|
...significant differences across the three sectors in their attitudes toward fun, there were significant differences across sectors in their ratings of the company-wide outings category and ten (of forty) individual fun activities. Public sector employees tended to rate the activities as less fun than at least one of the other two groups. Employees in all three sectors agreed that food-related activities were fun. In addition, attitudes toward fun were found to be positively related to trust in one's supervisor and trust in one's coworkers. The implications of these results and directions for future research are discussed.
**********
What has fun got to do with work? According to growing number of business writers and consultants, fun at work is essential for enhancing employee motivation and productivity, reducing stress, and increasing customer satisfaction (Berg, 2001; Lundin, Christensen, Paul, & Strand, 2002; Marriotti, 1999; McGhee, 2000; Meyer, 1999; Paulson, 2001; Ramsey, 2001; Weiss, 2002). In fact, many of the companies who have been recognized as one of the The 100 Best Companies to Work for in America have made having fun a part of their corporate mission (Levering & Moskowitz, 1994). Furthermore, many organizations are realizing the value of creating a fun workplace in terms of what it can do for the organization's quality of work life, reputation, and financial performance (Chan, Gee & Steiner, 2000; Joyce, 2003).
Much of the increasing interest in workplace fun is due to the highly successful "Fish!" books based on the Pike Street Fish Market in Seattle Washington (Lundin, Christensen, Paul & Strand, 2002; Lundin, Paul & Christensen, 2002; 2003). Southwest Airlines has also become well known for its success in promoting a culture of fun (Peters, 1999; Rezak, 2004; Welles, 2000). While a fun work environment might be seen as a positive attribute in a private sector organization, can this same philosophy be extended to the public and nonprofit sectors?
It has long been argued that there are fundamental differences between public, nonprofit, and private sector organizations including: ownership, source of funding, source of control (political forces versus market forces), organizational structure (e.g., bureaucracy, red-tape, autonomy), and organizational goals (Anheier, 2000; Boyne, 2002; Fottler, 1981; Murray, 1975; Perry & Rainey, 1988; Ross, 1988; Scott & Falcone, 1998). In addition, it has been suggested that public and nonprofit employees have different workplace orientations, in terms of motivation (Pattakos, 2004; Pearce, 1983), values (Stillett, 2002; Hansen, Huggins, & Ban, 2003), and organizational commitment (Goulet & Frank, 2002). Because of these differences, a number of researchers have argued that it is difficult to apply many contemporary workplace practices to public service organizations (Durant & Wilson, 2001; Sillett, 2002; Swiss, 2001). However, an increased emphasis on accountability has prompted both public and non-profit sectors to introduce many practices utilized successfully in the private sector. These initiatives include efforts to improve quality, productivity, leadership, and workplace environments (Charlesworth, Cook, & Crozier, 2003; Kim, 2002; Korunda, Carayon, Sainfort, Scharitzer, & Hoonakker, 2003; Rector & Kleiner, 2002). While public and nonprofit organizations differ from private organizations in many respects, all organizations are competing in a common labor market when it comes to recruiting and retaining employees. Thus, to attract good employees, public and nonprofit organizations may need to adopt some of the same management practices as their private sector counterparts.
Although the idea of creating a "fun" work environment has received very limited attention in the public and nonprofit literature, there is evidence of support for this philosophy and some instances of its use in the public sector. For example, a visitor to the Indiana State Department of Motor Vehicles' branch office in Evansville on October 31, 2004 would have found all customer service employees dressed in candy-themed Halloween costumes. On a larger scale, one of this year's winners of the 'Equal Employment Opportunities, Trust, Work, and Life Awards' in New Zealand was Bullet District Council (a large branch of regional government in the south island). This council was cited for its success in developing a "fun and family-friendly atmosphere with a number of work-life initiatives" (The Press, September 8, 2004). Examples of such work-life initiatives include flexible working hours, 'fun Fridays' in which employees dress informally or according to a theme, and hazardous driving classes (in response to the difficult driving conditions faced by employees who must travel to remote locations in the district). It appears that leadership by the council's chief executive was a significant force behind these initiatives. Such foresight is also viewed as an important quality for leadership of non-profit organizations. Temkin (1994) argues that encouraging fun is a critical component for building commitment in such organizations through such activities as work parties, social get-togethers, food, and mingling time at meetings. In her study of Generation X public employees, Jurkiewicz (2000) also makes an argument for the importance of creating a culture of fun as a means of retaining and motivating Generation X employees.
