In this article, the authors reflect on the question why simulation games are such an effective tool for learning. The article is based on the authors' experience and that of many other practitioners in the field. The article posits that it is the confluence of systemic knowledge, practice, emotional involvement, and social embeddedness that creates the potential to achieve results that no other methods can match. A simulation game run constitutes a bout of individual and collective purposeful action by an individual or a group formed specifically for that purpose. People have evolved to be supremely good at just that. Simulation games can teach systemic knowledge, and they can enable participants to try out organizational changes. This potential is not always realized, however. Game runs are "alive" and variable, and this is a risky strength. They activate not only the explicit rules but also the hidden cultural rules of the participants. This can lead to memorable learning as well as to frustration, particularly when games are used across cultures. The article specifies reasons why games could fail and offers ways to avoid these pitfalls. It shows that experience and craftsmanship are needed in game design, facilitation, and debriefing.

In this article, the authors assess the use of gaming/simulation for research purposes within the organization and policy sciences. They describe three categories of research: (a) gaming/simulation for pure research, (b) gaming/simulation for policy development, and (c) gaming/simulation for policy implementation and organizational change. For each category, an example project is described. Studying six projects and interviewing experts on these projects, they draw lessons for each category. At the end of the article, they conclude with eight methodological characteristics of gaming for empirical-analytical study of policy and organization projects.

In this essay, we will explore a question which is widely recognized in the world of practitioners of change and which seems a problematic issue in any change process, but is badly understood in theory: "What is happening when there is a lot of enthusiasm about a change initiative and a lot of knowledge about the change, but nothing happens?" Why is coming into action so difficult in any change process? We ourselves, being scholars as well as practitioners, are in the middle of trying to understand the answers to these questions. In this essay, we will explore the literature to shed light on this. We discuss that (a) "people consistently act inconsistently," (b) resistance is a multi-layered and multi-meaning concept that needs reconceptualization, and (c) perception of the change recipient plays a pivotal role in every change process.

No abstract