“Fun for Whom?” and “Fun for What?”: The Exclusive and Economic Reality of Workplace Fun

Author(s):

Michael Wannagot(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2015

Network:

32. Organizational Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

32 SES 06, Transition of Organizations (Ethics, Emotions and Fun)

Paper Session

Time:

2015-09-09

15:30-17:00

Room:

3004. [Main]

Chair:

Andreas Schröer

Contribution

The topic of workplace fun and its associated buzzwords have captured the imagination of HR and Training teams in organisations around the globe. Unlike many of the flash-in-the-pan organisational fads, workplace fun is fuelling noteworthy transformations of organisations around the world. Responding to this global trend, this paper assesses the individual impact of workplace-fun related practice in a globalising context through a critical review of academic and professional literature.

The research questions we seek to answer are:

What is fun?
Who benefits from workplace fun?
What is the purpose of fun at work?

The literature on fun in the workplace, both consultative and academic, almost avoids defining the nature of “fun”. Much of the writing on workplace fun assumes a priori that fun is either a “childlike exuberance” or the excitement of solving puzzles and games. With no theoretical positions available in the literature, it is necessary to examine the literature to interpret the authors’ understanding of “fun.” It is revealed authors tend to rely on two epistemologies of fun: either fun is treated as external to the individual offering objective tools, activities and events or it is considered internal to the individual as the result of psychoemotional responses to stimuli. The former epistemology informs the design of “fun-at-work;” here, employers superimpose leisure actives within peripheral workspaces: luau themed lunches, employee outings, silly tie day. On the other hand, the theory that fun is internal to the individual, well supported by many psychologists, originates an approach to workplace fun we call “fun-as-work,” where job duties themselves are made more enjoyable, especially through gamification.

With two different models of fun identified in the literature, the challenge then becomes how the individual might be impacted by both fun-at-work and fun-as-work. Much of this analysis is informed by Parrish and Linder-VanBerschot (2010) who provide a tripartite ontological model of human thought and behaviour. They argue that human nature, culture, and individual personality are the three channels of influence through which the human individual is affected by and affects upon society. This ontology gives the discussion on workplace fun the holistic lens.

The Human Nature sphere of influence is described by defining the discussion on what fun really is. Consensus seems to be that interest in workplace fun first emerges from the conversation about corporate cultures and is defined as very boisterous, extroverted, social, and competitive; the treatment of fun is also supplementary to job activity: fun-at-work. The fun-as-work discussions almost unanimously rely on the idea of Flow, or self-rewarding activity. Adding Csikszentmihalyi to the discussion shows the interest of professional consultants in the enjoyment employees get from the worktask itself. However, it has been suggested that measuring “fun” with Flow might be too individualistic for collectivist cultures. There are many other models of fun which also could be explored, for example the emotional “4 Keys 2 Fun” model from cognitive psychologist Nicole Lazzaro (2004). This paper sides with the psychologists’ perspective, that fun is a within-individual experience, and not an external activity or ritual of “corporate culture.” Despite the (debatably) universal characteristics to fun, academic thought on workplace fun must be informed by the differences among individual experiences. To do that, there are the other two spheres of ontological influence which are considered in the Methodology and Results sections.

Method

Based on the assumption that fun is a psychological/emotional experience, this paper analyses a body of work representative of the conversation on workplace fun, including applied psychology papers, ethnographic sociological papers, meta analyses of fun studies, and professional literature. As there is a lack of data in some areas of workplace fun research, some analogous areas of research are employed such as happiness studies in non-Western contexts and international videogame research when looking at the cultural adaptation gamified services. Using the tripartite ontological model introduced by Parrish and Linder-VanBerschot (2010), a content analysis was performed on the discussion around workplace fun in order to tease out the implications for the individual. For example, to understand the relationship of workplace fun on innate human nature, the literature was examined for is use and understanding of fun as discussed above. Similarly, the content was analysed for its sensitivity towards a culturally inclusive discussion on workplace fun. For this, the Parrish and Linder-VanBerschot (2010) provide a good tool to examine the cultural appropriateness of workplace fun transition initiatives. Cultural sensitivity towards local attitudes towards social relationships, epistemological beliefs, and temporal understandings were all considered. Based on additional research into the non-homogeneity of cultures and the within-individual variations which occur among persons of the same “culture,” the existing discussion on workplace fun practices was analysed for its appropriate consideration towards intrapersonal variations such introversion, neuroticism (anxious personalities), gelotophobia (fear of being laughed at), religious/cultural/ethnic diversity, gender/gender variation, age, socioeconomic status, industry, and ability/disability status. The intended result is to paint an honest portrait of workplace fun, and, as a result, reveal the gaps which the current professional practices do not cover. That is to say, if fun is the transition goal for global employers, who is actually having fun based on how these initiatives are being implemented? This honest portrait begs an investigation into the motives of workplace fun transitions. Why fun?

