Workplace boredom coping: health, safety, and HR implications
| Published date | 14 August 2007 |
| Date | 14 August 2007 |
| Pages | 701-721 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480710774007 |
| Author | Annilee M. Game |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Workplace boredom coping:
health, safety, and HR
implications
Annilee M. Game
Norwich Business School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate how people cope with boredom at work, and
whether differences in “boredom coping” effectiveness are associated with differences in employee
well-being, and safety behaviour.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors used two methods to gather information for this
paper. Employees in a chemical processing organisation (n¼212) completed a survey of individual
boredom coping levels, self-reported safety compliance, and a range of well-being variables. Also,
critical incident interviews with a sub-sample of survey respondents (n¼16) elicited strategies that
employees use to cope with boredom at work.
Findings – High boredom-copers reported better well-being and greater compliance with
organisational safety rules compared with low boredom-copers. Relative to low boredom-copers,
high boredom-copers tended to cope with boredom in ways that were more functional for themselves
and the organisation.
Research limitations/implications – Because the research was exploratory and cross-sectional
conclusions are necessarily tentative. However, the findings add to the scant body of knowledge about
workplace boredom and serve as a useful guide to future research.
Practical implications – This approach offers new insights into how the negative effects of
boredom might be managed in future, both individually and organisationally. Training in boredom
coping skills, in conjunction with job redesign initiatives, may help to reduce the frequency and impact
of boredom at work.
Originality/value – Boredom at work is an important yet neglected area of human resource
management research. The present study is the first to examine the construct of “boredom coping” at
work and to demonstrate a potential link between differences in boredom coping tendency and
employee health and safety outcomes.
Keywords Boredom, Healthand safety, Workplace, Job satisfaction
Paper type Research paper
Boredom at work is widespread, being experienced at least some of the time, by most
employees, at all occupational levels (Fisher, 1993; Guest et al., 1978; Keichell, 1984).
Moreover, boredom has been linked to many negative outcomes for indivi duals and
organisations (Fisher, 1993). Unfortunately, although there is growing recognition of
the importance of emotions generally in the workplace (Ashkanasy et al., 2002), the
study of boredom at work remains as neglected today as Fisher (1993) noted over a
decade ago. Traditional theories of job enrichment and job redesign (e.g. Hackman and
Oldham, 1976, 1980; Herzberg, 1966) suggest that by changing the nature of a job,
particularly intrinsic characteristics such as variety and skill utilisation, employees
will experience greater interest and satisfaction. However, so little is know n about the
nature and causes of boredom that job design alone should not be considered a panacea
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
Workplace
boredom coping
701
Received May 2005
Revised March 2006
Accepted June 2006
Personnel Review
Vol. 36 No. 5, 2007
pp. 701-721
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/00483480710774007
(Shackleton, 1981). Research on “boredom coping” may offer a complementary
solution. While everyone experiences boredom at least occasionally, some are better at
coping with it than others (Hamilton et al., 1984). By understanding how different
employees counteract or prevent feelings of boredom at work it may be possible to
tailor job enrichment and training interventions for individuals who cope less
effectively. This may be especially useful for employees with jobs in which some
monotony (a key risk factor for boredom) is unavoidable. As a preliminary step
towards understanding boredom coping, the present study focuses on how individuals
cope with boredom at work, and the links between boredom coping and individual
well-being and safety behaviour.
The nature of boredom at work
As with emotions in general, boredom has so far eluded precise construct definition,
and this may be a key factor in the paucity of research on boredom. Nevertheless, it is
possible to characterise boredom based on the findings of existing empirical research.
Many researchers consider arousal as a core mechanism underlying the experie nce of
boredom (Shackleton, 1981). Studies using physiological measures of arousal (e.g.
blood pressure, galvanic skin response) have produced conflicting results (e.g. Bailey
et al., 1976; London et al., 1972). However, research using mood adjective descriptors of
self-report arousal indicates more consistently that boredom is related to low
(subjective) arousal (e.g. Russell, 1980; Warr, 1987, 1990). Other research has shown
that boredom is associated with subjective perception of the slower passage of time
(Ornstein, 1970; London and Monell, 1974). Additionally, attentional difficulties – such
that to continue with the task requires extra cognitive effort - are demonstrably centr al
to the experience of boredom (Damrad-Frye and Laird, 1989; Fisher, 1998). Notably, the
everyday experience of “normal” boredom (in contrast to chronic/pathological
boredom, Fenichel, 1951), involves a generally short-lived lack of interest that is
usually alleviated by a change of situation (O’Hanlon, 1981). This paper adopts a
working definition offered by Fisher (1993, p. 396) that incorporates these elements.
Thus, boredom is: “an unpleasant, transient affective state in which the individual feels
a pervasive lack of interest in and difficulty concentrating on the current activity”. A
conceptual distinction to note is that boredom – an individual’s affective reaction to
job conditions – differs from monotony, which is a property of the task or job
characterised by sustained lack of variety, or repetitiveness.
Correlates of boredom at work
To date, there is no comprehensive theory of boredom per se, let alone feelings of
boredom experienced at work (Fisher, 1993). Instead, research has focused on
identifying a range of individual and work-related variables that are associated with
boredom (Shackleton, 1981). Research investigating the individual level correlates of
boredom has focused on demographic and personality factors. This research shows
that not all individuals are equally likely to experience boredom in a given situation.
Boredom may be moderated by differences in age, gender, intelligence, and tenure
(Drory, 1982; Hill, 1975a; Stagner, 1975). Specifically, the profile of the more easily
bored employee depicts a younger, intelligent male, with relatively high tenure. In
addition, a robust finding is that extroverts also have a lower threshold for boredom
(O’Hanlon, 1981). Finally, individuals who score highly on measures of Boredom
PR
36,5
702
To continue reading
Request your trial