. C. (2022). Transformational leadership and team performance in sports teams: A conditional indirect model. Applied Psychology, 71, 662–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mathieu, J. E., Gallagher, P. T., Domingo, M. A., & Klock, E. A. (2019). Embracing complexity: Reviewing the past decade of team effectiveness research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6, 17–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Meret, C., Fioravanti, S., Iannotta, M., & Gatti, M. (2018). The digital employee experience: Discovering generation Z. In Digital technology and organizational change (pp. 241–256). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mirbabaie, M., Brünker, F., Möllmann, N. R., & Stieglitz, S. (2022). The rise of artificial intelligence—understanding the AI identity threat at the workplace. Electronic Markets, 32, 73–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Morrison-Smith, S., & Ruiz, J. (2020). Challenges & barriers in virtual teams: A literature review. SN Applied Sciences, 2, 1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mughal, M. U. (2020). The impact of leadership, teamwork and employee engagement on employee performances. Saudi Journal of Business and Management Studies, 5, 233–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Phan, N. (2024). Bridging the gap: A framework for experiential learning in higher education. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Piwowar-Sulej, K., Blštáková, J., Ližbetinová, L., & Zagorsek, B. (2024). The impact of digitalization on employees’ future competencies: Has human resource development a conditional role here? Journal of Organizational Change Management, 37(8), 36–52. [Google Scholar]
  41. Rozovsky, J. (2015). The five keys to a successful Google team. Google re:Work. Available online: https://www.michigan.gov/-/media/Project/Websites/mdhhs/Folder4/Folder10/Folder3/Folder110/Folder2/Folder210/Folder1/Folder310/Google-and-Psychological-Safety.pdf?rev=7786b2b9ade041e78828f839eccc8b75 (accessed on 1 April 2025).
  42. Ryan, M. R., & Deci, L. E. (2017). Self-Determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  43. Saga, E., Egilsdottir, H. Ö., Bing-Jonsson, P. C., Lindholm, E., & Skovdahl, K. (2024). It’s not the task, it’s the shifting: Exploring physicians’ and leaders’ perspectives on task shifting in emergency departments in Norway. BMC Nursing, 23, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Salas, E., Reyes, D. L., & McDaniel, S. H. (2018). The science of teamwork: Progress, reflections, and the road ahead. American Psychologist, 73, 593–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Schwabel, D. (2014). Gen Y and Gen Z global workplace expectations study. Workplace Intelligence. Available online: https://workplaceintelligence.com/geny-genz-global-workplace-expectations-study/ (accessed on 19 May 2025).
  46. Shuffler, M. L., Salas, E., & Rosen, M. A. (2020). The evolution and maturation of teams in organizations: Convergent trends in the new dynamic science of teams. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Skorupińska, E., Hitka, M., & Sydor, M. (2024). Surveying quality management methodologies in wooden furniture production. Systems, 12, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Štaffenová, N., & Kucharčíková, A. (2023). Digitalization in the human capital management. Systems, 11, 337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Trenerry, B., Chng, S., Wang, Y., Suhaila, Z. S., Lim, S. S., Lu, H. Y., & Oh, P. H. (2021). Preparing workplaces for digital transformation. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 620766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Vetráková, M., & Smerek, L. (2019). Competitiveness of Slovak enterprises in Central and Eastern European region. E+M Ekonomie a Management, 22, 36–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wang, G., Oh, I. S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group & Organization Management, 36, 223–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wang, L., Xu, J., & Liu, Y. (2024). The impact of team cohesion on athlete engagement in collegiate basketball leagues: The moderating role of paternalistic leadership. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1473506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zahrádková, E. (2005). Teambuilding: Cesta k efektivní spolupráci. Portál. [Google Scholar]
  54. Zeybek, N., & Saygı, E. (2024). Gamification in education: Why, where, when, and how? A systematic review. Games and Culture, 19, 237–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zou, W., Drake, A. P., Masur, P. K., Whitlock, J., & Bazarova, N. N. (2024). Examining learners’ engagement patterns and knowledge outcome in an experiential learning intervention for youth’s social media literacy. Computers & Education, 216, 105046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Admsci 15 00265 g001
Figure 1. Perception indicators as a function of pre- and post-game assessment. Note: only indicators with a statistically significant game effect are displayed. p < 0.05.
