Fun times: the relationship between fun and workplace engagement

Purpose – The idea of workplace fun seems positive, straightforward and simple but emerging research suggests a surprising complexity and ambiguity to this concept. Drawing on recent literature and empirical data, the purpose of this paper is to use three different forms of workplace fun: managed, organic and task fun to examine the relationship between fun and workplace engagement. Design/methodology/approach – Using an ethnographic approach, the qualitative data originated from four different New Zealand organizations, within different industries. Organizations included a law firm, a financial institution, an information technology company and a utility services provider. Data for this study were collected from semi-structured interviews with a range of participants in each company. In total 59 interviews were conducted with approximately 15 originating from each of the four organizations. One full-time month was spent within each company experiencing the everyday life and behaviours at all levels of each organization. The specific focus of the research is organizational culture and humour and during analysis findings emerged that linked to engagement, fun, disengagement and the concept of flow. Findings – This paper offers exploratory findings that suggest some specific connections between the concepts of fun and engagement. Empirical connections between these concepts are not currently apparent in either engagement or fun research, yet the data suggest some firm associations between them. The exploratory findings suggest that some forms of workplace fun offer individual employees a refreshing break which creates positive affect. Participants perceive that such affect results in greater workplace and task engagement. Additionally the data show that some people experience their work tasks as a form of fun and the authors link this to a specific form of engagement known as “flow” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Moneta, 2010). The authors suggest an organizational-level effect, where workplace fun creates enjoyment which stimulates greater overall engagement with the team, unit or organization itself. Conversely the data also suggest that for some people managed or organic fun (see Plester et al., 2015) creates distraction, disharmony or dissonance that disrupts their flow and can foster disengagement. Practical implications – The ambiguity and complexity in the relationship between these concepts is an emerging topic for research that offers a variety of implications for scholars and practitioners of HRM and organizational behaviour. The authors contend that workplace fun potentially offers practitioners opportunities for fostering a climate of high engagement which may include most employees and thus create additional workplace benefits. Additionally through highlighting employee reactions to different types of fun we suggest ways of avoiding employee disengagement, disharmony and cynicism and the associated negative effects. Originality/value – The concept of fun is not empirically linked with current engagement research and the authors assert that workplace fun is an important driver of employee engagement. The authors identity engagement at the individual task level and further extend engagement research by emphasizing that fun has the potential to create engagement at the team, unit or organizational level. These differing levels of engagement have not thus far been differentiated in the extant literature.

[1]  James K. Harter,et al.  Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. , 2002, The Journal of applied psychology.

[2]  S. Albrecht Employee engagement: 10 key questions for research and practice , 2010 .

[3]  W. Jack Duncan,et al.  No laughing matter: Patterns of humor in the workplace , 1989 .

[4]  M. Burawoy Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process Under Monopoly Capitalism , 1982 .

[5]  Marc Hassenzahl,et al.  The Semantics of Fun: Differentiating Enjoyable Eeperiences , 2005, Funology.

[6]  Brian H. Kleiner,et al.  Making work play , 1992 .

[7]  B. Schneider,et al.  Employee Engagement: Tools for Analysis, Practice, and Competitive Advantage , 2009 .

[8]  Jonathon R B Halbesleben,et al.  Too engaged? A conservation of resources view of the relationship between work engagement and work interference with family. , 2009, The Journal of applied psychology.

[9]  M. Csíkszentmihályi Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention , 1996 .

[10]  Sharon K. Parker,et al.  Feeling good and performing well? Psychological engagement and positive behaviors at work , 2010 .

[11]  Eric Lamm,et al.  Workplace fun: the moderating effects of generational differences , 2009 .

[12]  Bill Trahant Driving Better Performance through Continuous Employee Engagement: New Agency Leaders Can Take Measures to Boost Employee Performance and Align Federal Workers with the Critical New Goals of the Obama White House , 2009 .

[13]  Giovanni B. Moneta,et al.  Flow in Work as a Function of Trait Intrinsic Motivation, Opportunity for Creativity in the Job, and Work Engagement , 2010 .

[14]  N. Denzin,et al.  Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research. , 2005 .

[15]  William A. Kahn Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work , 1990 .

[16]  Dolf Zillmann,et al.  A Disposition Theory of Humour and Mirth , 2017 .

