=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3153/paper15
|storemode=property
|title=Entrepreneurial Humility and Learning from Serious Games
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3153/paper15.pdf
|volume=Vol-3153
|authors=Behzad Mohammadian
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/persuasive/Mohammadian22
}}
==Entrepreneurial Humility and Learning from Serious Games==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3153/paper15.pdf
Entrepreneurial Humility and Learning from Serious
Games
Behzad Mohammadian
Management and Accounting Faculty, College of Farabi, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
B.Mohammadian@ut.ac.ir
Abstract. Serious games can create a fruitful environment for learning and de-
velopment but participating in such games for learning in organizations imposes
some challenges. The purpose of this article is to show having which element of
entrepreneurial humility could play a significant role in relation with learning
from serious games. In this study, 7 experts were chosen based on a questionnaire
attempt to evaluate and prioritize entrepreneurial humility criteria, using a multi-
criteria decision-making method called the ‘best worst method’ (BWM). The cri-
teria are ranked according to their average weight obtained through BWM. The
respondents view ‘social openness’ as the most important criterion. The results
of this study help organizations’ managers, decision-makers, and practitioners
decide where to focus their attention during the implementation stage, in order to
increase effectiveness of a talent development portfolio especially serious games.
Keywords: Humility, Entrepreneurial Humility, Learning, Entrepreneurial
Learning, Serious Games, Gamification
1 Introduction
Competitiveness refers to a company’s ability to maintain and gain market share in an
industry. It’s confirmed that training and development practices can foster companies
to attaining this vision [7, 4, 32]. Customer service, employee retention and growth, the
economy, a multigenerational workforce, the use of new technology, extending learn-
ing beyond the classroom—these are just some of the issues affecting companies in all
industries and sizes and influencing training and development practices [32]. These
factors illustrate how training and development can contribute to companies’ competi-
tiveness by providing employees with the knowledge and skills they need to be suc-
cessful. To be effective in this way, training and development must play a strategic role
in supporting the business vision and mission and contributing positively to business
outcomes such as quality, productivity, development of new products, and retaining
key employees. Along with all these issues companies must pay attention to the new
workforce persona. Employees from Generation Z that well versed in informal learning,
especially through collaboration facilitated by social media such as Facebook and Twit-
ter. Also, their gaming experiences lead them to expect that learning experiences will
be fun, multidimensional, and challenging and will provide immediate feedback and
rewards [32]. Former research comprehensively addressed effective factor on effective-
ness of learning project, but they neglected an important factor named humility. humil-
ity was also associated with less social vigilantism, which may promote collaborative
learning and, was associated with an intrinsic motivation to learn that may help explain
Persuasive 2022, Adjunct Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Per-
suasive Technology. Copyright © 2022 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted
under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
2
the observed relationship between humility and possessing more knowledge or being
eager to learning [23]. The essence of learning is to accept shortcomings and mistakes.
This is called humility along with accepting personal strengths and appreciating the
participation and strength of others. With the extension of this competence to the busi-
ness world, it can be argued that entrepreneurial humility has the potential to learn from
the failures and successes that occur in different levels of the business life cycle. In
current highly competitive business environment, one of the most valuable inputs for
sustainable organizational growth is knowledge [55, 1] and recently, there has been a
growing interest in innovative forms of learning such as serious games. Such games
can create a different experience in the process of learning which are highly motivating
and emotionally engaging for the trainee, especially the new generation who are named
digital natives or digital born [24]. Digital born is a term that describes people who live
in the digital age. They have a different mental model, values, and behaviors when
compared to prior generations. The digital born person, however, demands new devel-
opment methods to best achieve great performance. The use of serious games is a prom-
ising solution for learning through meaningful play [31,24]. The drawbacks of tradi-
tional training and staff development in ways that have proven ineffective, on the one
hand, and the generational change and special preferences that these individuals have,
and their interest in personal growth and development in new ways, and along with the
development of technology, especially cognitive technologies, have provided the
ground for a new type of development in the organization under the concept of serious
games. Affected by the larger context of this phenomenon, however, in other words,
game development, we must address an important concern about what motivations and
characteristics cause people to turn to a game, stay in it, continue to play eagerly, and
most importantly, play to learn. It should also be noted that in most organizations, de-
velopment still takes place in a physical context and serious games are designed in this
space. Combining physical education and giving the game-like nature to this type of
development requires attention to how people are persuaded to start and continue these
games. Going back to some earlier studies [18, 44, 30] it seems that the design of seri-
ous game is time consuming, costly and complex, and the efficiency of this type of
learning will be more problematic. Hence the research main question is which compo-
nents of humility will be most effective in learning from serious games?