Expected Outcomes

Human Nature and Fun For authors writing on “fun-as work,” Csíkszentmihályi is the default authority that most authors use. The danger of relying on a single model of fun is that some authors do not accurately understand Flow, some even calling it an extrinsic reward model. Csíkszentmihályi (1999) himself acknowledges the validity of many other models of positive psychology out there. Finally, it’s possible that flow itself may be a culturally biased towards the West. Culture and Fun The literature review reveals a Western dominance in the ideologies espoused by proponents of fun. For example: “fun” in the workplace is often implemented as extroverted, competitive, success driven activities which favour Western ideologies. Likewise, implementations of gamification lack an application of cultural preferences. Finally, the importance of fun in general is far more emphasised in the West than in other geographies. Personal Variation and Fun Fun also seems to favour privileged personalities and statuses as well. Autotelic experiences are more common among persons with more senior positions revealing an unexamined correlation between power and job enjoyment. Use of humour/joking/”roasting” may be upsetting to gelotophobics, of whom minority ethnicities and queer persons are especially prone. Humour in the workplace in general is dominated by male influence and can even be favoured over political correctness. Why fun? Instead of revealing an altruistic reason for implementing fun, e.g.: to make a difficult job easier, it was revealed the main appeal seemed to be economic. Many writers emphasised that happier employees are more productive and HR professionals use fun as recruitment and retention tools. Finally, there is almost no consideration for the most unpleasant jobs or impoverished geographies like Chinese manufacturing, urban sanitation, Bangladeshi garment industry, etc. The classist application of “fun” transitions belies the altruistic veneer of creating enjoyable fulfilling workspaces.

References

• Asakawa, K. (2010). Flow Experience, Culture and Well-Being: How Do Autotelic Japanese College Students Feel, Behave, and Think in Their Daily Lives. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(2), 205-223. doi:10.1007/s10902-008-9132-3. • Ceja, L. & Navarro, J. (2011). Dynamic Patterns of Flow in the Workplace: Characterizing Within-Individual Variability Using a Complexity Science Approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(4), 627-651. doi: 10.1002/job.747. • Chan, S. (2010). Does workplace fun matter? Developing a useable typology of workplace fun in a qualitative study. International journal of hospitality management. 29(4), 720-728. • Csíkszentmihályi, M. (2008). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper Perennial. • Ford, R. C., Newstrom, J. W., & McLaughlin, F. S. (2004). Making workplace fun more functional. Industrial and Commercial Training, 36(2), 117-120. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/214106770?accountid=14656 • Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., Sarsa, H. (2014). Does Gamification Work? - A Literature Review of Empirical Studies on Gamification. System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Science, 3025-3034, 6-9 Jan. 2014. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2014.377 • Johnston, A., Mumby, D., Westwood, R. (2007). Representing the Unrepresentable: Gender, Humour, and Organisation. In Westwood, R. and Rhodes, C. (Eds.), Humour, Work and Organization, pp. 93-112. London: Routledge. • Kenny, K. and Eulcher, G. (2012). ‘Some Good Clean Fun’: Humour, Control and Subversion in an Advertising Agency. Gender, Work and Organisation, 19(3), pp. 306-322. doi:10.1111/j.14680432.2012.000594.x • Lamm, E., and Meeks, M. D. (2009). Workplace fun: The moderating effects of generational differences. Employee Relations, 31(6), 613-631. doi:10.1108/01425450910991767 • Lazzaro, N. (2004). Why We Play Games: Four Keys to Emotion without Story. Retrieved 3 July 2013 from: http://xeodesign.com/xeodesign_whyweplaygames.pdf • Macfadyen, L. (2011). Perils of Parsimony. Information, Communication & Society. 14(2), 280-293. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2010.486839 • Parrish, P., & Linder-VanBerschot, J. (2010). Cultural dimensions of learning: Addressing the challenges of multicultural instruction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(2), 1-19. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/809/1553 • Warren, S. and Fineman, S. (2007). ‘Don't get me wrong, it's fun here, but...’: Ambivalence and Paradox in a 'Fun' Work Environment. In Westwood, R. and Rhodes, C. (Eds.), Humour, Work and Organization, 93-112. London: Routledge. • Yamakami, T. (2013). Cross-Culture Analysis of Mobile Social Games: Lessons Learned from Globalized Mobile Social Games. 2013 IEEE Third International Conference on Cloud and Green Computing, pp. 266-270. doi: 10.1109/CGC.2013.49

Author Information

Michael Wannagot (presenting / submitting)

University of British Columbia

Raleigh

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.