Who’s holding the Scoreboard (2)- Ritesh

When Work Becomes a Game, Someone Is Always Keeping Score

When The Mayor asked Ismar about gamification, I was already smiling a little inside, because I could imagine where Ismar would go with it. For him, this idea itself sounds like one of those modern things where people take a simple responsibility and make it complicated.

And honestly, I understand him.

He said students have to study, teachers have to teach, workers have to work. Why should everything become attractive? Why should school become entertainment? Why should every duty need points?

One side is, I can see the truth in that. Other side is, I also know that the world has changed. In India also, especially with children, teachers are not only teaching now. They are singing, dancing, joking, making the classroom lively, because if the child does not stay in the class, nothing will happen. Maybe it is not ideal, but it has become the need of the time.

I told The Mayor about a friend of mine who used to teach. I used to complain to him. I said, “This is not teaching. This is entertainment. If you are teaching for half an hour and joking for half an hour, then what is this?” But he explained something practical. In a private institution, the student has to remain in the class. The child or teenager has to feel comfortable enough to stay. Then only any learning can happen.

So I still don’t like it fully, especially in serious subjects like science, physics, maths. I feel if I am sitting for one hour and the actual subject is only thirty minutes, then I am wasting my time. But from the teacher’s perspective, maybe they are not teaching only the brightest student. They have to take everyone together.

This is where gamification becomes complicated. It is not completely foolish. It is also not completely innocent.

In the corporate world, I have seen it many times. In my previous company, we used to get tasks, and based on how many tasks someone completed in a month, there were certificates. Rising star, champion of the month, things like that. In my current environment also, every quarter there are recognitions: best team, best manager, rising star, champion. Sometimes there are points, vouchers, Amazon coupons. Sometimes there are hackathons where developers are given freedom for a few hours and they build surprising things.

Initially, when I was not thinking deeply, it felt enjoyable. Someone gives you a certificate, people clap, your name comes somewhere, and naturally you feel seen. I also received such awards a couple of times. It does feel good. We are human beings. Recognition matters.

But then, when you think deeper, you start seeing the mechanism. It is not only appreciation. It is also a way to create behaviour.

If five people are in a team and one person gets the top performer badge, others start competing. They work more. They produce more. A circle is created. The company gives something small, sometimes something that costs almost nothing, and in return productivity increases.

The Mayor joked that maybe the company gives you a badge because you worked 150 percent and were paid 75 percent. That was funny, but there is truth in it. Because this recognition is temporary. During the month you feel motivated, but when appraisal time comes, compensation time comes, then you may feel disappointed. You think: I did so much, but where is the actual realization of my work?

Still, I don’t want to dismiss it completely. One side is manipulation. Other side is, it can also help people communicate.

In some team activities, when work becomes like a game, people discuss more. They bring ideas. They become less hesitant. Suppose we are building software and one person knows there is an edge case, or the design may fail, but he is not comfortable raising his concern. Then later there is rework, time loss, frustration. If a playful environment reduces that friction, then it can save productivity and improve the work.

So there is a good side. But the bad side is also clear. When people start seeing colleagues as opponents, not friends, then something is lost. If one person keeps winning every month, others can feel jealous or demotivated. They may think, “I am not good enough.” Then instead of trying more, they shut down and do the bare minimum.

I have seen this. People have potential, but they stop trying because the game has already told them where they stand.

With Ismar, the whole idea became very different. The Mayor took his daily routine and made it absurd in a funny way. Points for brushing teeth. Points for breakfast. Points for driving to his mother’s apartment. Points for avoiding potholes. Points for preparing medicine. Points for being patient.

Ismar did not accept it even for one second. He said, “Why would I do that?” And I think that question was very important.

In the workplace, at least the points may connect to some recognition, maybe appraisal, maybe promotion, maybe visibility. But in caregiving, what will he do with the points? His mother is not a project. His patience is not a leaderboard. His sister is not an opponent in some caregiving championship.

From an Indian perspective, I tried to explain it through karma. In our culture, if you take care of your parents, especially when others are not doing it, you may not receive visible reward. But still, people feel there is something. You are doing your responsibility. You are collecting good karma, not in a literal corporate point sense, but as a moral sense.

Maybe later someone will help you. Maybe the world will return it. Maybe it is about your own peace. Or if someone believes in rebirth, maybe it affects the next life. But the main thing is: you don’t do it because your sibling is not doing it. You do it because you cannot leave your mother or father.