2 Theoretical Background
2.1 Humility
Humility is a virtue. Solomon (1999) provides a definition of humility that is useful to
business: humility is ‘‘a realistic assessment of one’s own contribution and the recog-
nition of the contribution of others, along with luck and good fortune that made one’s
own success possible.’’ Tangney (2002) have tried to distinguish between humility and
narcissism, as well as experience and orientation towards goal-based learning. Jankow-
ski et al. (2013) conceived humility as the capacity to regulate interpersonal and inter-
personal relationships, which facilitates interpersonal Well-being. Humility, unlike
many other virtues, tends to be silent. Characteristics of leadership such as gratitude,
justice, or compassion are more visible, but humility is not something a leader explicitly
3
exhibits. ‘‘Humility,’’ a wise pundit said, ‘‘is like underwear; essential, but indecent if
it shows.’’ [54]. Humility is a characteristic of sustainability, according to which a per-
son considers himself to be very meaningful from the point of view of others. Conse-
quently, humility entails a growing view of itself [35]. It also facilitates identification
of the strengths and weaknesses of yourself and others. Based on learning nature of
game we can define humility as a goal orientation Learning process. An adaptive ap-
proach to task situations associated with the motivation to understand and master the
task rather than to display or prove competence [12]. Learning goal orientation de-
scribes cognitive and behavioral response patterns in achievement situations, whereas
expressed humility is manifest in a broad range of social situations that may or may not
have direct achievement implications. LGO reflects a desire (i.e., an internal motivation
or cognition) to develop new competencies, master new situations, and acquire new
skills; expressed humility reflects behaviors that reflect a pursuit of accurate self-aware-
ness and appreciation of others’ strengths, in addition to learning and development [34].
2.2 Learning from Serious Games
Games are enormously popular among adolescents and young adults [9] and the wide-
spread interest in the learning and motivation benefits of serious games has been dis-
cussed before. Playing a serious game allows us to understand complex issues within a
complex environment due to its systemic character. Therefore, it could play an im-
portant role in a knowledge management process and more generally in organizational
learning [53]. Serious game is indeed a kind of educational games due to the early de-
velopment of the ‘Edutainment’ approach in the 1970s [48, 38, 24]. One of the ad-
vantages of serious games is increasing the engagement and the motivation of the train-
ees. Add to this real and direct practice and the result is that the trainees learn better
and more deeply. Indeed, many researchers [45, 42, 19,47] pay particular attention on
the value of serious game design in facilitating players’ learning goals and processes as
well as achieving learning satisfaction. Organizational learning as defined by Argyris
& Schön (1995) concerns knowledge, skills, techniques and practices. Organizational
learning depends on learning from individual interactions, these interactions being af-
fected in return by organizational learning. According to Argyris & Schön (1995), this
learning phenomenon is all the more important if the organization’s culture encourages
its continuous progress and creates situations that are more favorable for changes and
innovations. When applied to serious games, the theory of organizational learning con-
siders that each player, gathered in team to play the game, learns individually which
contribute to team learning (organizational learning). According to Argyris et al (1985),
this knowledge constitutes theories of action or, in other words, it is produced to reach
a goal and is the result of strategies deployed to perform complex tasks linked to the
serious game [53].
2.3 Humility and Learning from Serious Games
Based on vera and Lopez (2004) There are six ways in which the virtue of humility
manifests itself in learning. These six ways are: Openness to new paradigms, Eagerness
to learn from others, Acknowledgement of their own limitations and mistakes, and
4
ability to correct them, Pragmatic acceptance of failure, Ability to ask for advice, De-
velopment of others. Owens, Johnson and Mitchell (2013) cleared the concept of hu-
mility as expressed humility in three dimensions as: Willingness to See the Self Accu-
rately, Appreciation of Others’ Strengths and Contributions and Teachability. Maldona,
vera and Ramos (2018) promotes humility as a key success factor and a source of com-
petitive advantage and characterize a humble person in six components as: accurate
self-awareness, appreciation of others, teachability, low self-focus and self-transcend-
ent pursuit. Norcross and Manning (2019) claimed that there is four general traits and
behaviors associated with humility: an attitude of inquiry, kinship, extraordinary col-
laboration, and professional excellence. These four general themes emerged from a
thorough review of the literature on humility [20,35,49,50] including a review of sev-
eral organizational case studies. These four traits and behaviors were also confirmed by
recent empirical research [33, 35, 36]. In the next part some of these elements that are
in relation with learning will demonstrate and then introduced in a conceptual model
that will be useful for the aim of this research. In the next parts these elements that are
in relation with learning and are useful for the aim of this research will demonstrate.
