Questions and Answers about Fun at Work
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Questions and Answers about
Fun at Work
Robert C. Ford, University of Central Florida; Frank S. McLaughlin, University of North Florida; John W. Newstrom,
University of Minnesota-Duluth
ecently, much has been said about "tun at work" environments and their importance for employee
R morale and productivity. Yet, there is no serious empirical or theoretical work on the nature or con-
sequences of having fun in organizations. In this article we discover, through the eyes of practicing
human resource managers, what a fun work environment is, its component characteristics, and its
advantages for employees, work teams, and organizations. We also discover the specific types of things these
human resource managers' organizations use to promote a fun work environment. Data were gathered from
a national e-mail survey of human resource managers. There were 572 usable replies. The human resource
managers strongly favor promoting a fun work environment because they believe such environments offer
great benefits both to the individual and the organization. To them, fun working environments are here to stay,
not just another passing managerial fad.
18 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING
Hardly a day goes by without reading an inter- Disney, 1994. p. 80). Disney worked hard to
view wilh a prominent executive or hearing a instill this philosophy as a core value of the com-
knowledgeable observer suggest that having fun pany he created, and the Walt Disney Corporation
at work is important for employee morale and is still an exemplar of customer service today.
productivity (see, for example: Meyer, 1999; Although the frequency of its discussion in
Strand, 2000; Workforce. 2000; and Zbar, 1999). the popular press indicates there is much practi-
Authors of popular business books add further tioner interest on this topic, there is no serious
support for the importance of having fun at work. empirical or theoretical work on the nature or
These include Tom Peter's In Pursuit of Wow consequences of having fun in organizations.
{1994). Deal and Key's Corporate Celebration There is not even a generally accepted definition
{1998). Schneider and BowenVs Winning the of what constitutes a fun work environment or
Service Game (1995). and Kouzes and Posner"s any agreement on what an organization can do
The Leadership Challenge (1995). Kouzes and to promote a fun work setting. While there are
Posner exemplify the general theme of these writ- some who write about play, humor, and a positive
ers by concluding, "If you—and others—aren't organizational culture, the lack of any specific
having fun doing what you're doing, chances are definition of a fun work environment means the
people aren't doing the best they can do" (p. 59). many discussions of its importance lack general
Similar sentiments are echoed by many writers in application or specific ideas as to what works and
the trade press (see, for example: Boczany, 1985; what does not.
Casison, 2000; Gordon, 1992; ^ ^ ^ ^
^^^^^^ The purpose of this article is to dis-
Hemsath, 1997; Kitchel, 1996; ^ ^ ^ cover, through the eyes of practicing
Mariotti, 1999; McGhee, 2000; human resource managers, what is a
Southwest knows
Millis, 1999; and National fun work environment, its component
Underwriter. 1999). that if it is to characteristics, and its advantages
Fun also gets strong endorsements for employees, work teams, and orga-
achieve its core
from respected practitioners. Chili's nizations. We also discover the specif-
fonner CEO, Norm Brinkcr. acknowl- principle, "Make ic activities these human resource
edges the importance of creating a flying fun," for its managers report are done by their
fun work environment in his book. organizations to promote a fun work
On the Brink {Brinker & Phillips, customers, it environment. We oriented our study
1996), by stating, "If you have fun at must make its to address eight questions that the
what you do, you'll never work a day current body of writing on fun at
in your life. Make work like play— employees* jobs work leaves unanswered.
and play like hell" (p, 195). Freiberg fun first. Human resource managers were
and Freiberg (1996) add further chosen for this survey for two reasons.
emphasis to the importance of having fun at First, they are typically responsible for adminis-
work. They describe the type of people Southwest tering programs that focus on increasing the value
Airlines seeks in its hiring process: "First and of the organization's human resources, and they
foremost. Southwest Airlines looks for a sense carefully study the impact that various programs
of humor....We look for attitudes; people with a and activities have on those human resources.
sense of humor who don't take themselves too Thus, more than any other member of the man-
seriously....with other-directed, outgoing person- agement team, they are most likely to be aware
alities, individuals who become part of an extended of how employees feel about their working envi-
family of people, who work hard and have fun at ronment and how that environment, including its
the same time" (p. 67). Southwest knows that if .sense of being a fun workplace, affects behavior
it is to achieve its core principle. "Make flying and attitudes at work. Second, probably more
fun," for its customers, it must make its employ- than any other potential group to survey, they
ees' jobs fun first. have thought about what actually makes or could
Walt Disney, the man who established the make their organization a fun place to work.
benchmark of service for service organizations, Data were gathered, with permission, through
knew the importance of having fun at work as a national e-mail survey of members of the
reflected in his statement. "You don't work for a Society for Human Resource Management
dollar—you work to create and have fun" (Walt (SHRM). (See the Appendix for a condensed
HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 19
version of the survey questionnaire.) may be seen as good news, it really is not. When
Approximately 4.000 randomly selected members considered in light of the other two questions, it
received a questionnaire asking for their opinion likely means that while these respondents thought
on issues related to fun at work. There were 572 their company was somewhere about average, it
usable replies. Selected demographic characteris- was not very good. In other words, they believe
tics of the respondents, such as age and geographic that even though their organizations were no
location, were statistically compared with the better or worse than others, they still had a long
total membership of SHRM and no significant way to go to be the kind of fun work environment
differences were found. The question.s focu.sed they felt was desirable.
on managerial concerns about whether or not
creating a fun work environment was worth What Makes a Work
whatever time and effort it would take. We hoped Environment Fun?
to discover if the reasons offered by the many
writers arguing in favor of promoting fun at work One of the more challenging issues for manager
were valid. Although we offer descriptive data, wishing to create a fun work environment is to
our results add an important new understanding determine exactly what makes a work environment
to this largely unstudied issue. fun. Academic literature offers little guidance, so
the effort to determine which activities contribute
Are Employees Having as Much to a fun work environment relies heavily on the
Fun at Work as Managers Think anecdotal practitioner literature and consultants'
books (see. for example: Hemsath &
They Should? Yerkes.l997:Weinstein. 1996; Yerkes. 2001.)
