Creating and Sustaining Fun Work Environments in Hospitality and Service Organizations

This article was downloaded by: [University of South Florida]On: 15 October 2014, At: 06:29Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of Human Resources inHospitality & TourismPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whrh20

Creating and SustainingFun Work Environmentsin Hospitality and ServiceOrganizationsRobert C. Ford PhD a , Frank S. McLaughlin PhD b &John W. Newstrom PhD ca Management , University of Central Florida , USAb Management , University of North Florida , USAc Management , University of Minnesota Duluth , USAPublished online: 04 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Robert C. Ford PhD , Frank S. McLaughlin PhD & John W.Newstrom PhD (2005) Creating and Sustaining Fun Work Environments in Hospitalityand Service Organizations, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 4:1,11-30, DOI: 10.1300/J171v04n01_02

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J171v04n01_02

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whrh20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J171v04n01_02

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J171v04n01_02

losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

6:29

15

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Creating and SustainingFun Work Environments

in Hospitalityand Service Organizations

Robert C. FordFrank S. McLaughlinJohn W. Newstrom

ABSTRACT. Managers of hospitality and service organizations have longbelieved that it is critical for their employees to have fun at work. They rec-ognize the important relationships between their employees having fun andtheir customers having a pleasant experience. While everyone accepts thisnotion, there is little empirical support for either a definition of what manag-ers can do to promote a fun work environment or even what makes a funwork environment fun. Further, while many positive outcomes for both theindividual and the organization are claimed to be associated with fun workenvironments, there is even less empirical data to support this belief.

This primary purpose of the paper is to identify and define the actionsand activities that managers can do or support to create and sustain the feel-ing employees have that their firm is a fun place to work or have a “fun workenvironment.” The paper reports results of a large e-mail survey of humanresource managers designed to identify what cues managers send to create afun work environment, the degree to which these cues actually are associ-ated with a work environment that is fun, and the positive individual and or-ganizational outcomes that are claimed to be associated with working insuch an environment. The study offers definitions and measurements of thecueing process, a fun work environment, and outcomes of the process.

Robert C. Ford, PhD, is Professor of Management, University of Central Florida.Frank S. McLaughlin, PhD, is Professor of Management, University of North Florida.John W. Newstrom, PhD, is Professor of Management, University of Minnesota Duluth.

Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, Vol. 4(1) 2005Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JHRHT

© 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J171v04n01_02 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

6:29

15

Oct

ober

201

4

We found a strong relationship between the antecedent cues and the de-gree to which the work environment was perceived as fun. The relationshipsbetween a fun work environment and various outcomes were not as strongor comprehensive. While the results of this research are positive and extendour knowledge of cues, culture and especially “fun work environments,”more needs to be done in validating the measures and extending the re-search. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document DeliveryService: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]>Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc.All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Fun, organizational culture, managing work climate

The responsibility of management is to find the best combination ofphysical, financial, and human resources that allows the organization toreach its goals and accomplish its mission. While there are many methodsand models available to enhance the likelihood of finding the optimal ac-tion to take in regard to the physical and financial resources, there arevery few to help identify the best ways to utilize their human resources.Instead managers are offered a wide array of best practices and theoreti-cal concepts that, if properly applied, can enhance the probability of opti-mizing the use of their human resources. The challenge is that theproperly applied aspect of this advice is contingent upon identifying andmeeting a wide array of factors that vary greatly across organizations.

Nonetheless, there are some factors that seem to be true for all organi-zations. One of these that has been identified as important to successfulthe management of human resources, especially in the hospitality and ser-vice industry, is the creation and maintenance of a fun work environment.There is a growing body of research evidence to support the well acceptedidea that employees who are enjoying their jobs and having fun will im-pact their customers in a positive way. The intangibility of the serviceproduct means that the customer contact employee is frequently the onewho creates and delivers the service experience (Bowen & Ford, 2002).In the hospitality and services sector that relies on successful contacts tak-ing place between its customer encounter employees and its customers,the importance of creating and sustaining a fun work environment be-comes critical. Since each experience is as different as the different cus-tomers having it, each employee can significantly influence the qualityand value of that experience as they determine how to best meet the ex-pectation of each customer. If employees are happy and having fun, the

12 JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN HOSPITALITY & TOURISM

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

6:29

15

Oct

ober

201

4

quality and value of the customer experience should be positively im-pacted.

Because the guest contact employee is so instrumental in defining thevalue and quality of the service experience, hospitality and service organi-zations need to make sure that their employees are not only properly trainedbut positively motivated to provide the service the customer expects. Oftenthis responsibility falls on the human resource managers. They know thattheir responsibility is to not only develop the best possible selection, train-ing, reward and motivational programs but also to take responsibility forthe creation and maintenance of a corporate culture that promotes and af-firms the organization’s commitment to service excellence. Culture canhave a major impact on employees being positively motivated to providethis level of service (Berry, 1999; Ford & Heaton, 2000). Culture providesthe guidelines, norms, and values that influence how employees actuallymeet each customer’s expectations and, consequently, the organization’smission.