The Mayor connected this to the Ten Commandments, and Ismar asked whether religion itself is a kind of gamification. That was an interesting question. Maybe many societies have always had reward and punishment systems. Heaven, hell, karma, sin, virtue, law, shame, honour. Only now we have apps, dashboards, badges, and surveillance cameras.

Then the conversation moved from personal life to society. This is what usually happens with us. We begin from something small, and slowly it becomes very large.

The Mayor asked about China’s citizen point system. If people help strangers, they get points. If they behave badly, points are deducted. It can affect privileges. Ismar was partly open to it when it came to public harm. For example, drunk driving. In Brazil, he said, people drink and drive even when fines are high. They kill people. So if cameras catch them and punishment becomes stronger, he could see the benefit.

I was against it more strongly.

My concern is that the line between good behaviour and controlled behaviour is very thin. Today you say the system is for catching drunk drivers. Tomorrow it can track where you go, what you read, what you watch, which book you choose, which political view you express. You can assign points to anything. You can say this book gives good points, that book gives bad points. Then you are not encouraging good behaviour; you are enforcing a certain viewpoint.

The problem is not only bad citizens. The problem is also bad controllers. Why do we assume that common people may misuse freedom, but we don’t assume that governments may misuse surveillance?

This is why I am against any kind of mass tracking. Even if the stated reason is good, the system can be used for wrong reasons. Especially in societies where institutions are weak, where courts are not fully independent, where media is controlled, where politicians influence everything, such systems are very dangerous.

Then The Mayor asked a broader question: if society has moral decline, how do we improve it? India is huge, diverse, and imperfect. We have many problems. But who am I to impose my view on everyone? What I think is good behaviour, another person may think differently. Society has to move through education, discussion, example, and consensus.

I gave some examples from India. There were practices that were clearly wrong, like widows being forced or expected to die with their husbands in fire. Widow remarriage was once rejected. Child marriage existed. Over time, people came together, reformers spoke, education spread, and society changed. It was not simple. It was not overnight. But it changed.

Even today, Indian society struggles with questions like same-sex marriage. Some people accept, many do not. My personal view can be progressive, but still the question is: how does society change? Through force? Through law alone? Through dialogue? Through education? Through people seeing better examples?

I feel it has to be logic-based and consensus-based. Otherwise it becomes imposition.

And this connected directly to democracy. Ismar said Brazil’s democracy is fake. He does not trust the system. He does not trust the people who run elections. He feels corruption is everywhere. I could not dismiss him, because in India also we are facing similar concerns. Our election commission structure has changed. Courts are under pressure. Institutions feel fragile. There are cases where fraud is caught, but the person responsible is not properly punished.

India is still a democracy, and I believe democracy is good for India. Some people argue that if India had not been so democratic in the beginning, maybe certain behaviours could have been corrected faster. They say maybe giving equal voting rights from day one slowed development, because people could be manipulated with money and caste and religion.

I don’t agree with that. For me, democracy is still better for India because so many people who were treated almost like slaves got rights. Women got equal voting rights. Lower caste people got rights. Poor people got a voice. Without democracy, there is always a danger society can go back to the old hierarchy.

But I also know democracy can enter a bad phase. India is in a very difficult phase now. Some people are celebrating because they say India is growing, becoming an economic powerhouse. But from my values, many things are going down: press freedom, institutions, democratic culture, trust.

The Mayor then asked whether Europe has got it right. I said maybe Europe has passed through these cycles already. Maybe European societies corrected many things earlier. But they had one advantage: during those struggles, there was no mass surveillance technology like today. Now, if a government wants to control people, technology gives it a power that older rulers did not have.

That is what makes our time dangerous.

We started with corporate badges and ended with democracy. But maybe it is all connected. Gamification is not only about making boring work fun. It is about who defines the game, who sets the rules, who gives the points, who receives the reward, and who is silently punished.

In a company, maybe it is a manager. In a family, maybe it becomes absurd. In a society, it can become frightening.

Still, I don’t want to end only negatively. There is a lighter side also. Sometimes games help children learn. Sometimes team activities help people speak. Sometimes a small recognition can make a person feel seen. Sometimes play can reduce fear.

But we should be careful. Human beings are not only productivity units. Caregiving is not a scorecard. Friendship is not a competition. Citizenship is not a leaderboard. And dignity cannot be replaced by a badge.

Maybe that is where I stand. Use play where it creates openness. Use recognition where it is honest. But don’t turn life into a system where someone else is always watching, measuring, and deciding your worth.

Because once everything becomes a game, we must ask a simple question: who is holding the scoreboard?