Discussing if fun should or should not be
banned from workplace in relation to productivity, implies that fun may have an
effect in it, either positive or negative. For humans, fun is a pretty salient
element in any choice context and heavily influences our preferences. We like
being involved in fun activities.
To analyse the relationship between fun and
work, I will first set a framework to analyse how work decisions may be
influenced by context. Then I will focus on the ideas of fun and productivity
bringing a general characterization of the terms. I will review some research
done on the issue, and finally I will discuss the relation between fun, work
and productivity.
Decisions related to work are part of the
many decisions we take on a daily basis. Although for some people they are
considered the most important ones, we do not have a special decision system
dedicated to deal with them. We decide how we behave in work, with the same
tools we decide where to invest our money and what movie to watch on cable TV
during the night.
Our decision-making process was
characterized by Daniel Kahneman in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow as having two systems: one fast,
unconscious and effortless, and the other slow, logical and with
characteristics that we generally associate with intelligence. This two ways of
processing our decisions engage simultaneously in solving problems but not
necessarily come with the same answer. In fact, many times we end up acting
systematically in ways that our slow thinking would characterize as errors. Those
errors come from the activation of automatisms in our fast thinking that are produced
by “cues” embedded in the environment (Kahneman, 2011). Context matters when we are making decisions to the point that, in
some situations, shaping the surroundings of a decision can induce certain
behaviours regardless our prior beliefs or our future well-being.
When we are at work, we take many
decisions. Some of them are clearly motivated by incentives set to make us
perform in a clear and specific way. Managers usually set compensation plans
that are intended to make us do so. However, we also take hundreds of seemingly
unimportant decisions that have a major impact in our personal performance and
productivity.
Both, conscious and unconscious decisions,
are subject to a context.
To better understand some of the forces present
in the context that have relevant effects in our behaviour, Dolan, Halpern,
Hallsworth, King, and Vlaev put together a helpful acronym: MINDSPACE[1]. In it
they recognize the relevance of behavioural economics forces (Incentives,
Commitments, and Defaults), cognitive psychology contributions (Saliency and
Affect), social psychology influences (Messenger, Norms, and Ego), and the
characteristics of our dual processing way of thinking (Priming) (Dolan, Halpern, Hallsworth, King,
& Vlaev, 2010).
Many times, when designing a work
environment, HR practitioners invest lots of energy in setting the proper
incentives and creating clear commitments, but they do not put similar time in
understanding and shaping the other elements presented in the MINDSPACE model.
By doing so, they are freeing them to act in ways that may end up damaging
workers intended performance.
To assess the relation between fun in the
workplace and productivity it is useful to discuss how they are characterized.
Fun is the enjoyment that comes from
engaging in pleasure activities that are many times related with leisure. Considering
that work is the antonym of leisure, fun and work have not a natural relation. But,
modern managerial common knowledge identified long time ago a relationship
between fun and workers morale. Many corporations even include concepts as
“work hard, yet keep it fun”, or “fun, excitement, and joy”[2] in their
corporate statements.
For the purpose of this essay, I will
consider the essence of “workplace fun” as one that implies those activities
designed with the purpose of improving organizational outcomes, and do not have
fun as an objective per se. In that sense, it is important to consider not only
the effect of fun in individuals but also how the management participate in those
situations, and how the workers perceive it.
To deepen in the discussion of fun and
productivity, it is also important to clarify the extent of the term
productivity. There are lots of anecdotal evidences of how the workplace may
benefit from fun. However, in the last years rigorous academic research has also
emerged to help in understanding the effects of fun in the workplace.
Some of the work was focused in how fun
improved task performance, some focused on employee retention and turnover,
some in emotional exhaustion and job satisfaction. Although it is easy to
establish how all these effects may impact in productivity, it is clear that
its relevance will depend in how productivity is defined. Such discussion
exceeds the purpose of this essay so I will just raise the point to bring
awareness to it.
William A. Kahn, in a paper published in
1990 entitled “Psychological Conditions
of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work” brought a useful
psychological framework to understand why people feel engaged with a position,
identifying three key elements: meaningfulness of the task, safety in terms of
security and general trustworthiness of the environment, and availability of
the emotional and psychological resources necessary to perform (Kahn, 1990). Fun contribute in a
positive manner to those three elements by promoting positive emotions towards
the task and the group. In that sense fun is an element of the context that
promote workers engagement, thus influencing their performance.
