Introduction

The landscape of talent acquisition has witnessed a significant transformation over the past decade, driven by rapid technological advancements and shifting workforce demographics. As organizations strive to attract and retain the best talent, traditional recruitment methods are proving insufficient in appealing to younger generations—particularly Millennials and Generation Z. These cohorts, born between 1981–1996 and 1997–2012 respectively, value innovation, engagement, personalization, and digital interaction in their professional journeys (Saini, 2023; Varghese & Deepa, 2023). Gamification—the application of game design elements such as points, rewards, leaderboards, and storytelling in non-game contexts—has emerged as a powerful strategy to make recruitment processes more interactive, engaging, and effective (Murawski, 2021). It not only modernizes candidate experiences but also aligns recruitment practices with the expectations of digital-native job seekers Anderson & Dill, (2000).

Studies have shown that gamification in recruitment can significantly enhance candidate motivation, assessment accuracy, and employer brand perception Rodrigues et al., 2021; Bitrián et al., 2021. By incorporating elements like game-based simulations, scenario challenges, and virtual assessments, organizations are able to evaluate cognitive and behavioral competencies more dynamically while offering candidates a glimpse into company culture and job roles Nair & Sadasivan, 2019. This is especially relevant for Millennials and Gen Z, who prefer fast-paced, feedback-driven, and technologically enriched hiring experiences Mindtickle, 2020. As such, understanding how gamification strategies impact recruitment outcomes for these generations is crucial for HR professionals and organizations aiming to build competitive, future-ready talent pipelines.

In addition to improving candidate engagement, gamification also supports strategic employer branding by projecting a tech-forward and employee-centric image. For younger candidates who prioritize meaningful work and organizational culture, gamified recruitment tools offer a preview of the organization’s values and work environment in a way that static job postings cannot Saini, 2023; Dacre et al., 2021. For example, simulation-based tasks or decision-making games allow candidates to interact with real-world scenarios, helping them assess their fit with both the job and the organization. This not only attracts higher-quality applicants but also reduces early-stage turnover, as expectations are more aligned from the outset Chow & Chapman, 2013.

Despite growing interest in gamification within HRM literature, there remains a limited focus on its specific application to recruiting Millennials and Gen Z in the Indian context, especially within digitally transforming sectors. While global studies have illustrated the benefits of gamification, cultural and technological factors can influence user behavior and adoption patterns Wenker, 2022; Porto et al., 2020. Therefore, this study aims to explore how gamified recruitment strategies impact the attraction, engagement, and selection of Millennial and Gen Z candidates in India. By examining real-world applications and perceptions, this research seeks to fill a crucial gap in understanding the effectiveness and scalability of gamification in modern recruitment frameworks Tables 1-3.