Social Cognition
Learning implies changes in both cognition and behavior. humble players recognize
that they do not know everything and that they have much to identify; they develop a
true capacity to identify and understand from the work of others or situations like seri-
ous games. Also being humble help player to have a more realistic perspective of the
complexity of the world and acknowledge the limitations of their current mental model
and never stick to the past and out of date solutions.
Social Openness
Tangney (2000, p. 72) argued that “humility carries with it an open-mindedness, a will-
ingness to seek advice, and a desire to learn.” Similarly, Templeton (1997, p. 162)
noted, “Inherent in humility resides an open and receptive mind it leaves us more open
to learn from others.” We propose that this aspect of expressed humility reflects a per-
son’s absorptive capacity [56] on an individual level and may be generally related to
developmental readiness, a concept that has mainly been applied to leaders [3] within
the context of interpersonal interactions. In a game context, being open and accepting
a change of mental models is more painful for most of players because they afraid of
knowing the truth and are fearful of losing their status or control.
Social Courage
One of the strongest obstacles against initiative is fear of failure. The virtue of humility
helps people to deal with this fear by reminding them that those who do not fail, rarely
try new endeavors, and those errors and failure are the price for learning. Managers
who think they ‘‘know it all’’ and feel superior to others seldom seek or accept advice
from others. In contrast, humble leaders look for advisors who can challenge them and
5
offer differing opinions, so that the leaders can assess and integrate the different per-
spectives and are therefore more likely to make good decisions.
Social Learning
Ability to learn or teachability is critical for organizations competing in the
“knowledge-based economy” [11]. It manifested in persons who showing openness to
learning, feedback, and new ideas from others. Teachability may also be a particularly
important component of expressed humility in leadership contexts. Alexander and Wil-
son [8] argued that a thirst for learning is one of the most critical capacities of effective
leaders. This aspect of expressed humility would be manifest by a displayed receptive-
ness to others’ feedback, ideas, and advice and the willingness to ask for help. Humble
individuals, through showing teachability, afford others a sense of voice, which has
been shown to foster greater trust, motivation, and a heightened sense of justice [3].
Social Acknowledgment
The capacity of players to accept their personal strengths and weaknesses could predict
their ability to learn from their experiences. appreciating limitations is a desire to accept
one’s fault and use them as a starting point for learning. Sixth While narcissistic or
arrogant managers want others to be dependent on them, humble leaders are committed
to training those who might surpass them in learning. Humble managers not only toler-
ate others’ successes but are proud when trainees outperform them. Managerial talent
is a scarce resource; consequently, focusing on the development of new managers is
one of the most valuable contributions that current leaders can provide to their firms
[17, 16, 25, 6, 21, 5, 37, 22, 13, 54].
Owens et al (2013) propose that humility fosters a more objective appraisal of per-
sonal strengths and limitations that is manifested by transparent disclosure of personal
limits, acknowledging mistakes, and seeking realistic feedback about the self. From a
general psychological standpoint, longitudinal research has shown that individuals who
maintain more realistic self-views tend to be more psychologically healthy and have
higher general well-being [52].
Social Care
According to Means et al. (1990, p. 214), “Humility is an increase in the valuation of
others and not a decrease in the valuation of self.” Expressed humility reflects attitudes
that are other enhancing rather than self-enhancing [29] and leads one to acknowledge
and show that he values others’ strengths [49].
6
Social Skills
We have described several ways in which humble behavior affects the long-term
growth and survival of the firm. The resilience of humble leaders is reflected in their
sobriety and down-to-earth views of themselves and their environment. When enjoying
success, humility enables managers to be resilient, by helping them to remember the
difficulties they faced to achieve success. When coping with problems, humility helps
managers to avoid slipping into denial and to deal with reality and move forward. When
combined with humility, positive ambition, and the desire to leave a legacy motivate
managers to avoid self-complacency and be open to the need to continuously adapt the
firm to its context. This type of culture generates high employee commitment towards
the firm’s growth goals.