Several studies have been made regarding
fun, workplace and productivity. Tews, Michel and Stafford found that fun
activities may reduce turnover and improve performance (M. J. Tews, Michel, & Stafford,
2013). They
concluded that fun was important for young worker’s retention, and improve old
workers sales performance. They also found that managers support for fun
lowered the impact on sales performance bringing evidence that workers
perception about managers intentions mediate on this effect.
In another paper, Peter Fleming studied the
effects of a “culture of fun” program reflecting on how cynicism plays an
important role on it. Fleming brings awareness of how workers may perceive fun
activities promoted by firms noticing that its effects are heavily mediated by
aspects as dignity, respect. He also highlighted the idea that genuine fun may
be in conflict with the notion of authority. His writing stress how important
is for workers the “intentions” they see behind coporation promoting fun in the
workplace. Some organizations engage themselves in processes that are intended
to do a “symbolic blurring of the
boundary that has traditionally demarcated work and nonwork experiences”,
and workers interpretation of it conditions the effect of fun on productivity (Fleming, 2005).
A third interesting contribution comes from
understanding how fun influences the learning process. In a 2017 paper Tews,
Michel and Noe (Michael J. Tews, Michel, & Noe,
2017) argue
that fun activities are positively related to informal learning and positively
mediated by the manager’s support. Nevertheless, the authors are cautious to
point that this may vary from organization to organization.
The relationship between fun, workplace and
productivity is complex and not easy to generalize.
While there is evidence that shows how fun
improves how people feels about their job, several things can mediate that
effect.
Workplace is essentially a social
environment and norms and messengers heavily influence how our brain decodes
the cues that come from it. In addition, the saliency of some elements varies
for each person according to his age and position inside the company.
In any case, it seems clear that fun has
some spill-over effects on the way we perceive important elements that
determine our engagement with the position, and ultimate influence our
performance.
Our feelings about the intentions and
involvement of the management in fun activities at the workplace is is
particularly important to understand its impact in productivity. In some
situations, managers intervention contributes in a positive way to the effect,
but in some others, they backfire.
In all, fun at work may do a positive
contribution in improving performance and productivity, but the final effect
seems to be very dependent of the specifics of the situation. Those specifics
refer to the worker, the manager, the firm, the task, and the way to measure
performance. In situations as trying to reduce young workers turnover with the
effect of saving training time required by newcomers, fun with managers
involvement have a positive impact. However, when trying to improve the
performance of an experienced sales team by engaging in fun activities,
managers involving is perceived as negative.
As in many situations regarding human
behaviour, the effect of fun in workplace in relation to productivity requires
a careful approach with rigorous experimentation. It should not be banned, but
it needs to be properly assessed to assure a positive contribution to the
performance and productivity in the firm.
Dolan, P.,
Halpern, D., Hallsworth, M., King, D., & Vlaev, I. (2010). Influencing
behaviour through public policy (Mindspace Short Guide). The Institute for
Government for the Cabinet Office.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2009.00206.x
Fleming, P. (2005).
Workers’ playtime?: Boundaries and cynicism in a “culture of fun” program. The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(3), 285–303.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886305277033
Kahn, W. A. (1990).
PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONS OF PERSONAL ENGAGEMENT AND DISENGAGEMENT AT WORK. Academy
of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.
https://doi.org/10.2307/256287
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking
, Fast and Slow. Book. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
Tews, M. J., Michel, J. W.,
& Noe, R. A. (2017). Does fun promote learning? The relationship between
fun in the workplace and informal learning. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
98, 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.09.006
Tews, M. J., Michel, J. W.,
& Stafford, K. (2013). Does Fun Pay? The Impact of Workplace Fun on
Employee Turnover and Performance. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(4),
370–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965513505355
Commitments, Ego.
[2] The first
statement comes from Marriot’s core ideology statement, and the second from
Walt Disney World’s anual report, as cited in a paper by Tews, Michel, and Noe (Michael
J. Tews et al., 2017)