Aligning the culture to the mission of the organization is a difficultchallenge. Successfully achieving this means that managers have someknowledge about the key characteristics of the desired culture and a wayto assess whether or not their organization has those characteristics. Ifthe desired culture is one that has a sense of fun or playfulness to it, thenit becomes important to define and assess whether or not the organiza-tion has a fun work environment and to understand what things a man-ager can do to promote having fun at work.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to describe and present the results of a studyto define and measure the factors or organizational actions that lead to orcue a fun work environment. Since the adage that we can’t manage whatwe can’t measure is true for cultures too, we propose and test a measure ofwhat things managers can promote or do to create a fun work environment.As a secondary purpose, we provide a pilot test of that measure on a sampleof human resources managers to determine if those who helped define themeasure also saw a linkage between what they believe constitutes a funwork environment and important organizational outcomes.

In fulfilling these purposes, we first define and test a measure of thecues that managers can use to promote a fun work environment. Second,we look at the relationship between having a fun work environment andthe desired outcomes of having such an environment. A proposed rela-

Ford, McLaughlin, and Newstrom 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

6:29

15

Oct

ober

201

4

tionship between an environment that is considered fun to work in andits antecedents and individual and organizational outcomes is shown inFigure 1. This figure suggests two linkages. One linkage is between ex-plicit and implicit managerial cues and the nature of the work environ-ment. The second linkage is between the extent to which employeesconsider the work environment to be fun and performance outcomes.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

No one disputes the idea that culture can have a significant impact onemployee behavior and this is especially true for hospitality and serviceorganizations. The importance of a strong culture (and the related con-cept of service climate) to effective delivery of the expected service ex-perience by service organizations is further supported by a number ofwriters (e.g., Schneider, 1980; Schneider & Bowen, 1995; Berry, 1995,1999; Davidow & Uttal, 1989; Frieberg & Freiberg, 1996; Ford &Heaton, 2000). This literature reports both anecdotal and empirical sup-port for the value of culture in producing the expected service experi-ence in a variety of service organizations.

Parasuraman (1987), for example, suggests that organizational cultureprovides direction for the services employee in filling in the gaps betweenwhat the organization can train its employees to do and what they mustactually do to satisfy the customer. Instead of relying on the formal con-trol mechanisms used to direct and control employee activities associatedwith the manufacturing industry, services must rely instead on shared cul-


Explicit Cuese.g., Managementpolicies, procedures,formal reward system,etc.

e.g., Managementactions, informal rewardand recognitions,praise, criticism, etc.

Implicit Cues

FunWorkEnvironment

BehavioralWorkOutcomes

FIGURE 1. Linkage of Cues to Fun Work Environment to Outcomes

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

6:29

15

Oct

ober

201

4

tural norms, values, and beliefs to ensure that the service employee deliv-ers the expected service every time to every customer. Bowen supportsthis position by noting, “norms and values may need to be relied upon,both at the interface and throughout the organizations, to guide and con-trol customer service orientation” (1990, pp. 73-74).

While it is accepted that culture is important in defining the behaviorsexpected of its members, actually creating the culture that will lead tothe desired behaviors is difficult to define and do. Indeed, understand-ing what culture is and exactly how it affects behavior is even less welldeveloped. Ashkanasy and his colleagues (2000) in their discussion ofculture suggest using a three level typology of culture based on their in-terpretation of Schein (1985). These three are: (1) the underlying pat-terns of assumptions, (2) the beliefs and values that are based on theseassumptions, and (3) the patterns of behavior that evolve from those be-liefs and values. Making culture even more difficult to define and useare the availability of various techniques and strategies for measuringeach of these three levels and their relationships to the actual definitionof an organization’s culture.

Smircich (1983) suggests looking at culture by distinguishing be-tween what an organization is and what it has. We follow this approachto culture by looking at what an organization has in investigating a spe-cific aspect of an organization’s culture to learn more about how that as-pect of culture is formed, reinforced, and practiced. This is similar to thelogic used by Schneider in his work on organizational climate. He andhis co-authors (Schneider, White and Paul, 1998) suggest, “Becausemultiple climates often exist simultaneously within a single organiza-tions, climate is best regarded as a specific construct having a referent–aclimate must be a climate for something (e.g., service, support innova-tion, safety)” (p. 151).

We suggest that a fun work environment is one of the multiple typesof climate that can help define the type of culture an organization has.The aspect or dimension of culture we focus on is the degree to which anorganization has a fun work environment or climate. A number of writ-ers have argued that having fun is critical to successful hospitality andother customer focused service experiences. (e.g., Workforce, 2000;Zbar, 1999; Meyer, 1999; Strand, 2000). Authors of popular books addfurther support for the importance of having fun at work including TomPeter’s In Pursuit of Wow (1994), Deal and Key’s Corporate Celebra-tion (1998), and Kouzes and Posner’s The Leadership Challenge(1995). Having fun at work is often noted as integral to success in meet-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

6:29

15

Oct

ober

201

4

ing customer expectations in service organizations (Ford & Bowen,2002).

There is also an increasing body of evidence that lends additionalsupport for the belief that a positive organizational environment or funwork environment is a valuable asset for organizations. (e.g., Ford &Heaton, 2000; Redman & Mathews, 2000; Glaser, 1994; George &Brief, 1992). Luthans (2002) suggests that an individual’s feeling ofsubjective well being (SWB) is a contributor to positive organizationalbehavior. SWB incorporates a number of factors to reflect this linkagesuch as life satisfaction, job satisfaction and levels of experiencingpleasant emotions and moods which can be thought of as similar to op-erating in a fun work environment (Diener, 1999). Perrin (1998) adds,“Common sense supports the theory that having appropriate fun at workhelps generate profitable business” (p. 40). She also suggests other im-portant benefits from creating and sustaining a fun work environmentfor the organization such as lowered turnover and fewer stress-relatedproblems.

Thus, while there is support for the value of culture in directing em-ployee behavior, the importance for a variety of both individual and or-ganizational outcomes of having a fun work environment, and thepositive outcomes of working in a job setting that creates a sense of sub-jective well being, there is surprisingly little known about what are thethings that managers can do to facilitate the creation and maintenance ofa fun work environment.

Managerial Cues of the Work Environment

We suggest as seen in Figure 1 that managers provide cues as to whatkind of a culture they seek to create. This follows reasoning suggested byPugh (2002) and Schneider (1980). They argue that we should be seekingalignment across all aspects of the organization as to how culture is com-municated to its members. The more tightly aligned the cues, the strongerthe cultural value representing a fun work environment should be.

Managerial cues can be either explicit or implicit. Explicit cues arethose embedded in all formal and publicly available communications ofthe organization. They include formal polices, procedures, missionstatements, reward systems, and job descriptions. They include whatmanagers write and say. Implicit cues are those that are not writtendown but are expressed through managerial action and behavior. Theyinclude what managers do and reward.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

6:29

15

Oct

ober

201

4

The model shown in Figure 1 suggests that cues affect the work envi-ronment which in turn influences behaviors and actions by the membersof that work organization. The argument is that if employees are en-couraged to have fun by both implicit and explicit cues sent by manage-ment, then both the employers and employees will consider that theirwork environment is fun. This sense that their work environment is partof a fun work culture or climate will in turn lead to a number of positiveoutcomes including the creation of a positive service experience forcustomers.

Defining a Fun Work Environment

Since fun is not yet a topic of major theoretical or empirical research,there is not any consistent agreement on its definition. Consequently,we derived our definition of implicit cues from a review of the fairlylarge number of published work offering suggestions about what typesof activities and actions managers can take to create a fun work environ-ment (e.g., Hemsath & Yerkes, 1997; Weinstein, 1996). This literatureoffers a wide variety of items, actions or cues that managers can do orsupport to contribute to employees having fun at work.

We could have utilized any of several existing definitions of fun(e.g., Goffman, l96l; Biesty, 1984; Grayson, 1999; Huizinga, 1950) asthe basis for defining a fun work environment. However, we found suchwide variance in how writers on this topic defined fun that we were re-luctant to use them or offer an a priori definition to the respondents.Many of these definitions are developed within the context of gamesand game playing. Grayson (1999), for example, suggests that fun is aself-oriented reward. Biesty (1984) believes that the idea of fun is an in-ner driven feeling and refers to an earlier definition by Goffman (1961).Biesty (1984) states that fun “is defined as the positively affected reflec-tion upon a novel, unique, or original action” (p. 63). He goes on to sug-gest that fun and play are linked together.

Thus, we conclude that there is not any consistent measure of a funwork environment available in the literature. Indeed, it might be arguedthat there is no consistent definition of fun either. We agreed withHuizinga (1950), the classic writer on fun and play who suggested thatthe fun of playing resists all definition. Unfortunately, the efforts ofmanagers to create and sustain a fun work environment are limited bythis lack of knowledge about what it is and how it is measured. This lackof definition gives further support for studying fun by asking managers


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

6:29

15

Oct

ober

201

4

themselves how they define it and what factors they believe are contri-butors to creating a work environment that they consider fun.

METHOD

We investigated the cues that managers could send about the workenvironment through a questionnaire survey directed at human resourceprofessionals. We selected human resources managers as they are typi-cally the locus of the activities and actions that organizations take to im-plement activities associated with creating and sustaining a company’sculture. They are generally the most knowledgeable about programsand activities that define work environments and are responsible foroverseeing and assessing the individual and organizational outcomesthat might be associated with employees having fun at work.

Identifying a comprehensive listing of all the items we found in the lit-erature representing fun activities that managers could support or dowould lead to creating a questionnaire that would be too lengthy to use(e.g., Brinker and Phillips, 1996; Gordon, 1992; Mariotti, 1999; Boczany,1985; Casison, 2000; Hemsath, 1997; Hemsath & Yerkes, 1997; Weinstein,1996; Kitchel, 1996; McGhee, 2000; Millis, 1999; National Underwriter,1999). Thus the authors developed a categorization procedure that al-lowed the clustering of similar activities and actions into ten categories.While a separate research study could be focused on reassessing the va-lidity of our categorizations, we felt that the sorting process used ade-quately captured the many different items reported in the literature. Theseten are recognition of personal milestones, public celebrations of profes-sional achievements, social events, opportunity for community volunteerism,stress release activities, humor, playing games, friendly competitionsamong employees, opportunities for personal development, and enter-tainment. These items are more fully defined in Table 1. The outcomesassociated with a fun work environment were also identified from thesame literature referenced above. As noted earlier, there is not much em-pirical work done on any of these to refer to and the purpose of the studywas to investigate the factors that were identified and then to test them inthis pilot study to see which if any were meaningfully related to personaland organizational outcomes of fun work environments claimed in the lit-erature.

Because of the ambiguity over what fun is and what characterizes a funwork environment, we first created a measurement that sought to assessthe overall level of fun in the organization. This was a simple question


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

6:29

15

Oct

ober

201

4

asking the respondents to indicate on a ten-point scale (l = poor, 10 = ex-cellent) how they would rate their organization with regard to its fun workenvironment.

The ten items representing the cues or actions that managers can sup-port to promote a fun work environment, the measure of the extent towhich a work environment is fun, and the individual and organizationaloutcomes associated with having a fun work environment were listed ina questionnaire. The questionnaire was pretested on a small sample ofhuman resource managers to test its clarity of meaning and readability.The final revised questionnaire was electronically sent, with permis-sion, to 4,000 members of the Society of Human Resource Management(SHRM). Five hundred seventy useable responses were gathered on aweb site that was electronically linked to the email request to partici-pate. Of those responses, 210 were categorized by SHRM as service in-


TABLE 1. Frequency of Practices Creating Fun Work Environments

Mean 1Not at All

2 3Moderately

4 5Extensively

1. Recognition of personal milestones (e.g.,celebrating individual birthdays oranniversaries of employment).

3.38 4% 21% 26% 29% 20%

2. Public celebrations of professionalachievements (e.g., award banquets,recognition for outstanding results,naming an “employee of the month”).

3.15 8% 20% 33% 27% 12%

3. Fun social events (e.g., social gatherings,picnics, parties).

3.15 4% 23% 35% 28% 10%

4. Opportunities to engage in communityvolunteerism (e.g., coaching, participation incivic and community service groups).

2.77 21% 26% 21% 20% 12%

5. Stress release activities (e.g., massage,exercise facilities, casual dress days).

2.60 20% 31% 26% 17% 7%

6. Humor (e.g., cartoons, jokes in corporatenewsletters, e-mails, and managerialmessages).

2.41 21% 34% 32% 10% 3%

7. Games (e.g., dart boards, bingo,company-sponsored athletic teams andevents).

2.26 32% 31% 22% 11% 4%

8. Friendly competitions among employees(e.g., prizes for attendance, awards for crazycostumes, sales contests).

2.21 35% 28% 22% 11% 4%

9. Opportunities for personal developmentgrowth through opportunities for non-job-related learning (e.g., quilting classes, bookclubs, aerobics).

1.97 44% 27% 18% 9% 2%

10. Entertainment (e.g., bands, skits, plays). 1.91 46% 27% 19% 7% 1%

Note: A scale of 1 to 5 was employed, with “1” representing not used, “3” moderately used, and “5” extensively used inthe respondent’s organization.Note: Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

6:29

15

Oct

ober

201

4

dustry organizations and all data analysis reported below are based onlyon that subset of the total respondents.

ANALYSIS

Our first and primary purpose was to create a measure of implicitcues that managers can use to create a fun work environment. If man-agement strongly supports and utilizes activities represented by thesecategories of items, then it can be assumed that they also support havingfun at work. If they don’t support them at all, then it seems reasonable toassume that having fun is not considered a cultural value that manage-ment wishes to support or reinforce. Thus, we investigated the degree towhich any of the ten categories were related to a fun work environment.

Respondents were asked to indicate on a five-point scale (1 = not atall, 3 = moderately, 5 = extensively) the frequency that each of thesecategories of fun activities were actually found or practiced in their or-ganizations. These ten categories are listed in Table 1 in order of de-creasing mean scores. An almost identical ranking is obtained by usingthe percentage of respondents replying “moderately” or better (e.g., thesum of 3 + 4 + 5 responses).

We conducted an exploratory factor analysis on these ten items.Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was .87. All ten items loaded on one com-ponent (eigenvalue ≥ 1 criteria). This component loaded most heavilyon items 2, “public celebrations of professional achievements,” 7,“games,” and 3, “fun social events” (.764, .741 and .741, respectively)in Table 1. Three other factors loaded between .700 and .740 and twoothers loaded between .600-.699. The remaining two loaded in the .500range.

The results of this analysis reveal that the many different items thatwe organized into the ten item questionnaire categories can be collapsedinto a single factor. These data tell us that the many implicit cues man-agers can send to create a fun work environment are driven by a singleunderlying current or simply, that the ten categories of fun activitiesidentified in the literature can be developed into a single measure of funwork environment. In addition to the data discussed above, we con-ducted standardized factor scores for each of the 210 respondents.These data are used in Table 1.

Table 1 shows that the single factor representing the managerialcues and actions that lead to employees feeling that they work in a fun


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

6:29

15

Oct

ober

201

4

work environment includes a comprehensive array of all the activitiesand actions that are reported in the literature as contributing to a funwork environment or fun work culture. While it may seem that includ-ing items like giving employees opportunities to engage in communityvolunteerism or allowing them to participate in personal developmentactivities is stretching the idea of fun work environments, they arenonetheless part of this factor. We suspect that this supports the ideathat the ten categories reflect an overarching climate or feeling aboutwhat is like to work in that organization and that employees react tothese cues in a holistic way.

Indeed, Lawler’s (1992) discussion of factors that are related to thecreation of high involvement organizations include such activities asfound in the categories reported here. He states, “When work units aresuccessful, managers should be sure that everyone involved in ac-knowledged and that celebrations and other forms of recognition occur.This recognition can be something as small as a pizza for everyone; aday of casual attire; a chance to go home early; a meeting in which a se-nior managers acknowledges the employees’ good work; or a specialparty, diner or weekend excursion” (p. 195). In many respects, ourstudy data affirm the value of Lawler’s suggestions about how to createa high involvement organization. Our data supports the idea that the em-ployee sees the organization holistically and all activities that supportthe value and worth of the employee and his or her contributions are partof what creates and sustains a fun work environment. Clearly, our re-spondents saw management support for all these activities as legitimatecomponents of what it takes to cue a fun work environment.

Analyzing the First Linkage

One major part of the research was to provide a pilot study investiga-tion of how our respondents saw the linkage between the implicit mana-gerial cues as seen in the definition of the fun work environment and thelevel of a fun in that work environment. As noted above, statisticalscores were calculated for the 10 cueing items and the overall factor of afun work environment. A simple regression model was used to deter-mine the relationship between factor scores previously calculated foreach respondent and their responses to the general level of a fun envi-ronment. An “F test” was significant at the .01 level. The “coefficient ofdetermination” (r2) indicated that 51.3% of the variation in the assess-ments could be explained by the factor scores.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

6:29

15

Oct

ober

201

4

To “cover all bases,” and add credence to the results reported above,a chi square analysis (non-parametric) was made between each of theten items on Table 1 and the respondents’ overall assessment of the funwork environment. Every chi-square was significant at the .01 level.Thus, the data show a significant relationship between the frequency ofthe each fun category and how the respondents rate their own organiza-tion on the degree to which it displays a fun work environment. Corre-lation analysis was also conducted to see if there were significantrelationships between these ten items and the overall assessment of funin the organization. These relationships were also significant at the .01level.

It seems fair to conclude from these comparisons that the human re-source managers surveyed believed strongly that organizations that pro-moted or cued fun activities did in fact have more fun work environments.The ten implicit categories of cues for a fun work environment, individu-ally and collectively, were strongly and significantly related to the actualperception of a fun place to work.

The Outcomes of a Fun Work Environment

A part of the study was designed to also test the relationship betweenthe degree to which the respondents saw the environment as fun and theindividual and organizational outcomes that the literature suggests is as-sociated with having a fun work environment. An outcome of a funwork environment is an activity or condition that is directly affected bythe fun work environment. One goal was to test to see if the respondentsfrom organizations that reported higher levels of a fun work environ-ment actually felt their organizations were more successful in achievingthese important outcomes. Twenty-nine individual and organizationaloutcomes were identified and included in the questionnaire as a result ofthe extensive literature review noted above. These items are listed inTable 2.

This table shows how the respondents perceived the effects or re-sults of working in a fun work environment. The respondents wereasked to indicate the degree to which important individual, group,and organizational outcomes changed as result of working in a funwork environment. Responses were made on a five point anchoredscale that ranged from substantial decrease (1) to substantial increase (5).

The mean scores and frequencies are reported on Table 2. It should benoted that in some cases a low score represents a positive outcome be-cause of the question’s wording. For example, a substantial increase in


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

6:29

15

Oct

ober

201

4

sexual harassment or cost of operations would not be good but a substan-tial decrease (low score) would mean that these two items decreased as aresult of the fun work environment.

We believed that the analysis could be improved if the number ofitems on Table 2 could be reduced to a number smaller than 29. There-


TABLE 2. Outcomes Associated with a Fun Work Environment

Mean SubstantialDecrease1

ModerateDecrease2

NoEffect3

ModerateIncrease4

SubstantialIncrease5

1. Accident rates (frequency). 2.63 9% 37% 40% 13% 1%

2. Ability to attract new employees. 4.37 2% 1% 3% 47% 48%

3. Absenteeism rates. 2.33 26% 46% 6% 14% 9%

4. Communications among employees. 4.25 3% 2% 3% 53% 40%

5. Customer satisfaction. 4.13 2% 2% 9% 53% 33%

6. Cost of operations. 3.07 3% 25% 36% 34% 2%

7. Employee anxiety and stress. 2.00 36% 48% 1% 8% 6%

8. Employee complaints of boredom. 2.01 35% 47% 5% 7% 6%

9. Employee creativity. 4.22 3% 1% 4% 55% 37%

10. Employee enthusiasm. 4.43 3% 1% 1% 39% 56%

11. Employee satisfaction. 4.31 3% 2% 3% 48% 45%

12. Employee friendships at work. 4.19 2% 1% 6% 57% 34%

13. Employee turnover rates. 2.16 23% 56% 9% 10% 3%

14. Equipment damage caused by playfulness. 2.99 4% 9% 70% 16% *

15. Frequency of employee errors made. 2.78 5% 27% 54% 14% *

16. Group cohesiveness. 4.17 2% 2% 3% 65% 29%

17. Interpersonal conflicts. 2.29 12% 60% 17% 10% 1%

18. Level of employee commitment to theorganization.

4.07 1% 2% 9% 65% 23%

19. Mutual trust among employees. 3.90 1% 2% 19% 63% 15%

20. Organizational citizenship (voluntaryacts of helping behaviors) by employees.

3.98 2% 1% 12% 67% 18%

21. Professionalism at work. 3.14 1% 22% 44% 27% 6%

22. Quality of employee productivity. 3.77 1% 7% 19% 62% 12%

23. Reports of sexual harassment. 2.96 4% 16% 60% 18% 1%

24. Respect among coworkers. 3.66 * 5% 32% 55% 8%

25. Respect from higher-ups. 3.39 1% 11% 42% 41% 5%

26. Speed with which new tasks arelearned by employees during trainingprograms.

3.63 1% 4% 36% 50% 9%

27. Strength of the corporate culture(shared values and norms).

4.01 2% 2% 11% 63% 22%

28. Understanding of the organization’smission and priorities.

3.63 1% 2% 42% 44% 11%

29. Work taken seriously by otherdepartments.

3.28 2% 11% 49% 34% 5%

*Indicates less than 1 percent. Note: Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.Bolded items are significant at > .05 on Chi Square test.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

6:29

15

Oct

ober

201

4

fore, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis of the 29 items. Theyfall into six groups (eigenvalues ≥ 1 criteria). The items are briefly de-scribed below. Factor scores were also calculated for each item andeach respondent. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was .90. These groups aredetailed in the Appendix.

Factor 1 is primarily concerned with “Employee Worklife Satisfac-tion.” It includes items such as “Employee satisfaction,” “Employeefriendships at work,” and “Employee enthusiasm.” Specifically, it in-cludes items 2, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 16 in Table 2.

Factor 2 is primarily concerned with “Professionalism and Respect.” Itincludes items like “Respect from co workers” and “Professionalism atwork.” Specifically, it includes items 21, 24, 25, and 29 in Table 2.

Factor 3 is concerned with “Job and Task Performance.” It includesitems such as “Frequency of employee errors made,” “Cost of oper-ations,” and “Accident rates.” Specifically, it includes items 1, 6, 14,15, 17, and 23 in Table 2.

Factor 4 is primarily concerned with “Job and Task Engagement.” Itincludes items like “Absenteeism rates,” “Employee turnover rates,”and “Employee complaints of boredom.” Specifically, it includesitems 3, 7, 8, and 13 in Table 2.

Factor 5 is primarily concerned with “Citizenship and Trust.” It in-cludes items such as “Organizational citizenship” and “Mutual trustamong employees.” Specifically, it includes items 19, 20 and 26 inTable 2.

Factor 6 is primarily concerned with “Engagement in OrganizationCulture and Mission.” It includes items such as “Strength of corpo-rate culture (shared values and norms)” and “Understanding of theorganization’s mission and priorities.” Specifically, it includesitems 22, 27, and 28 in Table 2.

Analyzing the Second Linkage

A second goal of this paper was to test and see if the respondentsfrom organizations that reported higher levels of fun in their work envi-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

6:29

15

Oct

ober

201

4

ronments actually felt their organizations were more successful inachieving important individual and organizational outcomes claimed inthe literature as being associated with having fun at work. Here the anal-ysis shows less strong linkages between the level of fun in the work en-vironment and the outcomes.

For each of the six items a chi-square analysis (non-parametric) wasmade between the factor scores of each of the respondents and the overallassessment of the environment as a fun place to work. The test for the firstfactor, “Employee Worklife Satisfaction,” was significant at the .05 level.The only other significant factor was factor 3, “Job and Task Perfor-mance.” It was significant at the .01 level. The other four factors, “Profes-sionalism and Respect,” “Job and Task Engagement,” “Citizenship andTrust,” and “Engagement in Organization Culture and Mission,” did notshow a significant relationship using a chi square test. Again, “to cover allbases,” correlation analysis was also conducted to see if there were any sig-nificant relationships between the six sets of factor scores and the overallassessment of fun in the organization. None of these tests showed a signifi-cant relationship. As with our test of the first linkage in the model seen inFigure 1, we conducted regression analysis but found no significance.

In order to discover as much as possible about the relationships betweenany of the items and the degree to which a fun work environment existed,we individually tested for all of the 29 items. Chi-square analysis shows 18relationships significant at the .05 level (.05 items are noted in bold onTable 2) Correlation analyses were made between each of the 29 outcomeitems and the overall measure of the organization’s fun work environment.However, this revealed only two items that are significantly related at the.05 level (#24, “Respect among coworkers” and #25, “Respect from higherups”) and three others that are significant at the .10 level (#3, “Absenteeismrates,” #13, “Employee turnover rates,” and #26, “Speed with which newtasks are learned by employees during programs”).