Figure 1. Perception indicators as a function of pre- and post-game assessment. Note: only indicators with a statistically significant game effect are displayed. p < 0.05.
Admsci 15 00265 g001
Admsci 15 00265 g002
Figure 2. Perception indicators as a function of game participation. Note: only indicators showing a statistically significant effect of game participation (or between-group difference) are displayed. p < 0.05.
Figure 2. Perception indicators as a function of game participation. Note: only indicators showing a statistically significant effect of game participation (or between-group difference) are displayed. p < 0.05.
Admsci 15 00265 g002
Table 1. Assessments of perceived team-level indicators before and after the game.
Table 1. Assessments of perceived team-level indicators before and after the game.
IndicatorBefore the GameAfter the Game
MedIQRMin/MaxMedIQRMin/Max
Satisfaction with performing and evaluating one’s own work4.51.04.0/6.05.01.03.0/6.0
Mutual recognition within the group3.01.71.0/6.04.02.71.0/6.0
Mutual support and pulling together within the group4.01.72.0/6.04.02.71.0/6.0
Mutual awareness of strengths and weaknesses within the group2.01.01.0/5.04.02.71.0/6.0
Appropriate recognition from the group for task completion4.01.02.0/5.04.01.01.0/6.0
Encouragement within the group for creative solutions4.01.02.0/5.04.02.02.0/6.0
Lack of trust within the group3.00.71.0/5.04.02.01.0/6.0
Fear of conflict within the group2.01.02.0/5.04.02.01.0/5.0
Lack of commitment within the group3.02.01.0/5.04.01.72.0/5.0
Avoidance of responsibility within the group3.01.01.0/5.03.51.71.0/5.0
Lack of interest in shared goals within the group2.51.71.0/5.04.02.02.0/6.0
Responsibility for one’s own attitudes and behavior within the group5.01.02.0/6.03.01.01.0/6.0
Everyone in the group is a valuable team member4.52.02.0/6.04.01.72.0/6.0
The group achieves better results than comparable teams4.01.03.0/6.04.02.51.0/6.0
The group has the necessary resources to achieve its goals4.00.03.0/6.03.51.01.0/6.0
Agreement within the group on the challenges it faces3.51.02.0/6.04.01.52.0/5.0
Group members have clearly defined roles and responsibilities4.00.71.0/5.04.01.71.0/6.0
Note. Indicators were rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Bolded median values indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05; Wilcoxon signed-rank test).
Table 2. Assessments of perceived group-level indicators as a function of game participation.
Table 2. Assessments of perceived group-level indicators as a function of game participation.
IndicatorParticipation in the Game
No (n = 45)Yes (n = 45)
MedIQRMin/MaxMedIQRMin/Max
Satisfaction with performing and evaluating one’s own work4.02.01.0/6.05.01.01.0/6.0
Mutual recognition within the group3.52.02.0/6.04.01.51.0/6.0
Mutual support and pulling together within the group4.52.52.0/6.05.01.51.0/6.0
Mutual awareness of strengths and weaknesses within the group4.01.21.0/6.04.02.51.0/6.0
Appropriate recognition from the group for task completion4.01.21.0/6.05.02.01.0/6.0
Encouragement within the group for creative solutions4.01.21.0/6.05.02.02.0/6.0
Lack of trust within the group2.03.01.0/6.04.03.01.0/6.0
Fear of conflict within the group3.02.01.0/5.04.02.01.0/5.0
Lack of commitment within the group3.01.21.0/5.04.01.01.0/5.0
Avoidance of responsibility within the group3.01.22.0/6.04.03.01.0/6.0
Lack of interest in shared goals within the group3.01.21.0/6.03.02.51.0/6.0
Responsibility for one’s own attitudes and behavior within the group3.01.02.0/6.04.01.01.0/6.0
Everyone in the group is a valuable team member4.02.01.0/6.05.01.51.0/6.0
The group achieves better results than comparable teams3.01.02.0/6.04.02.01.0/6.0
The group has the necessary resources to achieve its goals3.01.22.0/5.05.01.02.0/6.0
Agreement within the group on the challenges it faces3.01.51.0/6.04.01.01.0/6.0
Group members have clearly defined roles and responsibilities4.02.01.0/6.05.01.01.0/6.0
Note. Indicators were rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Bolded median values indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05; Mann–Whitney test).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Stachová, K.; Stacho, Z.; Hamar, M. Game-Based Intervention as a Tool for Enhancing Team Adaptation. Adm. Sci. 2025, 15, 265. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15070265

AMA Style

Stachová K, Stacho Z, Hamar M. Game-Based Intervention as a Tool for Enhancing Team Adaptation. Administrative Sciences. 2025; 15(7):265. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15070265

Chicago/Turabian Style

Stachová, Katarína, Zdenko Stacho, and Michal Hamar. 2025. "Game-Based Intervention as a Tool for Enhancing Team Adaptation" Administrative Sciences 15, no. 7: 265. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15070265

APA Style

Stachová, K., Stacho, Z., & Hamar, M. (2025). Game-Based Intervention as a Tool for Enhancing Team Adaptation. Administrative Sciences, 15(7), 265. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15070265

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop