The fun paradox

Abstract

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emeraldsrm:198285 [] For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -Fun means different things to different people and the purpose of this paper is to attempt to answer the question "what is fun at work?". Given that perceptions of fun differ among people, the answer is that a pluralistic concept of fun best captures different notions of what constitutes fun at work. Design/methodology/approach -The research combines two separate studies. The first is an in-depth ethnographic project involving interviews, participant observations and document collection investigating fun and humour in four different New Zealand companies. The second study extends findings from the first by specifically asking participants to reply to survey questions asking "what is fun at work?". Findings -Currently fun is described in a variety of ways by researchers using different descriptors for similar concepts. Combining current conceptions of fun with the own research the authors categorize the complex notion of workplace fun into three clear categories: organic, managed and task fun. This tripartite conception of fun combines and extends current models of fun and collates earlier findings into a synthesized model of fun. The investigation found that fun is ambiguous and paradoxical which creates issues for both managers and employees. The authors recognize fun as a multifaceted concept and use paradox theory and the concept of flow to theorize the multilateral fun framework. Practical implications -The authors find significant implications for managers in regards to creating and fostering fun in the organizational context. Differing perceptions of fun may result in misunderstandings that can negatively impact morale and workplace relationships. A wider conceptualization of fun offers potential for more harmonious and productive workplaces and creates a greater tolerance for competing and paradoxical perceptions of fun. Originality/value -Current literature on workplace fun uses a variety of descriptors of fun and emphasizes a duality between managed and organic forms of fun. In suggesting a new term "task fun" the authors synthesize earlier conce...

Exploring Fun as a Job Resource: The Enhancing and Protecting Role of a Key Modern Workplace Factor

“…Strömberg and Karlsson (2009) refer to these behaviours as organic fun comparing it to organized fun or managed fun, which refers to activities like celebrating personal events and professional milestones, social events, games, competitions and community involvement (Chan 2010;Ford et al 2003a;Karl et al 2005Karl et al , 2008. Plester et al (2015) have identified task related fun, which is fun that employees experience while performing their work tasks.…”

“…The definitions are limited to presenting a few activities and behaviours, which reflect the problems inherent in trying to find a comprehensive definition, as what is fun is both subjective and context related (Owler et al 2010). In the literature, three main clusters of fun activities and behaviours have already been identified helping researchers to better understand and operationalize the concept of fun; managed (fun activities initiated or supported by the organization), organic (activities that the employees engage in by themselves), and task related, but, little has been done so far to clearly distinguish among them (Plester et al 2015). Adding to the above, we know little regarding the interconnections among the three categories of fun activities and behaviours; for example how is managed fun related to organic fun, or is there a difference between fun activities organized by the employees themselves and fun activities organized by the management, resulting in a fourth category, that we can call organized fun and differentiate it from managed fun?…”

“…Adding to the above, we know little regarding the interconnections among the three categories of fun activities and behaviours; for example how is managed fun related to organic fun, or is there a difference between fun activities organized by the employees themselves and fun activities organized by the management, resulting in a fourth category, that we can call organized fun and differentiate it from managed fun? According to Plester et al (2015) all three forms of fun (organic, managed and task) may take place simultaneously but also compete with each other in terms of time invested, preference and appropriateness. It is a clear that we need to develop a typology of fun to understand it better.…”

“…Individuals experience fun while doing their work. Such task related fun may function as an important job characteristic that can motivate employees and lead to desirable outcomes (Plester et al 2015). The JD-R model has its roots in Hackman and Oldham's (1976) job characteristics model, which places meaningfulness of the job in its core, defined in terms of skill variety, task identity and task significance.…”

“…Karl et al 2008;Karl et al 2005) by both exploring attitudes of employees towards it and its effects on organizational variables. Tews and colleagues, Fluegge, McDowell and others (Bolton and Houlihan 2009;Fluegge-Woolf 2014;McDowell 2005;Tews et al 2013Tews et al , 2014 have provided more evidence on the impact of fun on wellbeing and key organizational issues, while others like Fleming and colleagues and Plester and colleagues have developed the concept even more by exploring its dark side (Fleming 2005;Fleming and Sturdy 2009;Plester 2009;Plester et al 2015).…”