The simple answer is no. Our human resource One writer suggests workplace morale and pro-
manager sample was asked to compare what they ductivity improve when introducing quirky
thought the level of fun ought to be in their orga- workplace activities, group lunches, or after-hours
nizations compared to their perception of the outings (Hale. 2002). Others suggest Halloween
actual level of fun they thought their employees partie.s—according to a SHRM Benet"its survey,
were having. The responses show that the report- more than one-third of reporting organizations
ed level of fun in organizations is surprisingly offered some sort of Halloween celebration
low. Less than a fourth thought the amount was (Lucas, 2000). Although many creative sugges-
about right. On the other hand, three-fourths tions are made, we wanted to learn what organi-
thought their employees were having less fun zations seeking to introduce fun into their work
at work than they should. Only three percent environments actually do to create this fun.
indicated there was too much fun in their organi- To obtain this data, the questionnaire con-
zations. To expand on this question, managers tained 10 general categories of fun activities
were also asked how often employees should frequently mentioned in the literature as good
be able to experience fun in their organizations. ways to promote a fun work environment. These
More than 75 percent of the respondents indicated 10 items included celebrations, entertainment,
employees should have this opportunity frequently playing games, having friendly competitions.
or often. On the opposite side of this issue, social events, and humor, interestingly, humor
less than three percent of the respondents said and play have their own literature (see. for
infrequently or never. example, Duncan, et al.. 1990). In addition, our
Finally, as one more approach to answering respondents received a separate list of 23 specific
this question, the managers were asked, on a items to determine if they used any or all of these
scale of I to 10. how they rated their organiza- items to create a fun work environment in their
tions with regard to its fun work environment. organizations. Finally, a "write-in" provision
Approximately one-fifth of the respondents rated allowed the respondents to list as many as three
their organizations with a score of three or less additional activities their organizations used that
and approximately the same number rated their were not already mentioned. These three mea-
firm at eight or better. The remainder of the sures gave us a fairly comprehensive answer to
respondents rated their organizations in the middle. the question about what types and frequencies of
which we interpret as meaning they think their activities these human resource managers use to
own organizations are about average. While that det~me what creates a fun work environment.
20 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING
Frequency of Activities That Contribute to a Fun Work Environment
Category of Activities Mean Scores
Recognition of personal milestones (e.g., birthdays, hiring anniversiiries) 3.4
Sociai events (e.g.. picnies. parties, social gatherings) 3.2
Public celebrations of professional achievements (e.g., award banquets) 3.2
Opportunities for community volunteerism (e.g., civic groups) 2.8
Stress release activities (e.g., exercise facilities, massages) 2.6
Humor (e.g., cartoons, jokes in newsletters, emails) 2,4
Games(e.g., dans, bingo, company-sponsored athlelic teams) 2.2
Friendly competitions among employees (e.g., attendance, sales contests) 2.2
Opportunities for personal development (e.g., quilting class, book club) 2.0
Entertainment (e.g., bands, skits, plays) 1.9
U.sing the list (if general categories of fun Entertainment was the least used of the categories.
activities, the respondents rated each item on its The results presented in Exhibit 2 give more
frequency of use. Responses were made on a 5- details about what specifically creates a fun work
point scale that ranged from "not at all" (1) to environment. Respondents were asked to indicate
•"extensively" (5), and mean scores were devel- whether their organizations participated in 23
oped to report the results. As seen in Exhibit I, different activities that we found mentioned in
the three most frequently practiced categories of the popular literature. Exhibit 2 is divided into
activities related to personal milestones, followed two groups. The first group includes those items
closely by fun social events and public celebrations reported as used by more than 80 percent of the
of professional achievements. The mean scores on respondents. The most frequently mentioned or
the Exhibit also reveal the lack of general use of "big three" were casual dress days, employee
even these popularly mentioned activities to pro- recognition and rewards, and company-provided
mote a fun work environment. A "3" represents a food and refreshments.
middle-range score, so it is surprising to see the
The second group lists less frequently used
lack of strong support for even obvious types of
activities, but still used by one-fifth to one-half of
celebratory activities that promote fun at work.
the reporting organizations. In this category are a
Percentage of Organizations Using Fun Activities
Frequently Used Activities Percent Using
C'asuiii dress diiys 84
Employee recognition and rewards 83
Company-provided food and refreshments 82
Less Frequently Used Strategies -^^^^^.
Bring-your-child-to- work day 44
Costumes days (e.g., iigly socks or Halloween Costumes) 39
Release time for community projects (e.g.. habitat, bkx)d drives) 34
Photos and funny captions (e.g., most beautiful baby cotitests) 27
Special props (e.g., balloons, flowers, hats, signs) 24
Fun (or "joy'") committees 2t
Exercise room 21
Creative skits and songs for company events 20
HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 21
wide array of activities that span many interesting variety of different names. These included weight
ideas as to what contributes to a fun work envi- clubs, weight watchers, weight reduction clubs,
ronment. These include tbe obvious activities of and Jack Sprat.
having costume dress-up days, using funny props There is no shortage of efforts to do things
to liven up the work environment, and creating that arc fun. Many of these ideas still follow the
committees ot employees (fun committees) who old tradition of using meals or eating together as
are responsible for lightening up the work envi- a way to celebrate important occasions and signi-
ronment. Also in this category are less obvious fy friendship and fellowship. Whatever these
items such as bring-your-child-to-work days, managers believe are the activities that lead to
employee release time for community projects, a fun work environment, they are still fairly
and exercise rooms. well focused on traditional celebratory events
The remaining 12 items, not shown in the involving food.