3 Methodology
Best Worst Method (BWM) is a multi-criteria decision-making method that is based on
a structured pairwise comparison system [39]. The BWM [40, 41] is structured as fol-
lows: Step1. Identify a set of decision-making criteria. In this step, a set of criteria {c1,
c2, c3, …., cn} is chosen for decision making. Step2.The best criterion (e.g., most de-
sirable, most important) and the worst criterion (e.g., least desirable, least important)
are determined. In this step, the best and the worst criteria are identified by the decision-
maker. Step3. The preference of the best criterion over all the other criteria is deter-
mined based on a score between 1 and 9, where a score of 1 means equal preference
between the best criterion and another criterion and a score of 9 means the extreme
preference of the best criterion over the other criterion. The result of this step is the
vector of Best-to-Others (BO) which would be AB = (aB1, aB2, aB3, …, aBn), where
aBj indicates the preference of the best criterion B over criterion j, and it can be deduced
that aBB = 1. Step4. The preference of all criteria over the worst criterion is determined
based on a score between 1 and 9. The result of this step is the vector of Others-to-
Worst (OW) which would be: AW = (a1w, a2w, a3w, …, anw) where ajW shows the
preference of the criterion j over the worst criterion W. It also can be deduced that aWW
= 1. Step5. The optimal weights (w1*, w2*, w3*, …, wn*) are calculated. The optimal
weights of the criteria will satisfy the following requirements: For each pair of wB/wj
and wj/wW, the ideal situation is where wB/wj = aBj and wj/wW = ajW. Therefore, to
get as close as possible to the ideal situation, we should minimize the maximum among
the set of {|wB-Bjwj|, |wj-ajwww|}, and the problem can be formulated as follows:
min maxj {|wB-aBjwj|, |wj-ajwww|}, Subject to: ∑wj = 1 (1) wj≥0, for all j (1)
7
Problem Eq. (1) can be transferred to the following linear programming problem:
min ξL, subject to: |wB-aBjwj| ≤ ξL for allj, |wj-ajwww| ≤ ξL for allj, ∑wj = 1 (2)
wj≥0, for all j
After solving problem Eq. (2), the optimal weights (w1*, w2*, w3*, …, wn*) and ξ
L* are obtained. ξL* can be seen as a direct indicator of the comparison system’s
consistency. The closer the value of ξL* is to zero, the higher the consistency, and,
consequently, the more reliable the comparisons become. Data were collected from
Iranian entrepreneurship ecosystem experts and 7 experts were participated in this
research. The demographic information of them is as table1.
Table 1. Demographic Information of Research Experts
Expert Gender Age Education Expertise Experience
1 Male 30-40 Phd Behavior 10 years
2 Male 30-40 Phd Accelerator 6 years
3 Male 30-40 Msc Entrepreneurship 4 years
4 Female 30-40 Phd Entrepreneurship 4 years
5 Male 40-50 Phd Behavior 15 years
6 Male 30-40 Msc Behavior 7 years
7 Female 20-30 Msc Entrepreneurship 5 years
71% of Expert in this study were male and 29% were female, 85% have between 30-
40 years old. Based on education 71% educated or educating in PhD. All have expertise
in business and have average 6 years’ experience.
4 Results and findings
Determination of decision criteria: In this first step, the decision-makers identified a
set of criteria to describe the subject matter. This section throws more light on the de-
velopment and refinement processes of the framework proposed in this paper. The cri-
teria were identified through a combination of a literature review. Through the literature
review, 7 entrepreneurial humility criteria were identified (see Table 2). Identifying the
best and the worst criteria: In the second step, the 7 respondents specified the most and
the least important entrepreneurial humility criteria, using a questionnaire. The result-
ing best and worst are listed in Table 3. Identifying the best criterion preference over
all criteria: In the third step, the respondents were asked to specify the best criterion’s
preference over all other criteria, using 1–9 measurement scale. Table 4 shows the re-
sponse of one of the respondents. Identifying the other criteria preference over the
worst criterion: In this step, the respondents were asked to determine the preference
ratio of all criteria over the least important criterion via a questionnaire, again using a
measurement scale of 1–9. Table 5 displays the response of one of the experts. Finding
the optimal weights of criteria: In this step, the optimal weights of the criteria are cal-
culated by solving the BWM optimization model for each of the 9 respondents. Next, a
8
simple weighted average for each criterion is computed to obtain a single weight vector,
as shown in Table 6, which indicates that the average consistency ratio (ξL*) is close
to zero, Hence, the comparisons are highly consistent and reliable. Moreover, the con-
sistency ratio (CR.) for each criterion can be found in Table 6. Small numbers for the
CR show homogeneity of respondents.
