Workplace Fun and Its Correlates: A Conceptual Inquiry

Abstract

This article addresses the concept of workplace fun as a real phenomenon which has distinct causes and consequences, some of which we discuss in this article. We also present a fun continuum which says that workplace fun is not or nothing situation. Rather, workplace fun is experienced along a continuum of less fun to more fun. The importance of this theory is that it encourages organizational leaders to realize that (1) Some factors decrease (while other factors increase) the potential for workplace fun; (2) They and other stakeholders can work together to increase the extent to which people experience workplace pleasure; and (3) Workplace fun positively impacts key performance indicators which can result in increased employee morale, higher creativity and innovation, better performance, greater organizational commitment, and lower turnover. The concept of workplace fun has hypothesized correlates which we intend to investigate empirically in future research, especially in the area of employee performance. Introduction Workplace fun is not an oxymoron. Fun is enjoyment, pleasure. Fun is the pleasure you experience while you are involved in some action such as doing something, seeing something, or even relaxing. This paper discusses fun at work, i.e., experiencing pleasure while performing work for which one is paid money. Fun at work is not an all or nothing situation (i.e., no fun or 100% fun). Instead, fun at work is experienced along a continuum, that implies one can experience less or more fun at work and that there are factors that can decrease or increase the pleasure that one experiences at work. Therefore, this paper delves into the following three questions: (1) What factors decrease workplace fun? (2) What factors increase workplace fun? And (3) Why should we care about fun in the workplace or how does the existence of workplace fun positively impact safety, quality, employee absenteeism and turnover, and other key performance indicators? Padilla, Hogan, and Kaiser (2007) believe that a toxic triangle exists that is comprised of leaders, susceptible followers and conducive environments, . . . and they note that leadership emphasizes negative outcomes for organizations and individuals linked with and affected by them (p. 176). In other words, there is a confluence of leader, follower, and environmental factors that make destructive leadership possible (Padilla, et al, 2007, p. 176). This paper proposes that there are factors that could decrease fun (or contribute to limited fun) in the workplace such as: (1) Negative culture and work environment; (2) Management inadequacies and failures; (3) Non-management inadequacies and failures; and (4) Systems and structure inadequacies. While this paper supports the concept that the elements that Padilla, et al (2007) describe as the toxic triangle negatively impact the work environment, other factors (e.g., systems and structure inadequacies) also have the potential of decreasing fun at work. Correlates of a Lack of Workplace Fun Workplace fun can be dramatically decreased by a negative work culture and dysfunctional work environment. Such negative cultures and environments often do not tolerate creativity and suggestions for improvement; they allow gossip, harassment, and violence; and/or they are rife with distrust and fear. Van Fleet and Van Fleet (2007) emphasize that management and non-management employees must begin to understand and help improve dysfunctional work environments. Yet managers of dysfunctional work environments often contribute to the negativism as they micromanage, abuse power, lack anger management skills, threaten and demean others, and/or engage in other illegal, unethical, or de-motivating behavior. As a result, this negatively impacts the work culture, and good employees may leave; quality, productivity, and profit decrease; costs increase; and stress and frustration increase (Pryor, Taneja, Singleton and Gautam, 2008). …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 36 citations exist upstream.