Exhibit, were activities used by between 3 and 19
percent of the responding managers and included Definition
such things as hiring professional entertainers, To summarize what can be learned from these
creating employee musical groups, and offering three different efforts to capture whai character-
employees stress-reduction rooms. izes a fun work environment, there are many
These responses tell us two important things: different definitions and little consensus as to
I) nearly everyone does three specific what is involved in creating a fun
activities to promote a fun work envi- work environment. The most com-
ronment; 2) there is a wide variation Many of these mon strategies involve celebrations
in the other activities organizations or special events accompanied by
ideas still follow
offer to create a fun work environment. food. There are other activities such
There is no widespread consensus as the old tradition us community work projects and
to which activities work best. Indeed, exercise programs that at first glance
of using meals or
the top three activities seem relatively seem to be unusual ways to promote
traditional. These results also re- eating together a fun work environment. Doing these
emphasize the diversity of opinion as a way to cele- supports the idea that a fun work
about what makes a fun work envi- environment represents a combina-
ronment fun as seen in Exhibit I. brate important tion of factors that collectively add
occasions and sig- up to tangibly and publicly showing
In a separate section of our ques-
concern for the person, that person's
tionnaire, the respondents had three nify friendship achievements and worth, and the
open-ended opportunities to provide
and fellowship. desire to make that person believe
other examples of what their organi-
that the organization is a good place
zations did to create a fun work
to be. The respondents seem to
environment. This led to one of the
believe that the cumulative impact of these
most surprising results of the study. In a world of
diverse types of "fun" activities is to create a
time-pressured people, over 30 percent of these
corporate culture that shows a sense of apprecia-
busy human resource managers took the time to
tion of and respect for the employee and that
write down over 4(X) different items. While many
will allow that person to conclude that this
of these were variations of items already on the
organization is a fun place to work.
list, these managers offered additional unique and
novel ways their organizations were promoting On the basis of what these respondents report-
fun at work. ed, we offer the following working definition of a
The majority of these items represented some fun work environment: "A fun work environment
way of celebrating a personal achievement or intentionally encourages, initiates, and supports a
having some unique social event. Most of these variety of enjoyable and pleasurable activities that
included food. Company picnics were written in positively impact the attitude and productivity
27 times, more than any other item. Other food of individuals and groups." This might be more
events including chili cook-offs, Friday buffets, succinctly stated as "a work environment that
anniversary dinners, donuts together, and ice makes people smile." These responding managers
cream socials. Interestingly, "food reduction'" indicate that a fun work setting is created through
activities were also mentioned frequently under a actions, including funny, humorous, or playful
22 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING
activities, that publicly communicate manage- job satisfaction, and levels of experiencing pleas-
ment's belief to the employee that the personal ant emolions and mood.s (Diener. 1999). Other
and professional accomplishments he or she has authors, like Perrin (1998), state that, "Common
achieved are valued by the organization. While sense supports the theory that having fun at
this definition seems similar in many ways to work helps generate profitable business" (p. 40).
traditional motivation theory and its explanation She suggests other important benefits for the
of the factors that lead to job satisfaction, a fun organization such as lower turnover and fewer
work environment goes beyond mere job satisfac- stres.s-related problems.
tion. Our respondents report a broad array of This question then is an important one for
activities that collectively communicate a sense managers to answer. The organization does not
of pleasantness, happiness, and positive well- want to create problems for itself or its people by
being that makes working not only satisfying promoting a fun work environment. On the other
but also tun. hand, it does wish to gain benefits sufficient to
offset any costs it incurs in promoting a fun work
What Are the Advantages and environment. Thus, we a.sked managers several
questions about the advantages and disadvantages
Disadvantages of a Fun writers and observers associate with a fun work
Environment for the environment. Responses were made on a five-
Organization? point scale with response categories ranging from
"substantial decrease" to "substantial increase."
An increasing body of evidence indicates that The results are given in Exhibits 3. The top part
a positive organizational environment or fun work of the Exhibit lists potential advantageous out-
culture is a valuable asset for organizations (Ford comes, and the bottom part lists potential disad-
& Heaton. 2000). Luthans (2002) talks about vantageous outcomes of endorsing and creating
the value of subjective well being (SWB) as a a fun work environment. One column of results
combines "substantial and moderate increases"
contributor to a positive organizational behavior.
responses (improvement), and the second column
The linkage between working in a fun work envi-
of results combines "substantial and moderate
ronment and having a sense of well being seems
increases" responses with "no effect" responses
somewhat obvious and the SWB concept incorpo-
(improvement and no change).
rates a number of factors such as life satisfaction.
Effect of Fun Work Environments on Organizations
Percent Reporting
Advantage Improvement Improvement
and No Change
Attract new employees 94 97
Communications among employees 92 96
Commilment to the organization 88 97
Cusiomer satisfaction 87 96
Strength of corporate culture 85 96
Employee turnover 78 87
Quality of employee productivity 74 93
Absenteeism rates 72 78
Speed of learning new tasks during training 59 85
I'ndcrstaniJing of organization's mission 55 93
Disadvantage OMEnHBraSliw||llj»ia|||
Accident rates mmmm•Hi
Professionalism at work 45
33 77
86
Frequency of employee errors 32 88
Cost of operations 28 64
Repons of sexual harassment 21 8t
Equipment damage by playfulness 14 84
HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 23
In sum, Exhibit 3 shows the respondents These responses are encouraging and lead us
believe a fun work environment has a positive to conclude there are few or no disadvantages to
impact by improving advantageous outcomes promoting a fun work environment and some real
and a lesser but still positive effect on disadvanta- advantages. Creating a fun work environment is
geous outcomes. Human resource managers see worth serious consideration by all managers. The
little negative impact of any of the items measured. degree to which people find working in a fun
even on the disadvantageous outcomes. work environment makes the organization a desir-
This list offers some good news and some able place to work is important.