[17]  P. Fleming Workers’ Playtime? , 2005 .

[18]  Robert C. Ford,et al.  Questions and Answers about Fun at Work , 2003 .

[19]  A. Saks Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement , 2006 .

[20]  M. Lorenzen Creativity in context : Content, cost, chance and collection in the organization of the film industry , 2009 .

[21]  Katherine A. Karl,et al.  Attitudes Toward Workplace Fun: A Three Sector Comparison , 2005 .

[22]  Barbara Plester,et al.  The fun paradox , 2015 .

[23]  A. Bakker,et al.  The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach , 2002 .

[24]  Karen K. Wollard Quiet Desperation , 2011 .

[25]  M. Csíkszentmihályi Beyond boredom and anxiety , 1975 .

[26]  H. Foot,et al.  Humour and laughter: Theory, research and applications. , 1976 .

[27]  Jean-Louis Barsoux Funny Business: Humour, Management and Business Culture , 1993 .

[28]  N. Crump,et al.  Dionysus at work? The ethos of play and the ethos of management , 2005 .

[29]  S. Fineman On Being Positive: Concerns and Counterpoints , 2006 .

[30]  Michael J. Tews,et al.  The Fundamental Role of Workplace Fun in Applicant Attraction , 2012 .

[31]  S. Sonnentag Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: a new look at the interface between nonwork and work. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[32]  A. Bakker,et al.  The Measurement of Work Engagement With a Short Questionnaire , 2006 .

[33]  Katherine A. Karl,et al.  Does Workplace Fun Buffer the Impact of Emotional Exhaustion on Job Dissatisfaction?: A Study of Health Care Workers , 2006 .

[34]  Barbara Plester,et al.  Crossing the line: boundaries of workplace humour and fun , 2009 .

[35]  Katherine Karl,et al.  Give Them Something to Smile About: A Marketing Strategy for Recruiting and Retaining Volunteers , 2008 .

[36]  Mats Alvesson,et al.  Qualitative Research and Theory Development: Mystery as Method , 2011 .

[37]  K. Weick Theory Construction as Disciplined Imagination , 1989 .

[38]  A. Bakker,et al.  Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi‐sample study , 2004 .

[39]  Arnold B. Bakker,et al.  Towards a model of work engagement , 2008 .

[40]  Stephen Ackroyd,et al.  Can Culture be Managed? Working with “Raw” Material: The Case of the English Slaughtermen , 1990 .

[41]  David L. Collinson,et al.  'Engineering Humour': Masculinity, Joking and Conflict in Shop-floor Relations , 1988 .

[42]  Thomas C. Dandridge Ceremony as an Integration of Work and Play , 1986 .

[43]  Wilmar B. Schaufeli,et al.  Work engagement and workaholism: comparing the self-employed and salaried employees , 2010 .

[44]  A. Bakker,et al.  Passion for work: Work engagement versus workaholism. , 2010 .

[45]  R. Mcbain The practice of engagement: Research into current employee engagement practice , 2007 .

[46]  Arnold B. Bakker,et al.  Engagement and “Job Crafting”: Engaged Employees Create their Own Great Place to Work , 2010 .

[47]  Barbara Plester,et al.  “Taking the piss”: Functions of banter in the IT industry , 2007 .

[48]  Eean R. Crawford,et al.  JOB ENGAGEMENT: ANTECEDENTS AND EFFECTS ON JOB PERFORMANCE , 2010 .

[49]  Sharon C. Bolton,et al.  Are we having fun yet? A consideration of workplace fun and engagement , 2009 .

[50]  Blake E. Ashforth,et al.  Emotion in the Workplace: A Reappraisal , 1995 .

[51]  Katherine Karl,et al.  Attitudes Toward Incorporating Fun Into the Health Care Workplace , 2005, The health care manager.

[52]  Barbara Plester,et al.  Send in the clowns: The role of the joker in three New Zealand IT companies , 2008 .

[53]  B. Shuck,et al.  Reframing Employee Engagement Within the Context of Meaning and Purpose , 2013 .

[54]  S. Kvale The Qualitative Research Interview , 1983 .

[55]  Barbara Plester,et al.  Does fun work? The complexity of promoting fun at work , 2010, Journal of Management & Organization.