The fun paradox
| Published date | 07 April 2015 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-04-2013-0037 |
| Pages | 380-398 |
| Date | 07 April 2015 |
| Author | Barbara Plester,Helena Cooper-Thomas,Joanne Winquist |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Industrial/labour relations |
The fun paradox
Barbara Plester and Helena Cooper-Thomas
University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, and
Joanne Winquist
Consultant, Auckland, New Zealand
Abstract
Purpose –Fun means different things to different people and the purpose of this paper is to attempt to
answer the question “what is fun at work?”. Given that perceptions of fun differ among people,
the answer is that a pluralistic concept of fun best captures different notions of what constitutes
fun at work.
Design/methodology/approach –The research combines two separate studies. The first is an
in-depth ethnographic project involving interviews, participant observations and document collection
investigating fun and humour in four different New Zealand companies. The second study extends
findings from the first by specifically asking participants to reply to survey questions asking “what is
fun at work?”.
Findings –Currently fun is described in a variety of ways by researchers using different descriptors
for similar concepts. Combining current conceptions of fun with the own research the authors
categorize the complex notion of workplace fun into three clear categories: organic, managed and task
fun. This tripartite conception of fun combines and extends current models of fun and collates earlier
findings into a synthesized model of fun. The investigation found that fun is ambiguous and
paradoxical which creates issues for both managers and employees. The authors recognize fun as
a multifaceted concept and use paradox theory and the concept of flow to theorize the multilateral fun
framework.
Practical implications –The authors find significant implications for managers in regards to
creating and fostering fun in the organizational context. Differing perceptions of fun may result in
misunderstandings that can negatively impact morale and workplace relationships. A wider
conceptualization of fun offers potential for more harmonious and productive workplaces and creates
a greater tolerance for competing and paradoxical perceptions of fun.
Originality/value –Current literature on workplace fun uses a variety of descriptors of fun and
emphasizes a duality between managed and organic forms of fun. In suggesting a new term “task fun”
the authors synthesize earlier conceptions of fun to create an integrated model of fun. The model
clearly outlines three overlapping yet paradoxical categories of fun.
Keywords Paradox, Fun, Organization, Workplace, Flow, Humour
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Our research attempts to answer the question “what is fun at work?”.Dictionary
definitions of fun reference elements of enjoyment, amusement, playfulness and pleasure
and all of these elements may be relevant in modern workplaces. Lamm and Meeks (2009)
offer a specific definitionof workplace fun as “playful social, interpersonal, recreational, or
task activities intended to provide amusement, enjoyment, or pleasure”(p. 614). However,
fun means different things to different people. These different perceptions of fun are based
on demographic differences, hierarchy, role requirements and diversity among people.
In spite of these differences in perceptions, fun is primarily associated with positive
outcomes for organizations such as applicant attraction (Tews et al., 2012), job satisfaction
(Karl and Peluchette, 2006a, b), work engagement, task performance and organizational
Employee Relations
Vol. 37 No. 3, 2015
pp. 380-398
©Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/ER-04-2013-0037
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
The authors wish to acknowledge and thank the two anonymous reviewers for their guidance
and suggestions.
380
ER
37,3
citizenship behaviour (Fluegge, 2008). Indeed these positive benefits of fun are a key
reason why it is an emergent focus for research.
Although fun seems a worthwhile cause to sponsor, the multiple and potentially
conflicting conceptions of fun make it difficult to promote equally to all employees.
In our study we identify three forms of fun: organic, which emerges from employees;
managed, which stems from managers; and task, which results from an interaction
of employees with the tasks they are assigned. This tripartite division recognizes fun as
a multifaceted concept (Tews et al., 2012), yet these three aspects of fun have not been
extensively explored in previous research. The three types of fun may potentially
compete or even result in misunderstandings that can negatively impact mo rale and
workplace relationships. Hence this division reveals the underlying tensions of paradox
inherent in workplace fun. This has implications for how fun is enacted, encouraged
and even managed in organizations (Warren and Fineman, 2007a).
By using the notion of paradox and in particular the dynamic equilibrium model
(Smith and Lewis, 2011), we contend that all three forms of fun may operate
simultaneously. Smith and Lewis’model allows us to examine fun from multiple angles
even when these differing conceptions are opposing and paradoxical. We also invoke
Csikszentmihalyi’s (1975, 2000) concept of “flow”to help understand how our
participants experience a level of enjoyment and absorption in their work tasks that
they then construct and perceive as a form of workplace fun. In exploring the
underlying tension inherent in the notion of fun we find significant implications for
managers in regards to creating fun events, and fostering fun in the everyday
organizational context.
Fun is important to people at work, influencing turnover, attraction to different roles
and industries, affecting personal enjoyment, and impacting upon personal
relationships (Tews et al., 2013). In exploring the concept of workplace fun, we make
two main contributions to the literature. First, by combining earlier research and our
empirical data, we re-conceptualize current conceptions of workplace fun and we adopt
the term “task fun”as we further investigate the idea that fun is experienced within
actual work tasks. We then synthesize the extant literature and our data to
conceptualize workplace fun as a tripartite model including: managed; organic;
and task fun. Second, our use of the dynamic equilibrium model of paradox (Smith and
Lewis, 2011) as our theoretical framework is novel in fun research. This framework
allows us to work with the plurality of competing and overlapping experiences of fun
discussed by our participants. Our suggested model of fun encapsulates a clea rer
pluralistic framework that offers future researchers an updated theoretical platform
from which they can further extend the popular and emerging focus on workplace fun.
Paradox
Our focus is on workplace fun and we are examining this using paradox theory.
Paradox involves opposites (Clegg et al., 2002), with the key feature being
“the simultaneous presence of contradictory, even mutually exclusive elements”
(Cameron and Quinn, 1988, p. 2). Paradox can be viewed as two opposite poles that are
the “extremes of a continuum”(Clegg et al., 2002, p. 485). Paradox is a common
occurrence in many aspects of organizational life, operation and social relations
(Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2009; Clegg et al., 2002; Cameron and Quinn, 1988;
Eisenhardt, 2000). Organizations are key sites for paradox since their quest to be
ordered and controlled (“organized”) conflicts with elements of freedom, creativity and
human autonomy (Clegg et al., 2002). Hence although on first glance paradox may be
381
The fun
paradox
To continue reading
Request your trial