Modelling the subjective experience of fun at work
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-10-2017-0251 |
| Pages | 520-537 |
| Date | 01 April 2019 |
| Published date | 01 April 2019 |
| Author | Maeve Clancy,Carol Linehan |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Industrial/labour relations,Employment law |
Modelling the subjective
experience of fun at work
Maeve Clancy
University College Cork, National University of Ireland,
Cork, Ireland, and
Carol Linehan
School of Applied Psychology, University College Cork,
National University of Ireland, Cork, Ireland
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to explain some divergent findings on experiences of fun at work.
It explains conflicting findings by moving from a focus on classifying the activity (as, e.g. task/managed/
organic) to foregrounding the dynamics of the experience, adding to the growing conceptualisation of fun at
work as a multi-dimensional construct.
Design/methodology/approach –This research draws on empirical data obtained through case study
and interviews with 13 participants from two organisations. These interviews were subjected to intense
thematic analysis.
Findings –It was found that an individual’s underlying beliefs about the organisation; the perceived drivers
of the fun practice; and the level of control exerted over a fun practice significantly shape the experience. The
paper draws on the concept of the psychological contract to frame the relationship between these three key
interacting elements.
Practical implications –This paper provides a greater understanding of the dynamics of fun experiences,
enabling management to better recognise and contextualise the impact of fun practices.
Originality/value –Given conflicting findings on both the experience and outcomes of fun at work, this
study elucidates the dynamics underpinning the experience of fun at work. It is novel to consider experiences
of fun through the lens of psychological contracts, which offers fresh insight into the understanding of
individual experiences of fun.
Keywords Workplace fun, Engagement, Organizational culture, Psychological contracts
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
What makes “workplace fun”fun? Is it in fact, fun at all? Interest in cultivating a fun
workplace, encompassing everything from themed days to Nerf gun battles, has been
substantial in recent years. Benefits from adopting fun practices, such as increased
employee performance, job satisfaction (Fluegge, 2008; Karl and Peluchette, 2006) or
increased attractiveness of the organisation to potential employees (Tews et al., 2012),
have been examined. Due to the apparent benefits, research has focussed on the
implementation and operation of fun in the workplace. Attempts have been made to
classify fun (Ple ster et al., 2015; Chan, 2010; Bolton and Houlihan, 2009); to understand
how to implement fun on a cultural level (Owler et al., 2010; Plester, 2009; Fleming, 2005);
to assess attitudes towards fun (Karl et al., 2005, 2007); and to determine what practices
are popular (Ford et al., 2003). However, findings have diverged on both the experience of,
and outcomes from, fun in the workplace. Recently, Michel et al. (2019) called for additional
research to assess not merely whether fun in the workplace is beneficial but rather “to
more fully understand the conditions under which it is valued and leads to desirable
outcomes”(in press). The contribution of this paper is to examine fun at work both
conceptually and empirically to tease out the dynamics of such experiences. The authors
begin by examining how fun at work has been conceptualised.
Fun at work is a particularly interesting topic because of its relevance at different
organisational levels (Aldag and Sherony, 2001). For example, a company might be
Employee Relations: The
International Journal
Vol. 41 No. 3, 2019
pp. 520-537
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/ER-10-2017-0251
Received 16 October 2017
Revised 1 May 2018
25 July 2018
Accepted 25 July 2018
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
520
ER
41,3
considered a “fun”place to work, and thus fun is positioned mainly as a feature of the work
environment. Ford et al. (2003) offered the following definition of a fun environment:
A fun work environment intentionally encourages, initiates, and supports a variety of enjoyable
and pleasurable activities that positively impact the attitude and productivity of individuals and
groups (p. 22).
This definition includes instrumental outcomes such as improved attitude and productivity,
which are necessary for fun to gain momentum in organisations (Plester et al., 2015). Ford
et al. (2003) also asserted that a fun environment should deliver an employee perception that
the organisation cares about their well-being. They argued that the cumulative impact of
discrete activities, such as community projects, creates a culture that demonstrates
appreciation for employees. This is supported by Pryor et al. (2010) who argued that
workplace fun can be significantly decreased by a negative work culture stemming from
micromanagement and distrust. Conversely, a fun environment may result in the company
being in a better position to attract new employees, have stronger employee commitment,
lower turnover and absenteeism (Ford et al., 2004). Such conceptualisations of “fun at work”
are useful as they draw attention to features of the work environment and their possible
impacts on organisational outcomes such as levels of commitment, turnover, etc. However,
what is underspecified in such accounts are the subjective perceptions and experiences of
employees “in between”the environmental features and their outcomes. This lacuna echoes
that surfaced by Boxall et al. (2011), amongst others, and is labelled the “black box”problem
in human resource management, i.e. “the murky chain of links between HR goals and
performance outcomes”(p. 1508). This “murky chain”is perhaps best described by Wright
and Nishii (2006) who described the chain going from intended practices, to actual HR
practices, to perceived HR practices, leading to employee reactions and ultimately to
organisational outcomes. Interestingly, they framed perceptions of, and reactions to, HR
practices as falling within the domain of individual psychological contracts. The present
work, similarly, in the domain of fun practices at work, seeks to get inside the black box of
employees’perceptions of such practices, their reactions to them and, from that
understanding framed by the concept of the psychological contract, to explain some
contradictory findings in this area.
In this study, the authors focussed on fun in terms of employee perceptions and
subjective experiences, i.e. the black box between features of a work environment intended
to promote fun and the outcomes of such initiatives. Pryor et al. (2010) suggested that “Fun
is the pleasure you experience while you are involved in some action such as doing
something, seeing something or even relaxing”(p. 294). This definition focusses on
subjective experience, the pleasure an individual experiences when they are engaged in
something they enjoy. Fun is conceptualised as the personal experience of discrete “fun”
activities. Tews and Noe (2017) liken this to the experience of positive affect. In the current
research, the authors use expressions of positive affect by employees to determine whether
fun features of an environment are perceived as enjoyable, drawing the distinction between
an intended fun environment and the experience of fun. While one can refer to a fun
workplace in a descriptive sense, the individual interpretation and subsequent experience of
the environment is inherently subjective. However, while we foreground the individual
subjective experience of fun, ontologically we see this experience as emerging from the
interplay of individual sense-making and social/organisational contexts (see Ashforth and
Schinoff, 2016). As Plester and Hutchison (2016) pointed out, fun at work is a complex
phenomenon that is:
[…] socially constructed between organizational members […] we need to understand fun as a
multi-layered concept that is simultaneously collective whilst being also experienced in an
individual and personal way (p. 333).
521
Subjective
experience of
fun at work
To continue reading
Request your trial