better news. The good news is that the advantages Lawler (1992) notes several of the factors we
claimed in the literature are seen by the responding assessed in our study as important contributors to
managers as positive advantages for their organi- a high-involvement organization. In his review of
zations. These managers believe having fun at the types of rewards high-involvement organiza-
work leads to a number of beneficial outcotnes, tions should make available to employees, he
such as a greater ability to attract new employees, states, "When work units are successful, managers
improved turnover and absenteeistii, better com- should be sure that everyone involved is acknowl-
munication among employees, greater employee edged and that celebrations and other forms of
comtTiitment to the organization, an improved recognition occur. This recognition can be some-
organizational culture, and ;in increase in thing as small as a pizza for everyone; a day of
customer satisfaction. The high per- casual attire: a chance to go home
centage agreements shown in Exhibit early; a meeting in which a senior
3 offer strong support for the idea According to manager acknowledges the employ-
that organizations can gain several ees' good work: or a special party,
important advantages from promoting these respon-
dinner or weekend excursion" (p. 195).
fun at work. dents, even the Later, he adds, "A skilled high
On the other side of this issue perceived disad- involvement manager needs to devel-
is the respondents' evaluation of op the ability to give social rewards to
vantages of pro-
the items noted in the literature as groups and individuals who perform
disadvantages of having a fun work moting a fun particularly well" (p. 195). Our data
environment. Here the good news affirm and illustrate the importance of
work environment
gets even better. According to these these types of factors in creating a fun
respondents, even the perceived dis- are not really work environment. Indeed, it might be
advantages of promoting ;i fun work argued that a fun work environment is
disadvantages.
environment are not really disadvan- the result of the successful practice of
tages. Indeed, as indicated in the high-involvement management.
•'Improvement or No Change" column, no
expected disadvantage item gets fewer than six
out of 10 respondents agreeing that having fun
What Are the Advantages and
at work either improves the situation or has no Disadvantages of a Fun
effect at all. Environment for the Employee?
With the exception of the somewhat obvious
"cost of operations," the other noted disadvan- The other side of the organization's equation
tages were clustered around 80 percent where relates to the advantages and disadvantages for
the respondents believed the situation would be the employee and his or her work group. Here
improved iti a fun work environment or would again, existing literature generally supports the
have not been affected at all. In a separate calcu- idea that there are both advantages and disadvan-
lation (not reported in the exhibit), the disadvan- tages for the employee. It is believed that happy
tages leaned in the direction of indicating that any or satisfied workers suffer less stress, show high-
effect a fun work environment has on the expect- er levels of organizational citizen behaviors, miss
ed disadvantages may in fact be positive. In other less work, are more creative, and have better,
words, rather than increasing accidents, equip- more rewarding friendships at work than those
ment damage, cost of operating, or even reports who are not happy. Based on this literature, we
of sexual harassment, fun work environments asked the surveyed managers to indicate what
tended slightly to lessen these possible negatives. they thought the advantages and disadvantages of
24 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING
Effect of Fun Work Environments on Employees
Percent Reporting
Advantage Improvement Improvement
and No Change
Employee enthusiasm 95 %
Group cohesiveness 94 97
Employee satisfaction 96 96
Employee creativity 92 96
Friendships ai work 91 91
Organizational citizenship 85 97
Employee anxiety and stress 84 85
Complaints of boredom 82 87
Mutual trust among employees 79 97
Disadvantage
liiicrpcrsonai conflicts 72 89
Respect among coworkers 63 95
Respect from higher ups 46 88
Work taketi seriously by other departments 38 87
a fun work environment were lor their employees. respondents who believe a fun work environment
Their responses are presented in Exhibit 4, in the results in improvements in the important individ-
.same format as Exhibit 3. ual outcomes.
Exhibit 4 shows, in descending order, the The respondents did not see the expected dis-
percentage of managers reporting improvement in advantages as real disadvantages. The high level
each outcome. A high percentage indicates strong of agreement that fun work environments lead to
agreement from our respondents that the expected decreases in interpersonal conflicts dispels the
advantage was an actual advantage. The low per- popular notion that creating a fun environment
centage numbers seen at the bottom of the table can cause increases in such conflicts or that work
where the disadvantages are hsted means the groups that are having fun are not likely to have
respondent saw no increase in the items claimed the respect of other departments or top manage-
to be disadvantages. Exhibit 4 also includes a col- ment. The responding managers believe other-
umn representing the combination of substantial, wise. They indicate that fun work environments
moderate increase, and no change to reflect the lead to an increa.se, instead of a decrease, in
degree to which our responding human resource respect from higher-level management and co-
managers saw little negative impact of any of the workers, and their work is taken seriously by
items measured. other departments.
Reviewing the advantages and disadvantages In the opinion of these human resource man-
and the high level of improvement a fun work agers, the presumed disadvantages of having a
environment can yield, it seems evident these fun work environment, reported in Exhibit 4, are
managers beheve there are many advantages and not true. Indeed, when the "no effect" or neutral
few disadvantages to employees of a fun work percentages are considered, fewer than one out of
environment. The greater than 90 percent positive 10 managers felt any of the items identified from
agreement that a fun work environment leads to the literature as a disadvantage was a disadvan-
increased employee enthusiasm, group cohesive- tage in his or her organization. Instead, these
ness, and employee satisfaction is impressive. respondents felt that the item either led to an
Equally impressive is the degree to which a fun actual improvement in that factor or had no effect
work environment is believed to be associated at all. When we calculated average scores for
with increased employee creativity and friend- these items (not reported in the table), the data
ships at wt)rk. Even the lower- ranked advantages confirm that the degree to which negatives are
gather agreement from almost eight out of 10 seen as negatives is minimal. These managers
HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 25
make a compelling case for the value of creating and friendly competitions. For-profit organizations
fun at work for both the organization and the participate in these activities more frequently than
individual. not-for-profits do. Perhaps there is some concern
by not-for-profits that engaging in these types of
Do Different Types of fun events and activities will show them to he not
Organizations Have Different serious enough about their not-for-profit mission
so they tend to avoid them. For the other seven
Types and Amounts of Fun? fun categories, there is no difference between
Are some types of organizations better able to for-profit and not-for-profit organizations.