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this paper was to see the results of managerial cues ondefining an organizations’ culture and the relationship of the culture onorganizational outcomes. In this case, the particular aspect of culture isa “fun work environment.” Our exploratory factor analysis found a sin-gle factor incorporated all ten of the items identified as categories of funactivities. This gives us a useful measure of what activities characterize


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

6:29

15

Oct

ober

201

4

implicit managerial cues about fun that bears further development andtesting.

While we did not seek to measure explicit cues for creating a funwork environment, two other items on the questionnaire gave us someinsight into the potential value of adding explicit cues to measure thestrength of the fun work environment. These two items are “Does yourorganization have a policy relevant to a fun work environment?” And“Does your organization have a system for rewarding managers whoconsciously promote a fun work environment?” More than 80 percentof the respondents answered no to both questions.

The data derived from this study provide only partial support for theproposed linkage model. There is a strong relationship between the im-plicit cues and the belief that the organization has a fun work environ-ment. On the other hand, the relationships between the overall assessmentof the fun work environment and most of the outcome measures are, atbest, limited. The strong and significant linkages with individual, group,and organizational outcomes that were expected from a strong fun workenvironment are not evident.

This lack of this expected strong relationship may be explained bythe aspect of culture studied (e.g., a fun work environment), the use of asingle global measurement of fun in the workplace, the reliance on datafrom a single source questionnaire or some other methodological limi-tation, or it may be that these linkages do not exist and that the culturedoes not have a direct impact on or linkage to the individual or organiza-tional outcomes that the literature asserts and we measured. In otherwords, the data appear to only verify a linkage between the implicit cuesand the fun work environment.

We think more research should be undertaken to discover what ismoderating the linkage between the fun work environment and the out-comes. This is an important issue to both practicing managers andscholars. It is important to know that there are relationships between thecues that management sends to its employees and how they define theirwork environment. It is even more important to know that when man-agement signals or cues a type of culture or climate that these cues willlead not only lead to the desired culture but also lead in turn to desiredindividual and organizational outcomes. The study results should giveadditional support to the belief that having fun at work is useful formanagement seeking to create a high involvement organization. Indeed,it might be argued that a fun work environment is the result of the suc-cessful practice of high involvement management. Our data certainlyaffirm and illustrate the importance of the actions and activities that


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

6:29

15

Oct

ober

201

4

managers can use to cue a fun work environment. There is a strong rela-tionship between a fun work environment and the desirability of the or-ganization as a place to work.

If the service organization seeks to have a culture that includes hav-ing fun, then management should send out the proper cues and expectthat these cues will lead to positive outcomes. While this study only par-tially encompasses the many factors that help define an organizationalculture, it helps us better understand the value of having fun that is soimportant to managers in the hospitality and service industries. If a funwork environment can be shown to relate more strongly than our pilotstudy does to positive organizational outcomes as more research is doneon this topic, the usefulness of our measure to identifying what implicitcues managers can send to their employees to create a fun work environ-ment will be enhanced.

REFERENCES

Aldag, R. J. and Sherony, K.M. (2001). A spoonful of sugar: Some thoughts on fun atwork, Current Issues in Management (on line at http://www.midwestacademy.org),1(1): 62-76

Ashkansay, N.M., Broadfoot, L.E., Falkus, S. (2000). Questionnaire measures of orga-nizational culture. In Ashkansay, N.M., Wilderom, C.P.M., and Peterson, M.F. eds,Handbook of Organizational Culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Biesty, P. (1984). If Its Fun, Is it Play? A Median Analysis, in B. Mergen, ed. CulturalDimensions of Play, Games, and Sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publish-ers. pp. 61-72.

Berry, L.A. (1995). Relationship marketing of services: Growing interest, emergingperspectives. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 323(4): 236-245.

Berry, L.A. (1999). Discovering the Soul of Service. New York: The Free Press.Boczany, W.J. 1985. Productivity improvement: Making work fun. Journal of Systems

Management, (April): 27-30.Bowen, D.E. (1990). Interdisciplinary study of service: Some progress, some pros-

pects. Journal of Business Research, 20: 71-79.Bowen, J. and Ford, R.C. (2002). Managing service organizations: Does having a

“thing” make a difference? Journal of Management, 28(3):447-469.Brinker, N. and Phillips, D.T. (1996). On the Brink: The Life and Leadership of Nor-

man Brinker. Arlington: Summit Publishing.Casison, J. (2000). Service with a smile. Incentive, 174(11): 79-80.Davidow, W.A. and Uttal, B. (1989). Total Customer Service. New York: Harper & Row.Deal, T.E. and Key, M.K. (1998). Corporate Celebration. San Francisco: Berrett-

Koehler.Diener, E. (1999). Subjective well being: Three decades of progress, Psychological

Bulletin, 125: 276-302.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

6:29

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Ford, R.C. and Heaton, C.P. (2000). Managing the Guest Experience in Hospitality.Albany, NY: Delmar.

Ford, R.C., McLaughlin, F.S. and Newstrom, J.W. Questions and answers about fun atwork. Orlando, FL: Working paper.

Freiberg, K. and Freiberg, J. (1996). Nuts! Austin, Texas: Bard Press.George, J.M. and Brief, A.P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good. A conceptual analysis

of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulle-tin, 112/2: 310-329.