Table 2. Social Sustainability Criteria Selected for the Assessment.
Criteria References Description
Ability to analyzing strength and weakness of own and
social cognition
understanding others potentials
social openness Being openness to new idea and experiences
social Courage [34, 54, 33, Accepting faults and mistakes of own and others
social learning 26] Willing to learn from environment and people experiences
social acknowledgment Admire and appreciation of others participation
social care be care and willing about others development and growth
social skills Ability and willing to give and receive feedback
Table 3. Best and Worst Criteria Identified by Experts 1–7.
Entrepreneurial humility crite- Determined as Best by ex- Determined as Worst by
ria perts experts
C1= social cognition 1,7 -
C2= social openness 2,5,6 -
C3= social Courage 3 4
C4= social learning 4 -
C5= social acknowledgment - 1,2,3,6
C6= social care - 5,7
C7= social skills - -
Table 4. Best Criterion Preference over the other Criteria for Expert 1.
Criteria C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
Most important (C1) 1 2 4 3 9 7 4
Table 5. Preference of all Criteria over the Worst Criterion for Expert 1.
Criteria Age
C1 9
C2 8
C3 6
C4 4
C5 1
C6 3
C7 6
9
Table 6. Results of BWM: Criteria Weights for the 7 Respondents.
Criteria E11 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 GM2 RP3
C1 0.346 0.204 0,285 0.089 0.172 0.211 0.277 0.210 0.233
C2 0.211 0.318 0.122 0.125 0.258 0.352 0.309 0.224 0.249
C3 0.105 0.136 0.0343 0.036 0.103 0.070 0.072 0.099 0.110
C4 0.140 0.102 0.073 0.476 0.172 0.164 0.182 0.159 0.176
C5 0.030 0.032 0.029 0.089 0.103 0.046 0.031 0.045 0.050
C6 0.060 0.068 0.073 0.104 0.086 0.084 0.052 0.073 0.081
C7 0.105 0.136 0.073 0.078 0.103 0.070 0.072 0.088 0.098
Ξ 0.075 0.091 0.081 0.149 0.258 0.070 0.086 - -
CR 0.020 0.024 0.021 0.039 0.069 0.018 0.023 - -
1 2 3
E=Expert, GM=geomean, RP=rank point
5 Conclusion and Discussion
Training and Development refers to practices as well as formal and informal education
that help employees prepare for current and future jobs or positions. Series games are
one of these that can be performed as blended learning program. persuasion to join and
engagement to hang on these games is important for organization because designing of
them is complex and need more time and cost. Based on self-determination theory
(SDT) by Ryan and Decy (1980), intrinsic motivation in game-based practices have
undeniable effect. On the other hand, based on [23] humility may associate with an
intrinsic motivation to learn that may help explain the important role of entrepreneurial
humility in learning from serious games. results of the study show “Social openness”
and "Social cognition" have the highest impact in organizational learning projects.
“Social openness” with the weight of 0.249 is the most critical and important criterion
when these organizations attempt to achieve effectiveness in organizational learning
projects based on serious games. “Social openness” lays part of the foundation for
inclusion and development of the other criteria of entrepreneurial humility, leading to
the improvement of the entire development and training program. These findings were
supported by the previous research that entrepreneurial humility has been associated
with better training and development effectiveness [57, 43, 27, 23]. Although EH may
promote learning from game by contribute to Persuasion, and motivations, However,
further investigation is needed to examine whether this is the case. Future research may
develop and validate a scale to measure entrepreneurial humility and explore the effect
of this concept on persuasive nature of games. It would be beneficial for future research
in persuasive technology to examine the links between EH and learning from games in
both directions with longitudinal and experimental designs.
10
References
1. Argote, l., Miron-Spektor, e.: Organizational Learning: From Experience to Knowledge, Or-
ganization Science 22(5), Organization Science1123-1137 (2011).