have fun than others? Some people believe that Comparing the percentage of the workforce
organizations that sell an intangible service pro- belonging to a union with participation in fun
mote fun work environments more than would a activities is interesting because only fun social
manufacturing organization. Others may believe events and friendly competitions show a signifi-
big organizations have less fun than smaller ones cant and negative relationship. The greater the
As part of the questionnaire, we asked our respon degree of unionization, the lesser the frequency
dents about their organization's characteristics of these two categories of fun. Because many of
to identify which ones, if any, relate significantly the remaining eight types of fun activities may
to the amount of fun in their work environment. fall under a bargaining agreement, the fact that
Items included organizational size. they show no difference based on the
gender of the workforce, the degree degree to which the work force is
of union involvement, whether the There is an unionized is curious and worthy of
organization was a for-profit or not- further investigation. In a comparison
for-profit organization, and the ease inverse relation-
of unionization with an assessment of
of attracting new employees. ship between overall level of fun. the relationship
We conducted a statistical analysis the number of is also negative: The higher the per-
to better understand the direction and centage of unionized employees, the
depth of the relationships between employees in the less likely responding managers will
organizational characteristics and the total organization see their organization as having fun.
different types of fun activities that Finally, with regard to the ease of
were measured in Exhibit 1. An and the amount attracting new employees, almost
analysis shows some interesting of humor, social every type of fun activity is signifi-
things about the relationships cantly related. Those organizations
events, and recog- that have an easier time attracting
between the types of fun different
people seek in different organiza- nition of personal new employees do more fun things
tions. For example, there is an than those that have a harder time.
milestones. The extent to which this is cause and
inverse relationship between the
number of employees in the total effect is unknown, but the fact that
organization and the amount of humor, social so many of these fun activities are associated
events, and recognition of personal milestones. with ease of attracting new employees is impor-
The higger the organization, the less these tant to recognize. It seems fair to conclude that
activities are used. When the number of these responding managers believe a fun work
employees in a specific unit is analyzed, environment makes it easier to attract new
however, only personal development activities employees. The reason this is true may be attrib-
and fun social events are inversely related to uted to the positive organizational culture that
size. The only activity that si/e of organization may he associated with such fun activities. It
and size of unit have in common is fun social seems somewhat obvious that prospective
events. Both report that bigger means fewer employees are more likely to he attracted to
fun social events. organizations that have positive employment
cultures. The array of fun activities this study
Comparing for-profit and non-profit organiza- assesses can be the foundation of a strategy for
tions on the degree to which they participated in organizations seeking to create a positive and
the fun activities listed In Exhibit 1 showed differ- attractive organizational culture.
ences only in the use of games, fun social events.
26 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING
Do Different Types of events and parties, and friendly competitions.
While some of these may be obvious, the reasons
Employees Want Different organizations with older employees offer these
Types and Amounts of Fun? less frequently than organizations with younger
employees are certainly provocative and worthy
To expand upon the answer to the prior ques- of further investigation. In a separate statistical
tion on what types of organizations have what comparison, the relationship between age of man-
types of fun, we also sought to find out if a varia- agers and the overall assessment of the level of
tion in the types of employees had any influence fun in the organization was also negative. Perhaps
on the types and amount of fun sought in the these differences reflect a different age demo-
work environment. Some anecdotal literature graphic and the timeless differences between
suggests older employees are less playful than generations, degree of interest in committing time
younger employees, less-educated employees will and energy to work-related activities, and overall
Hnd different things to be fun than more educated energy levels.
employees, men are more playful than women, On the other hand, that these same differences
and hourly workers seek more fun and different do not show up for non-managers creates a differ-
types of fun aetivities than salaried employees. ent challenge for the non-managerial workforce.
We collected data from the human resources man- The frequency of these activities offered in
agers to offer some insights on these previously organizations with younger managers with one
untested beliefs. exception, friendly competitions, does not repeat
The data show a number of interesting differ- for younger employees. What younger managers
ences in types and amounts of fun activities value as fun activities is not generally reflected
across different employee eharacteristics. For in the answers representing employees. The type
example, the age distribution of the managers and frequency of desired fun activities that appeal
seems to be quite important while the age of to younger versus older managers present an
the workforce appears to be much less so. interesting challenge for those seeking to effec-
Organizations with older managers participate tively manage hoth their managerial and non-
less frequently in five of the 10 types of fun managerial employees. Managing managers and
activities measured. These include celebrations of managing employees require different strategies
professional achievements, offering entertainment to accommodate their differing expectations of
type events, playing games and participating in types of fun activities desired in the job. It is
company-sponsored athletic events, fun social possible that younger managers have a greater
Rationale for Managerial Resistance to Fun
Rationale for Resisting Percent Agreeing
Time constraints (I cannot afford the time) IS2
Financial costs (ll will cost too much) 72
Lack of personal creativity (I don't know how to have fun) 62
Fear of looking silly (I do not want to look stupid) 60
Perceived employee apathy (don't think they would care) 60
There is no evidence that it will work (unproven benefits) 58
Fear of non-support from superiors for fun 58
It is not part of my job 56
Fear of losing control if 1 create a little bit of fun 55
Inconsistent with organization's productivity culture 55
Fear someone will take offense or legat action 53
Some employees will be distracted by fun activities 53
Fear that Department's work would not be taken seriously 48
HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 27awareness that having fun at work can lead to summarized in Exhibit 5. Each item shows the
serious and productive advantages as discussed percent of the managers that responded positively
above under question number three. {above neutral) to the question. How likely is it
Further analysis of these workforce compari- that this rationale will cause managerial resistance
son of fun activities show some other interesting to creating a fun work environment?