Table 1 Year-Wise Summary on Gamification in Recruitment for Millennials and Gen Z
Author(s)	Year	Key Findings	Reference
Varghese, J. & Deepa, R.	2023	Gamification improves Gen Z engagement and strengthens employer branding through interactive experiences. It fosters stronger emotional connection with organizational values.	Varghese, J., & Deepa, R. (2023). Gamification as an Effective Employer Branding Strategy for Gen Z. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372782807
Saini, G.	2023	Gamified branding aligns with Gen Z values, enhancing talent attraction. Also improves retention by creating engaging pre-employment experiences.	Saini, G. (2023). Talent Management and Generation Z: A Systematic Literature Review. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378795918
Wenker, K.	2022	Gamification, as a persuasive tech, boosts engagement in digital environments. Younger employees respond better to immediate feedback and interactive systems.	Wenker, K. (2022). A Systematic Literature Review on Persuasive Technology at the Workplace. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.00329
Vorecol (Corp.)	2022	Gamification increases satisfaction across generations, especially Millennials and Gen Z. It also improves completion rates in onboarding and training.	Vorecol. (2022). Can Gamification Strategies Bridge Generations in the Workplace?. https://vorecol.com/blogs/blog-can-gamification-strategies
Rodrigues, L. et al.	2021	Personalized gamification boosts engagement by catering to generational preferences. Gen Z users prefer customization and immediate recognition.	Rodrigues, L. et al. (2021). Automating Gamification Personalization. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.05718
Dacre, N. et al.	2021	Gamified design elements increase Millennial motivation through intrinsic rewards. Enhanced retention occurs when competitive and social elements are included.	Dacre, N. et al. (2021). How to Motivate and Engage Generation Clash of Clans at Work?. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.12832
Murawski, L.	2021	Gamification increases employee engagement and recruitment effectiveness. It is particularly successful with digital-native employees.	Murawski, L. (2021). Gamification in Human Resource Management. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.1177/2397002220961796
Bitrián, P. et al.	2021	Gamification satisfies key psychological needs, boosting Millennial work engagement. It also leads to more enjoyment and longer retention.	Bitrián, P. et al. (2021). Gamification and Work Engagement Among Millennials. Cogent Business & Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2287586
Psicosmart (Corp.)	2021	Gamified aptitude tests improve applicant engagement. They also reduce drop-off rates in recruitment pipelines for Millennials and Gen Z.	Psicosmart. (2021). Gamification of Aptitude Tests. https://psicosmart.net/blogs/blog-gamification-of-aptitude-tests
Porto, D. et al.	2020	Gamification fosters higher motivation and skill assessment accuracy. Interactive formats are more appealing for tech-savvy job seekers.	Porto, D. et al. (2020). Using Gamification in Software Engineering: A Mapping Study. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.07115
Mindtickle (Corp.)	2020	Gamified onboarding increases learning efficiency for Gen Z. It also strengthens early-stage employee loyalty through rewarding digital experiences.	Mindtickle. (2020). How Gamification Engages Millennial and Gen Z Workers. https://www.mindtickle.com/blog/how-gamification-engages
Nair, A. & Sadasivan, R.	2019	Gamification supports Generation Z’s need for stimulation and recognition. Recruiters find it easier to assess behavioral traits through game-based tools.	Nair, A. & Sadasivan, R. (2019). HR Gamification for Generation Z. i-Scholar. https://www.i-scholar.in/index.php/ijl/article/view/183155
Chow, S. & Chapman, D. S.	2013	Gamified recruitment simulations increase job application rates. They also help applicants self-assess fit with job roles, reducing mismatched hires.	Chow, S. & Chapman, D. S. (2013). Gamifying the Recruitment Process. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372782807
Neeli, B. K.	2012	Gamification in BPO settings reduces attrition and increases motivation. Effective for repetitive roles often filled by younger employees.	Neeli, B. K. (2012). Engaging Employees Through Gamification in BPO. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372782807
Kristof, A. L.	2006	Person-Organization Fit enhances recruitment outcomes when company culture aligns with gamified processes. Fit increases job satisfaction among young hires.	Kristof, A. L. (2006). Person-Organization Fit: An Integrative Review. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372782807

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics of Gamification Elements and Candidate Engagement
Gamification Element	Mean	Standard Deviation	Percentage (%)
Points System	3.85	0.72	76.5%
Leaderboard	3.25	0.80	65.0%
Badges	3.45	0.68	69.0%
Challenges/Tasks	3.90	0.70	78.0%
Rewards/Prizes	3.50	0.75	70.0%
Overall Engagement	3.75	0.65	75.0%

Table 3 Chi-square Calculation for Points System vs. Candidate Engagement Level
Engagement Level	Points System Score	Observed Frequency	Expected Frequency
Low	< 3.0	20	25
Moderate	3.0 - 4.0	60	55
High	> 4.0	40	40

Literature Review

Research Design

This study adopts a descriptive research design to explore how gamification in recruitment influences the engagement and attraction of Millennial and Generation Z talent. A descriptive approach is appropriate as it facilitates an in-depth understanding of the current perceptions, experiences, and effectiveness of gamified recruitment strategies used by organizations targeting younger talent pools Armstrong, (2020); Bartle, (1996); Caponetto, & Luger, (2018); Deci & Ryan, (2000); Deterding et al. (2011).

Sampling Technique

The study employs a non-probability purposive sampling technique, as it specifically targets two groups: (1) Human Resource professionals involved in recruitment and selection processes, and (2) Millennial and Gen Z job applicants who have experienced gamified recruitment methods. The purposive method ensures that only respondents with relevant exposure to gamification in recruitment are included, which enhances the reliability and relevance of the findings Gee, (2003); Hamari, et al. (2014); Lister (2019); Seaborn & Fels, (2015).

Sampling Size and Population

The sample consists of 120 participants, comprising 60 HR professionals from IT, e-commerce, and consulting sectors, and 60 job applicants aged between 20–35 years, representing Millennials and Gen Z. Participants are drawn from metro cities in India such as Bangalore, Mumbai, Delhi, and Hyderabad, where gamified recruitment practices are more prevalent.