2. Argyris, C., Schön A.: Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley, (1996).
3. Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O., Weber, T.J.: Leadership: Current theories, research, and fu-
ture directions. Annual Rev. Psych 60, 421- 449 (2009).
4. Bartlett, C. A., Ghoshal, S.: Building competitive advantage through people, MIT Sloan
Management Review 43(2) ,33-41 (2002).
5. Berry, L. L., Seiders, K.: For Love and Money: The Common Traits of Successful Retailers,
Organizational Dynamics 26(2), 7–23 (1997).
6. Brenneman, W. B., Keys, J. B., Fulmer, R. M.: Learning Across a Living Company: The
Shell Companies’ Experiences, Organizational Dynamics 27(2), 61–70 (1998).
7. Burden, R., Proctor, T.: Creating a sustainable competitive advantage through train-
ing, Team Performance Management 6(5/6), 90-97 (2000).
8. Church, A., Tornow, W., Burke, W., Hogan, R., Avolio, B.: From both sides now: Leader-
ship—So close and yet so far. Psychologist 35(3),1–14 (1998).
9. Clark, R. E.: Learning from Serious Games? Arguments, Evidence, and Research Sugges-
tions.” Educational Technology 47(3), 56–59 (2007).
10. Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D.E., Gilliland, S.W.: The management of organizational justice.
Acad. Management Perspective 21(4), 34–48 (2007).
11. Dane, E., Pratt, M.G.: Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decision making. Acad.
Management Rev 32(1), 33–54 (2007).
12. Dweck, C. S.: Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development. Psy-
chology Press (2000).
13. Farson, R., Keyes, R.: The Failure-Tolerant Leader. Harvard Business Review 80(8), 64–69
(2002).
14. Flanagin, A.J., Waldeck, J.H.: Technology use and organizational newcomer socialization,
Journal of Business Communication 41, 137-165 (2004).
15. Jankowski p j., Sandage, s. j., Hill, p.c.: Differentiation-based models of forgivingness, men-
tal health and social justice commitment: Mediator effects for differentiation of self and
humility. The Journal of Positive Psychology 8(5),412-424 (2013).
16. Howell, J. M., Avolio, B.: The Ethics of Charismatic Leadership: Submission or Liberation?
Academy of Management Executive 6(2), 43–54 (1992).
17. Hayward, M., Hambrick, D.: Explaining the Premiums Paid for Large Acquisitions: Evi-
dence of CEO Hubris, Administrative Science Quarterly 42, 103–127 (1997).
18. Hunicke, R., Leblanc, M. G., Robert, Z.: MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and
Game Research. (2004).
19. Jenkins, H., Camper, B., Chisholm, A.: From serious games to serious gaming, Routledge,
New York, (2009).
20. Kallasvuo, O.P.: Moments of Truth: Humility. Harvard Business Review, 85(1), (2007).
21. Kofman, F., Senge, P.: Communities of Commitment: The Heart of Learning Organizations,
Organizational Dynamics 22(2), 5–23 (1993).
22. Kramer, R.: The Harder They Fall, Harvard Business Review 81(10), 58–65 (2003).
23. Krumrei-Mancuso, E. J. Haggard, M. C., LaBouff, J. P., Rowatt, W. C.: Links between in-
tellectual humility and acquiring knowledge, The Journal of Positive Psychology 15(2), 155-
170 (2020).
24. Lau, H. M., Smit, J. H., Fleming, T. M., Riper, H.: Serious Games for Mental Health: Are
They Accessible, Feasible, and Effective? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Fron-
tiers in psychiatry, 7, 209 (2017).
11
25. Maccoby, M.: Narcissistic Leaders: The Incredible Pros, the Inevitable Cons, Harvard Busi-
ness Review (78)1, 69–77 (2000).
26. Maldonado, T. Vera., D. Ramos., N.: How humble is your company culture? And, why does
it matter?, 61(5), 745-753 (2018).
27. Meagher, B. R., Leman, J. C., Bias, J. P., Latendresse, S. J., Rowatt, W. C.: Contrasting self-
report and consensus ratings of intellectual humility and arrogance. Journal of Research in
Personality 58, 35–45 (2015).
28. Means, J.R., Wilson, G.L., Sturm, C., Biron, J.E., Bach, P.J.: Theory and practice: Humility
as a psychotherapeutic formulation. Counseling Quart 3(2), 211–215 (1990).