points about the value of fun work environments These items can be divided into two groups.
and differences in educational level. This is true The first group represents factors that reflect
for both employees and managers. Organizations a managerial fear that having a fun work
with higher levels of educated managers offer environment will lead to productivity losses,
more personal development activities, recognition create dangerous situations or produce unneces-
of personal milestones, and stress relief activities sary costs. This group contains items like ' i can't
than organizations with less educated managers. afford the time." "it costs too much," and "'there's
The only category showing a difference for the no evidence that it will work." The second group
non-exempt workforce is that more educated represents factors that reflect a fear that having
employees work in organizations that offer more a fun work environment will be seen by others
friendly competitions. This same cat- ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ as somehow unprofessional or be
egory of fun activities also shows up personally embarrassing. This group
as the only significant difference in includes items like. "I don't want to
If fun is as
age of the non-management work- look stupid." "My supervisor would
force. Younger employees are found important to a not condone it," and "We are here to
in organizations that have more fre- productive work work and not play." Each of the thir-
quent friendly competitions. Finally, teen items was agreed to by at least
in comparing male versus female environment forty-eight percent of the respondents.
workforces, organizations offer more One item. "I cannot afford the time,"
... as these
frequent stress release activities to had eighty-two percent of the
managers say it responding managers agreeing.
workforces with higher percentages
of female than males. This is an is, then manage- While these managers may not be
interesting finding that merits further clear as to what exactly constitutes a
ment should
discussion and investigation, because fun work environment, they are clear
it is the only one of the ten activities increase the about what inhibits its creation in
that shows a significant difference. their organizations. The.se factors
level of fun in
generally center on perceived costs
What Inhibits the their work and the negative perceptions of
Creation of a Fun Work environments.
professionalism that a fun work envi-
ronment may create. These responses
Environment? provide both a road map for creating
From the answers to our earlier questions, it is a fun work environment and a list of the road-
clear that most people would like to have more blocks to any such efforts. If fun is as important
fun in their jobs than they are currently having. to a productive work environment and as desired
They believe that doing so will have beneficial as these managers say it is, then management
results for them, their work teams, and their orga- should increase the level of fun in their work
nizations. Much of ihe reason they are not having environments by neutralizing the negative percep-
the level and kinds of fun that they think should tions noted here.
be part of their work environment seems to be Our study data do not allow us to make hard
due to resistance at the supervisory and manageri- claims that creating a fun work environment is
al levels. Sometimes the resistance can be overt a proven method for increasing productivity or
and sometimes it can be more subtle. In order to profits. Yet, some of the results from this survey
better understand the factors that lead to resistance. suggest that such positive outcomes are possible.
the questionnaire listed thirteen items noted in the Indeed, when one considers the beliefs of these
largely anecdotal literature cited above as factors responding managers that a fun work environ-
that prevent employees from having more fun in ment has many advantages, it seems reasonable
the workplace. Responses were made on a nine- to suggest that fmding ways to decrease road
point scale with scale categories labeled from blocks to having more fun at work is worth
"very likely" to "very unlikely." The results are serious consideration.
28 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNINGSome ways that management can signal to managers. On a less positive note, the respon-
ils employees thai fun work environments are dents identified other managers as initiators of
desirable are to formally make policy statements a fun work environment less than one third of
endorsing it and to formally recognize and reward the time. They believe that creating a fun work
employees and supervisors who promote fun at environment is a responsibility of the top man-
work. Our respondents tell us that very little is agement either directly or indirectly through their
currently being done along this line. Less than five articulation and reinforcement of the corporate
percent report their organizations have a formal culture. It seems on the basis of their responses
policy relative lo a fun work environment and that a fun work environment happens only with a
more than ninety-five percent report that there is commitment by the top management even though
no reward for promoting fun at work. If having there is some evidence that individual employees
more fun at work is as important as these respon- who are spirited leaders of fun can also make it
dents believe, there is much work to be done. happen a significant percentage of the time.
Southwest Airlines is the classic example of
Who Makes a Work many visible efforts to promote fun taken by its
famous former CEO, Herh Kelieher. Indeed, the
Environment Fun? quotes at the beginning of this article by Walt
Disney and Norm Brinker give further evidence
Who has the responsibility for creating a fun that these top managers knew iheir role in defin-
work environment? A discussion of this question ing and sustaining a fun culture both by word
frequently appears in the literature. Most believe and action.
that it is the CEO's job. For example, the presi-
dent of Brady Corporation. Katherine Hudson
(2001) emphasizes the importance of her role in
Summary
building a fun culture. She feels that she benefits The human resource managers responding
greatly by lightening up. and she talks about to our questionnaire are very much in favor of
doubling sales and tripling income during her promoting a fun work environment because they
leadership. She concludes. "Our performance is believe such environments offer great benefits
a sign that a company can be fun and friendly for both to the individual and the organization. To
its employees and fierce with its competitors. In them, fun working environments are here to stay
fact, the fun has made us tierce, by making the and are not just another passing managerial fad.
organization more flexible and dynamic. And. I However, they believe that in most ca.ses. the
hope it has made life more enjoyable for people level of a fun environment must be increased if
who work there" (p. 54). organizations are to obtain the many benefits
To addres.s thi.s question, the survey asked the the.se environments provide.
respondents about whom or what was responsible This article reports information received from
for creating a fun work environment. One ques- human resource practitioners that can assist any
tion asked the human resource managers who or manager contemplating the benefits and costs of
what was primarily responsible for providing the promoting a fun work environment in his or her
impetus for fun at work in their units. One-fourth organization. The respondents tell us that having
of iheni indicated it was based on a corporate a fun work environment is a good thing and has
culture. Another fourth indicated it was top many positive and very few negatives for either
management who was primarily responsible for the employee or the organization. We see in their
creating a fun work environment. Since organiza- answers what types of things and activities they
tional scholars suggest that top management's use to promote fun, and what methods are cur-
most important job is defining the corporate cul- rently being used for implementing a fun work
ture. the.se respondents affirmed the importance environment. They also show the potential
of top management in defniing the culture of fun impediments to a fun environment and suggest
(Schein. 1985). If it's going to happen, it must strategies that managers can use to t)vercome
start at the top. these barriers.