In an attempt to expand on this limited literature, the purpose of this paper is to examine the issue of "fun at work" across all three sectors: public, nonprofit, and private. Specifically, we will examine employees' attitudes toward fun, their perceptions of what is fun and what is not, and the role of trust in their supervisor and coworkers. We will also investigate whether differences exist between the three sectors in employees' attitudes toward fun and their perceptions of what is fun and what is not.
Attitudes Toward Fun
While many supporters of fun at work have argued that fun can and should be infused in to every workplace (e.g., Yerkes, 1997), Aldag and Sherony (2001) have cautioned that "it would be simplistic to expect that all individuals would have similar views about fun at work." Rather, there are likely to be differences in whether individuals view efforts to foster fun in the workplace as appropriate. This was the case at Cooley Dickinson Hospital where some employees reacted to the introduction of such activities as "too silly for a hospital" (Mellen, 2003). Whether one finds fun at work appropriate or not may depend on one's early socialization experiences, work history, and personality characteristics (Aldag & Sherony, 2001). These factors may also account for varying attitudes regarding the salience or importance of having fun at work. When a few faculty members were asked about the possibility of introducing more fun into the university workplace (e.g., silliest hat contest, theme days or parties), one said "I don't have to play to have fun." Another stated, "some of us have a low tolerance for making fools of ourselves." Individuals may also vary in terms of what they perceive as the consequences of fun at work. Some may view fun activities as a means of enhancing productivity, while others may see such efforts as creating chaos or a waste of time. For example, one nurse's initial reaction to the introduction of the "Fish!" philosophy at Missouri Baptist Medical Center was that this was "another program to drain more effort out of the staff" (Lundin, et al, 2002, p. 85).
Because there is limited evidence regarding the use of fun environments in the public and non-profit sectors, it is difficult to predict what employee attitudes may be to such activities. On one hand, it has been argued that employees are drawn to the public and nonprofit sectors because of their desires to help others or to make a difference (Hansen, Huggins, & Ban, 2003; Pattakos, 2004; Perry, 2000). Thus, workplace fun may not be as important to these workers. On the other hand, there are those who argue that public service workers are undervalued and overworked, consequently paying attention to the workplace environment could make a difference to workplace attitudes and retention of employees (Christensen, 2002; Kim, 2002; Rector & Kleiner, 2002; Sillett, 2002; Wright & David, 2003). This suggests that public and nonprofit employees may have positive attitudes toward fun in the workplace, seeing such activities as a welcome release from work that is often stressful and thankless. Clearly, evidence suggests that differences in attitudes toward fun warrant further investigation.
What's Fun and What's Not
With titles like Fun and Gains, Get Weird!, 301 More Ways to Have Fun at Work, How to Make Work Fun!, and Funny Works!, popular press writers have proposed a wide range of possible activities to make the work place fun (Berger, 2002; Firth, 1995; Greenwich, 2001; Hemsath, 2001; Putzier 2001). These suggestions include relatively commonplace activities such as bringing in food, giving awards, playing games, and forming committees to plan fun activities, to wild and wacky activities such as hula hoop marathons, paper mummy fashion shows, and "one minute parades." Although there has been very little empirical work examining what makes a work environment fun, one exception is a study by Ford, McLaughlin, and Newstrom (2003) who surveyed 572 human resource professionals. These authors identified 23 different activities from the popular literature and asked their respondents to indicate whether their organizations use these activities to create fun work environments. The top three most frequently used activities were casual dress days, employee recognition and rewards, and company-provided food and refreshments (these activities were used by 84%, 83%, and 82% of the respondents, respectively). Some less frequently used activities included costume days (used by 39% of respondents), fun committees (21%), and creative skits and songs for company events (20%).
Because managers and employees do not always see eye to eye on many aspects of the work environment...
NOTE: All illustrations and photos
have been removed from this article.
More articles from Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies
Yes, you can teach business ethics: a review and research agenda., December 22, 2005
Context and mentoring: examining formal and informal relationships in ..., December 22, 2005
Structural changes in turbulent environments: a study of small and mid..., December 22, 2005
Task and relationship-oriented trust in leaders., December 22, 2005
The proposed contagion effect of hopeful leaders on the resiliency of ..., December 22, 2005
Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.
Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication
name or publication date.
About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company
analysis or best practices in managing your organization,
Goliath can help you meet your business needs.
Our extensive business information databases empower business
professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible,
authoritative information they need to support their business
goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting,
company research or defining management best practices -
Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.
|