29. Morris, J.A. Brotheridge, C.M. Urbanski, J.C.: Bringing humility to leadership: Antecedents
and consequences of leader humility. Human Relations 58(10):1323–1350 (2005).
30. Nadolski, R.J., Hummel, H.G., Brink, H.V., Hoefakker, R.E., Slootmaker, A., Kurvers, H.,
Storm, J.: EMERGO: methodology and toolkit for efficient development of serious games
in higher education. (2007).
31. Neill, T.: Serious games: learning for the generation, Development and Learning in Organ-
ization: An International Journal 23, 12-15 (2009).
32. Noe, R.: Employee Training & Development. 8th Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York (2020).
33. Norcross, M.A., Manning, M.R.: Humility as an Enabler of Organizational Growth and
Change", Research in Organizational Change and Development, Research in Organizational
Change and Development (27), 59-82 (2019).
34. Owens, B. P., Johnson, M. D., & Mitchell, T. R.: Expressed Humility in Organizations:
Implications for Performance, Teams, and Leadership. Organization Science 24(5),1517-
1538 (2013).
35. Owens, B. P., Hekman, D. R.: How does leader humility influence team performance? Ex-
ploring the mechanisms of contagion and collective promotion focus. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal 59(3), 1088–1111 (2016).
36. Owens, B. P., Hekman, D. R. Modeling how to grow: An inductive examination of humble
leader behaviors, contingencies, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal 55(4),
787–818 (2012).
37. Pollard, W. C.: The Leader Who Serves, Strategy & Leadership 25(5), 49–51(1997).
38. Ratan, A., Ritterfeld, U.: Classifying serious games. Routledge, New York (2009).
39. Rezaei, j.: A Concentration Ratio for Nonlinear Best Worst Method, International Journal
of Information Technology & Decision Making 19, 1-17 (2020).
40. Rezaei, J.: Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53, 49–57 (2015).
41. Rezaei, J.: Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: some properties and a linear
model. Omega 64, 126–13 (2016).
42. Rieber, L.: Multimedia learning with games, simulations and microworlds. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, New York (2005).
43. Rowatt, W. C., Powers, C., Targhetta, V., Comer, J., Kennedy, S., Labouff, J.: Development
and initial validation of an implicit measure of humility relative to arrogance. The Journal
of Positive Psychology 1, 198–211 (2006).
44. Salen, K., Zimmerman, E.: Game design and meaningful play, The MIT Press, London
(2005).
45. Schank, R.: Designing World-class e-Learning. McGraw-Hill, New York (2002).
46. Solomon, R. C.: A Better Way to Think about Business, New York: Oxford University Press
(1999).
47. Sawyer, B.: Preface in Ritterfeld, U., Cody, M. and Vorderer, P. (Eds.): Serious Games:
Mechanisms and Effects, Routledge, New York (2009).
48. Squire, K.: Open-ended video games: a model for developing learning for the interactive
age’, in Salen, K. (Ed.): The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, (2008).
12
49. Tangney, J.P.: Humility: Theoretical perspectives, empirical findings and directions for fu-
ture research. J. Soc. Clinical Psych 19(1), 70–82 (2000).
50. Tangney, J.P.: Humility. Snyder CR, Lopez SJ, eds. Handbook of Positive Psychology. Ox-
ford University Press, New York, (2002).
51. Templeton, J.M.: Worldwide Laws of Life. Templeton Foundation Press, Philadelphia
(1997).
52. Vaillant, G.: The Wisdom of the Ego. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1992).
53. Vallat, D., Bayart, C., Bertezene S.: Serious games in favors of knowledge management and
double-loop learning? Knowledge Management Research and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan
14 (4), 470-477 (2016).
54. Vera, D., Lopez, A. Humility as a Source of Competitive Advantage, Organizational Dy-
namics 33(4), 393–408 (2004).
55. William, C., Bogner, P. B.: Knowledge Management as the Basis of Sustained High Perfor-
mance, journal of management studies 44(1), 165-188 (2007).
56. Zahra, S.A., George, G.: Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension.
Acad. Management Rev 27(2), 185–203 (2002).
57. Zakay, D., Glicksohn, J.: Overconfidence in a multiple-choice test and its relationship to
achievement. The Psychological Record 42, 519–524 (1992).