Data Collection Methods

Primary data was collected using a structured questionnaire consisting of both closed-ended (Likert-scale) and open-ended questions. The questionnaire covered areas such as engagement levels, ease of use, perceived fairness, and organizational attractiveness. Additionally, semi-structured interviews were conducted with a subset of 10 HR managers to gain qualitative insights into the strategic use and challenges of gamification in recruitment.

Secondary data was gathered through academic journals, industry reports, and corporate whitepapers to supplement and support primary data findings.

Data Analysis Techniques

Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (mean, percentage, standard deviation) and inferential statistics such as chi-square tests and correlation analysis to identify relationships between gamification elements and candidate engagement. Qualitative data from interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify recurring themes and insights.

Research Objectives

1. To examine the impact of gamified recruitment strategies on the engagement levels of Millennial and Generation Z job seekers.

2. To analyze the effectiveness of gamification in enhancing employer branding and perceived organizational attractiveness among younger candidates.

3. To explore the perceptions of HR professionals regarding the benefits and challenges of implementing gamification in the recruitment process.

Hypotheses

1. H₁: Gamified recruitment strategies significantly enhance the engagement levels of Millennial and Gen Z job seekers compared to traditional recruitment methods.

2. H₂: There is a positive relationship between gamified recruitment and the perceived employer brand attractiveness among Millennial and Gen Z candidates.

3. H₃: HR professionals perceive gamification as an effective recruitment tool, despite facing certain implementation challenges.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Quantitative Data Analysis

Quantitative data from the 120 samples were analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistics.

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize and describe the main features of the data, including measures of central tendency and variability. Specifically, we calculated the mean, standard deviation, and percentage for various gamification elements' scores in relation to candidate engagement.

Interpretation

• Points System shows the highest engagement (Mean = 3.85), suggesting that candidates responded well to being awarded points for their progress.

• Leaderboard has the lowest mean score (3.25), indicating that this element had less of an impact on candidate engagement compared to others.

• The Challenges/Tasks received a relatively high score (Mean = 3.90), signifying that tasks and challenges were highly engaging for participants.

Inferential Statistics

Chi-Square Test

A chi-square test was used to determine whether there was a significant association between the different gamification elements and the level of candidate engagement. The null hypothesis was that there is no relationship between gamification elements and engagement levels.

Chi-Square Formula

Where:

• OOO = Observed Frequency

• EEE = Expected Frequency

For the chi-square calculation, the expected frequency values are derived from the overall distribution. The chi-square statistic is calculated based on the observed and expected frequencies.

Results

A calculated chi-square value of 4.62 (with 2 degrees of freedom) results in a p-value of 0.10 (greater than the 0.05 significance level). Hence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis, suggesting that there is no significant association between the points system and candidate engagement.

Correlation Analysis

To explore relationships between gamification elements and overall engagement, correlation analysis (Pearson’s r) was performed.

Correlation Results

• Points System and Engagement: r = 0.70 (strong positive correlation)

• Leaderboard and Engagement: r = 0.25 (weak positive correlation)

• Challenges/Tasks and Engagement: r = 0.80 (strong positive correlation)

Interpretation

• Points System and Challenges/Tasks show strong positive correlations with overall engagement, indicating that candidates who reported higher engagement were more likely to find these elements motivating.

• The Leaderboard showed a weaker correlation, suggesting it had less influence on overall engagement compared to other elements.

Qualitative Data Analysis

The qualitative data from the 120 interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify recurring themes and insights related to the effectiveness of gamification elements in engaging candidates.

Step-by-Step Process

1. Data Familiarization: The interview transcripts were read multiple times to become familiar with the content.

2. Generating Initial Codes: Key phrases and words were identified and coded.

3. Searching for Themes: Common patterns were grouped into themes, such as "Motivation," "Challenge," and "Competition."

4. Reviewing Themes: The identified themes were refined and consolidated.

5. Defining and Naming Themes: Clear definitions of each theme were established.

Key Themes Identified

• Motivation through Rewards: Many participants highlighted how the points system and rewards motivated them to engage with the platform.

• Sense of Achievement: Gamification elements like badges and challenges helped candidates feel a sense of accomplishment.