Glasser, W. (1994). The Control Theory Manager. New York: Harper Business.Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Gordon, J. (1992). Structured fun. Training, 29(9): 23-30.Grayson, K. (1999). The dangers and opportunities of playful consumption. In M.B.

Holbrook, ed. Consumer Value. London: Routledge. pp. 105-125.Hemsath, D. (1997). Are we having fun yet? The Journal of Quality and Participation,

20(1): 52-4.Huizinga, J. (1950). Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture. Boston,

MA: The Beacon Press.Kitchel, K. (1996). Yearlong workplace fun. Incentive, 170(10): 59-61.Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (1995). The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco:

Jossey Bass.Luthans, F. (2002). Positive organization behavior: Developing and managing

psychological strengths, The Academy of Management Executive, 16(1): 57-75.Mariotti, J. (1999). A company that plays together, stays together. Industry Week, 248

(6): 63-70.McGhee, P. (2000). The key to stress management, retention, and profitability? More

workplace fun. HR Focus, 77(9): 5-6.Meyer, H. (1999). Fun for everyone. The Journal of Business Strategy, 20(2): 13-17.Millis, M. (1999). Don’t underestimate the power of celebration. Credit Union Maga-

zine, 65(8): 15-16.National Underwriter. (1999). Employers stress workplace fun. National Underwriter,

103(20): 25-27.Parasuraman, A. (1987) Customer-oriented corporate cultures are crucial to services.

Marketing Success, 1: 39-46.Perin, S. (1998). A serious business. Accountancy, (February): 40-42.Peters, T. (1994). The Pursuit of Wow! New York: Vintage.Redman, T. and Mathews, B.P. (2000). Revitalizing services–Is fun an answer? Pro-

ceedings of marketing, strategy, economics, operations and human resources: In-sights on service activities (June): 492-504.

Schein, E. (1985). Organization Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schneider, B. (1980).The service organization: Climate is crucial. Organizational Dy-namics, 9(2): 52-65.

Schneider, B., White, S.S. and Paul, M.C. (1998). Linking service climate and cus-tomer perceptions of service quality: Test of a causal model. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 83(2): 150-163.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

6:29

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Schneider, B. and Bowen, D.E. (1995). Winning the Service Game. Boston: HarvardBusiness School Press.

Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture: An organizational analysis. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 28: 339-358.

Strand, P. (2000). Angling for workplace fun. Incentive, 174(10): 135-136.Weinstein, M. (1996). Managing to Have Fun. New York: Fireside.Workforce 2000. (2000). Are you having any fun? Workforce, 79(5): 25-26.Zbar, J. (1999). Are we having fun? Computerworld, 33(38): 70-71

SUBMITTED: February 2004ACCEPTED: March 2004


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

6:29

15

Oct

ober

201

4


APPENDIX

Outcomes Associated with a Fun Work Environment

Rotated Component Matrixa

Questionnaire Item Component

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Accident rates .057 .111 .614 .228 .302 –.007

2. Ability to attract new employees .636 .116 .009 –.017 –.070 .332

3. Absenteeism rates –.053 –.049 .292 .657 .099 .268

4. Communications among employees .430 .417 –.027 –.156 .299 –.016

5. Customer satisfaction .546 .233 .097 .077 .172 .239

6. Cost of operations .166 –.034 .661 .114 .130 –.116

7. Employee anxiety and stress –.069 .029 .081 .878 –.055 .033

8. Employee complaints of boredom .043 .118 .070 .876 –.096 .029

9. Employee creativity .805 –.027 .183 .019 .137 .207

10. Employee enthusiasm .788 .146 .170 .031 .055 .075

11. Employee satisfaction .819 .081 .095 .062 .164 .084

12. Employee friendships at work .707 .211 –.042 –.069 .216 –.097

13. Employee turnover rates .102 –.061 .030 .668 .323 –.089

14. Equipment damage caused by playfulness –.026 .149 .746 –.144 –.092 .251

15. Frequency of employee errors made .071 .125 .787 .139 .107 .027

16. Group cohesiveness .556 .310 .074 .006 .444 –.138

17. Interpersonal conflicts .279 .258 .553 .412 –.023 –.125

18. Level of employee commitment to the organization .495 .182 .083 .112 .386 .486

19. Mutual trust among employees .322 .449 .191 .071 .571 .148

20. Organizational citizenship (voluntary acts of helping behaviors) byemployees

.167 .204 .024 .011 .759 .250

21. Professionalism at work .111 .564 .360 .087 .122 .387

22. Quality of employee productivity .373 .299 .343 .127 .250 .537

23. Reports of sexual harassment .040 .376 .645 .066 –.068 .273

24. Respect among coworkers .279 .744 .180 .133 .262 –.017

25. Respect from higher ups .230 .808 .134 .048 .066 .091

26. Speed with new tasks are learned by employees during programs .286 .021 .243 .096 .573 .187

27. Strength of corporate culture (shared values and norms) .431 .135 –.058 .086 .318 .506

28. Understanding of the organization’s mission and priorities .268 .393 .058 .024 .279 .578

29. Work taken seriously by other departments .060 .766 .157 –.062 .052 .234

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

6:29

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

Creating and Sustaining Fun Work Environments in Hospitality and Service Organizations