What is surprising in this survey data is the The bottom line is that fun in the workplace
discovery that the efforts of the employees them- seems lo be as good as the anecdotal literature
selves were given credit for creating a fun work says it is. The large number of respondents and
environment by seventeen percent of the HR the expertise of Human Resources give us great
HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 29hope that this topic is here to stay and that more References
organizations will be seeking more ways to BcKViiny. W. J. (1985. Aprill. "PrixJuLliviiy Improvement: Making
Work Fun," Journal of Syslenu Managemeni, 45:20-21.
promote a fun work environment. The exact defi-
Brinker. N. Phillips. D.T, (1996). On the Brink: The Ufe and
nition of what constitutes a fun work environment Leadership of Norman Brinker. Arlington: Summit Publishing.
and its exact impact on group productivity. Casison. J. (2000). -Service wiih a Smile," hueniivi: I74f III: 79-80.
individual satisfaction, and organizational Deiil. T.E. & Key. M.K- (1998). Corporate Celebration. San
performance is yet to be di.scovered. However, Francisto: Berretl-Koehler.
these respondents give us considerable reason to Diener. E, (1999). "Subjeclivc Well Being: Three Decade,* of
Progresf.." Psychologiail Bulletin, 125(4): 276002.
believe that when future studies are performed,
Duncan, W.J.Smeltzer. L.R. & Leap. TL. (1990], "Humor and Work:
they will confirm the beliefs of these human Applii:aUi)ns of .kiking Behuvlor to Management." Jounml of
resource managers. We conclude that a fun work Mananemenl. 16(2): 255-27X,
environment is good for the organization, the Ford. R.C. & Heaton, C.P. l2(XX)l. Maiuifiinii ihc Cniesl Kywrienie in
Hospitality. Albany, NY; Delmar.
work team, and the individual employee and
Freiberg, K. & Freiberg. J. (1996). Nuts! Arlington. TX: Bard Press.
should be strongly encouraged and supported
Gordon. J. (19921, "Structured Fun." Training. 29(9): 23-30.
by management at all organizational levels.
Hale, S. (2(K)2). "Don'! Forgel ihe Fun Faclor." C(.-nirdl Florida
Business, Orlando Seniinel. June 24:24.
Biographical Sketches Hemsath, D, (1997). "Are We Having Fun Yet.'" The Journal of
Robert C Ford, PhD. is a professor of manage- Quality ami Particijmtion. 20{ I }:52-4,
ment at the University of Central Florida. His Hemsath, D. & Yerkes. L. (1997). 301 Ways u< Have Fun at Work. Siin
Franciseo: Berretl-Koehler.
doctorate is from Arizona State University. He is
Hudson. K. M. (2U()1). '"Translorming a Ciinservative Company - One
the co-author of several books on subjects that Laugh ai a Time." Harvard Business Review, 79(4): 5-11.
include principles of management, organizational Kilchcl.K, I I9%i. "Yearlong Worijplace Fun."/ntrw/i'^. 170( 10): 59-61.
theory, and hospitality management. His research Kouzes. J.M- & Posner, B.Z. 119951. The U-adership Challenge. San
has appeared in the Journal of Applied Franeisco: Jossey Bass.
Psychology, The Academy of Management Lawler. E.E. (1992), The Uliimaie Advmuage: Creating the High-
Involvement Organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Journal, Journal of Management, California
Lucas, J, (2(XX)), "Halloween Parlies: .\ Trieky Treat." HR Magazine.
Management Review. Cornell Quarterly. Business 45110): 94-100.
Horizons, Academy of Management Executive, Luthans. F (2(X)2). "Po.sitive Organization Behavior: Developing and
and other journals. Managing Psyehologieal Strengths " The Academy of Management
Executive. 16(1): 57-75.
Frank S. MelMughlin, PhD. is a professor of Mariotii. J. (1999). "A Company that Plays Together. Slays Together."
management at the University of North Florida. hiilu.\iry Week. 248(6): 63-70.
His PhD is from the University of Florida. He is McGhee, P. (2000) "The Key to Stress Management. Retention, and
a co-author of a textbook on quantitative methods Profitability? More Workplaee Fun." HR Focus. 77(9): 5-6.
for management. His research has appeared in Meyer, H. (1999). "Fun for Everyone." The Journal oj Business
.Strategy. 21(4):I3-I7.
The Academy of Management Journal. Journal
Miltisj. M. (1999). "Don't Underestimate the Power ol Celebration,"
of Business Research. California Management Credit Union Magazine. 65(8): 15-16.
Review, Industrial Management, Industrial National Underwriter (1999). "Employers Stress Workplace Fun."
Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society. National Undemriter. 103(20): 25-27.
IEEE Transactions in Management. Public Perrin. S. (1998, February).'"A Serious Busmes>i." Accountancy. 53:2.40.
Personnel Management, and other journals. Peters, T (1994). The Pursuit of Wow! New York: Vintage.
Schein. E. (1985). Organization Culture and l^eudership: A Dynamic
John W, Newstrom, PhD, is a professor of man- WcM. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
agement at the University of Minnesota-Duluth. Schneider, B. & Bowen. D.E. (1995). Winnini; the Service Came.
His doctorate is from the University of Boston: Hitrvurd Business School Press.