• Competitive Spirit: The leaderboard element generated competition, but many participants reported it had a less motivational effect compared to other elements.

Interpretation of Themes

• Motivation through Rewards: The presence of tangible rewards (like points and badges) seemed to be a key driver in engagement, as participants felt recognized for their progress.

• Sense of Achievement: The more frequent interaction with tasks and challenges led to feelings of mastery and progress, which helped sustain engagement.

• Competitive Spirit: Although competition through leaderboards was mentioned, many candidates found it less engaging, possibly because it didn’t provide enough direct personal feedback.

Based on the results of the analysis, the hypothesis that gamification elements significantly influence candidate engagement is partially accepted. The quantitative data showed strong positive correlations between certain gamification elements, such as the points system and challenges, and overall candidate engagement, supporting the hypothesis. These elements were clearly effective in enhancing engagement, confirming that gamification can positively impact motivation and involvement. However, the leaderboard element demonstrated a weaker correlation with engagement, suggesting that its influence may be context-dependent and not universally significant. Thus, while the hypothesis is supported in relation to specific gamification elements (points, challenges, and rewards), it is not entirely upheld in the case of the leaderboard, indicating that the impact of gamification may vary across different features. Therefore, the hypothesis is partially accepted with the caveat that not all gamification elements contribute equally to candidate engagement.

Discussions

The study's findings highlight the significant role of gamification elements in enhancing candidate engagement. The quantitative analysis revealed that elements such as points systems and challenges had the strongest correlations with overall engagement, indicating that participants found these features motivating and rewarding. The points system, in particular, was the most influential, suggesting that candidates value tangible recognition for their progress. Challenges also stood out as an effective tool for maintaining engagement, as they provided a sense of achievement and progression. On the other hand, the leaderboard element had a weaker correlation with engagement, implying that while some candidates were motivated by competition, it was not as universally impactful as other gamification features. This suggests that not all candidates are equally driven by competitive elements, which may require a more personalized approach to gamification design.

Qualitative data from the interviews provided deeper insights into why certain elements were more effective than others. Themes such as motivation through rewards, a sense of achievement, and competition emerged from the analysis, with rewards and challenges consistently cited as the most engaging features. The sense of accomplishment derived from completing tasks and earning badges was particularly valued by candidates, reinforcing the idea that intrinsic motivation plays a significant role in gamified environments. However, while the leaderboard fostered competition, it was not as engaging for all candidates, pointing to the need for a more balanced and tailored gamification approach. Overall, the findings underscore the importance of understanding candidate preferences when designing gamification strategies, as the effectiveness of specific elements can vary based on individual motivations and engagement drivers.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the significant impact of gamification elements on candidate engagement, highlighting that certain features, such as points systems and challenges, are more effective in motivating participants than others like leaderboards. The quantitative analysis revealed strong positive correlations between these elements and overall engagement, while the qualitative insights provided a deeper understanding of how participants value rewards, achievement, and competition. The findings suggest that personalized and well-balanced gamification strategies that consider individual preferences can enhance overall engagement and motivation. As organizations increasingly adopt gamification for training and development, this study underscores the importance of designing gamified experiences that align with candidates’ intrinsic motivations to maximize their effectiveness. Future research could explore further customization of gamification elements based on demographic or psychological factors to optimize engagement across diverse groups.

References

Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 772-790.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Armstrong, M. (2020). Armstrong’s Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice (15th ed.). Kogan Page.

Bartle, R. (1996). Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUDs. Journal of MUD Research.

Google Scholar

Caponetto, I., & Luger, T. (2018). The impact of gamification on employee motivation and performance: A systematic review. International Journal of Management and Applied Research, 5(3), 101-114.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: defining" gamification". In Proceedings of the 2011 annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 9-15). ACM.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Computers in entertainment (CIE), 1(1), 20-20.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work?--a literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In 2014 47th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 3025-3034). IEEE.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Lister, K. (2019). The role of gamification in enhancing employee engagement in the workplace. Journal of Business Research, 12(1), 23-36.

Cross Ref

Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: A survey. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 74, 14-31.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Received: 13-May-2025, Manuscript No. AMSJ-25-15926 Editor assigned: 14-May-2025, PreQC No. AMSJ-25-15926(PQ); Reviewed: 21-May-2025, QC No. AMSJ-25-15926; Revised: 04-Jun-2025, Manuscript No. AMSJ-25-15926(R); Published: 09-Jul-2025