Minnesota. He is the co-author of the popular Strand. P, (2(X)0), "Anglitig lor Workplace Fun," e. 174/(174):
Games Trainers Play series of hooks for trainers
Walt Disney: Famimy Quotes (1994). Anaheim. C.^: Prmted hy Walt
and Transfer of Training. His research has Disney Theme Park.s and Resorts.
appeared in The Academy of Management Weinstein. M. (1996). Managing to Have Fun. New York: Fireside.
Journal. Business Horizons. California Worirforce. (2000). -Are You Having Any FunT Workfone. 79(5):25-26.
Management Review. Workforce, Supervision. Yerkes. L, (2001). Fun Works. San Francisco: BeiTett-Koehler.
Training, and other journals. Zbar. ]. (1999). "Are We Having FunT" Computer World. 33(38): 70-71.
30 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNINGAPPENDIX
Condensed Survey Questionnaire
SECTION A: POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES
Listed below are several statements regarding the possible effects or results of a fun work environ-
[Ticnt. Please indicate, to the best of your ability, the degree to which you believe that a fun work
environment produces each of the listed outcomes. (Indicate the degree to which you believe that a fun
work environment increases or decreases the following outcomes by clicking on one of the responses
in the 5-point scale shown. Click No Opinion if you are totally unsure as to its probable effects.)
Organizations that endorse and promote a fun work environment are likely to experience how much
change in their:
Substantial Moderate No Effect Moderate Substantial NO (No
Decrease Decrease Increase Increase Opinion)
1. Accident rates (frequency) 1 0 20 30 40 50 NOO
2. Ability to attract new employees 1 0 20 30 40 50 NOO
3. Absenteeism rates 10 20 3 0 40 50 NOO
Other items measiircd on ihc scale are communicaikms among employees, customer satisfaction, cost uf operutions. employee anxieiy und
.Nlresh, employee complajnis of boredom, employee crealivily. employee enthusiasm, employee satisfaction, employee friendships ai work,
employee lumover rales, equipment damage caused by playfulness, frequency of employee errors made, group cohesiveness. interpersonal con-
Ilicls. level iil' employee commitment to the organuaiion. mutual tnisi among employees, organizaiional citizenship (voluntary acts of helping
behaviorsi by employees, professionalism al work, qualiiy of employee producdviiy, reports of sexual harassment, respeci among coworkers,
respect from higher-ups, speed with which new tasks are learned by employees during training programs, strength of the corporaie culture
(shared values and norms), understanding of the organization's mission and priorities, work taken seriously by oiher departments.
SECTION B: FREQUENCY OF PRACTICES
Listed below ure several statements regarding activities potentially leading to a fun work environ-
ment. Please indicate your personal assessment of ihe frequency with which your organization actually
uses the following items.
Not at Alt Moderately Extensively NO (No
Opinion)
Humor (e.g., cartoons, jokes IO 20 30 40 SO NOO
in corporate newsletters,
e-mails, and managerial
messages).
Opportunities for personal 1 O 2O 30 40 50 NOO
development growth throtigh
opportunities for non-job-related
leaming (e.g.., quilting classes,
book clubs, aerobics).
3. Public celebrations of professional 1 O 20 30 40 50 NOO
achievements (e.g., award banquets,
recognition for outstanding results,
naming an "employee of the month")-
Oiher iiems measured on (he same scale are entertainment, g^mes. fun sotial evenu, recognition of personal milestones, opportunities to
engage in community volunteerisiii, stress release activities, friendly competitions among employees
HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 3ISECTION C: UTiLiTY (CONTRiBUTiONS) OF FUN PRACTiCES
HRM professionals are in a good position to assess the utility of various activities designed to
produce a fun work environment. In this section, we are soliciting your insights into the potential
effectiveness of each type of fun activity. The responses below relate directly to your beliefs regardless
of the extent they are actually used in your organization.
Listed below are several statements regarding activities potentially leading to a fun work environ-
ment. Please indicate, to the best of your ability and using the response scale shown, the degree to
which you feel each practice below contributes to creating a fun work environment.
The 10 items used in this section are identical to Section B. Section B asks for frequency of use.
Section C asks for contributions to a fun work assignment.
SECTiON D: iMPORTANCE OFVARiOUS EMPLOYEE NEEDS
HRM professionals are also in a good position to assess the relative importance of a fun work
environment in comparison to other typical needs of employees. In this section, we are soliciting
your insights into the relative importance of a wide range of things that employees may desire.
Listed below are several statements regarding factors thai employees may seek at work. Please
indicate, on the five-point response scale shown, the degree to which you feel each is important to
typical employees in your firm today.
Not at All Moderately Extremely NO (No
Important Important Important Opinion)
!. Being able to relax., have fun, 10 20 30 40 50 NOO
and enjoy oneself at work.
2. Being free to express oneself 10 20 30 40 50 NOO
openly at work.
3. Having control over one's own 10 20 30 40 50 NOO
decisions at work.
Other items mea.suretl on the same scale includt- having control over resources, feeling listened to. freedom to engage in laughler, autonomy
and independence, opportunity lo play at work, building interpersonal friendships, satisfying job security needs, opporlunily to belong to a
group, opponunity to express and receiving caring ai work, satisfying physiological needs, satisfying psychological well-being needs, receiving
persiinul recognition at work.
SECTION E: COMPREHENSiVE ASSESSMENTS
On the following questions, please use the response scales or space provided to indicate your
reactions and assessments.
I.Compared to what you think there ought to be (optimum level of fun at work), what is your
perception of the actual level of fun in your organization? (Check only one.)
O a. Much less than there .should be
O b. Moderately less than there should be
O c. A little bit less than there should he
O d. About the right amount
O e. A little bit more than there should be
O f, A moderate amount more than there should be
O g. Much more than there should be
2. Overall, how often do you believe employees should have the opportunity to experience fun in your
organization? (Check only one.)
Never Infrequently Occasionally Frequently Very Often No Opinion
1 0 20 30 40 50 NOO
32 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNINGYou can also read
