Introduction
Imagine that you discovered a magic potion for fun at work, an elixir you could bottle and imbibe daily. There would be no more lacklustre workdays or unnecessary work hassles. Rather, every workday would be experienced as fun and enjoyable. Literature with a focus on workplace fun does not generally attribute the capacity to generate fun at work to employees themselves (Becker & Tews, Reference Becker and Tews2016; Fluegge-Woolf, Reference Fluegge-Woolf2014; Pryor, Singleton, Taneja, & Humphreys, Reference Pryor, Singleton, Taneja and Humphreys2010). Rather, as we will demonstrate, organisations are usually viewed as being responsible for providing fun-filled work environments and providing the conditions in which workers will thrive. In this regard, researchers in this area may be disempowering individuals by failing to examine the extent to which employees might have agency over their own experience of work. To address this gap, this study deliberately focusses on an individual's capacity to have fun at work. Previous research (Owler & Morrison, Reference Owler and Morrison2012, Reference Owler and Morrison2015) has described extraordinary individuals who have an abundant capacity to enjoy their work, and coming across these intriguing individuals is what prompted the current study. We interviewed eight ‘remarkable’ workers who claim to have had fun at work, defined as ‘a sense of light-hearted enjoyment’ (Michel, Tews, & Allen, Reference Michel, Tews and Allen2019; Owler & Morrison, Reference Owler and Morrison2012), in any job they have held. Their accounts were analysed using a critical realist approach that allowed for exploration of both the structural/organisational and individual causes of fun.
This paper begins with a review of current literature on workplace fun, highlighting a scarcity of research on how individuals may create fun at work. The research method is then described, followed by a discussion of the analytical approach, critical realism. Following this, four themes relevant to participants' experiences of fun are examined, drawing on relevant sociological, management and psychological theories. A key finding relates to the ability of our participants to employ agency and control to have fun at work. Research limitations and implications for future research are then explored, followed by a concluding section discussing theoretical contributions and the application of findings.
Background and Research Focus
A growing body of literature has investigated workplace fun (Owler, Morrison, & Plester, Reference Owler, Morrison and Plester2010; Plester & Hutchison, Reference Plester and Hutchison2016), with most authors seeking to describe managerial attempts to create and utilise ‘social’ fun at work to influence worker engagement and productivity (e.g., Becker & Tews, Reference Becker and Tews2016; Fine & Corte, Reference Fine and Corte2017; Fluegge-Woolf, Reference Fluegge-Woolf2014). Few authors have examined the investment by individuals, or the strategic attempts that individuals make, to create and sustain an experience of fun for themselves (Owler & Morrison, Reference Owler and Morrison2012; Plester, Cooper-Thomas, & Winquist, Reference Plester, Cooper-Thomas and Winquist2015). Indeed, as we discuss below, across the range of studies – quantitative through to ethnographic – the responsibility to provide fun work experiences is largely conceived as resting with management.
Research into workplace fun is generally framed within management studies as adding value in terms of employee wellbeing and productivity. Contemporary fun at work research often utilises quantitative survey data to identify causal relationships between managerial efforts to promote ‘positive affect’ (Michel, Tews, & Allen, Reference Michel, Tews and Allen2019: 99) and benefits related to the ‘bottom line’ (e.g., Becker, Reference Becker2012; Becker & Tews, Reference Becker and Tews2016; Chan & Mak, Reference Chan and Mak2016; Fluegge-Woolf, Reference Fluegge-Woolf2014; Ford, Newstrom, & McLaughlin, Reference Ford, Newstrom and McLaughlin2004; Han, Kim, & Jeong, Reference Han, Kim and Jeong2016; Tang, Liu, & Liu, Reference Tang, Liu and Liu2017; Tews, Michel, & Allen, Reference Tews, Michel and Allen2014; Tews, Michel, & Bartlett, Reference Tews, Michel and Bartlett2012; Tews, Michel, & Noe, Reference Tews, Michel and Noe2017; Tews, Michel, & Stafford, Reference Tews, Michel and Stafford2013; Tews, Michel, Xu, & Drost, Reference Tews, Michel, Xu and Drost2015; Tsaur, Hsu, & Lin, Reference Tsaur, Hsu and Lin2019). Fincham (Reference Fincham2016) states that, in many workplaces, managers now view themselves as having a ‘responsibility for the wellbeing, and even happiness of workers, outside of the normal parameters of things like health and safety’ (125). Within quantitative research, fun promoted by the organisation has been found to impact on a range of business factors including enhancing productivity (Fincham, Reference Fincham2016; Fluegge-Woolf, Reference Fluegge-Woolf2014; Ford, Newstrom, & McLaughlin, Reference Ford, Newstrom and McLaughlin2004; Pryor et al., Reference Pryor, Singleton, Taneja and Humphreys2010; Tang, Liu, & Liu, Reference Tang, Liu and Liu2017), worker satisfaction (Chan & Mak, Reference Chan and Mak2016; Karl, Harland, Peluchette, & Rodie, Reference Karl, Harland, Peluchette and Rodie2010; Karl, Peluchette, & Harland, Reference Karl, Peluchette and Harland2007) and employee engagement (Becker & Tews, Reference Becker and Tews2016; Fluegge-Woolf, Reference Fluegge-Woolf2014; Plester & Hutchison, Reference Plester and Hutchison2016).
While generally highlighting benefits to business, management scholars largely assume that management-led fun is also beneficial to workers (Fincham, Reference Fincham2016). However, some sociological researchers paint a grimmer picture of organisation-wide fun initiatives, linking them to forms of social control (Baldry & Hallier, Reference Baldry and Hallier2010; Fleming & Sturdy, Reference Fleming and Sturdy2009, Reference Fleming and Sturdy2011). In this critique, initiatives become associated with ideologies that promote organisational goals and aim to shape worker identities (Hunter, Jemielniak, & Postula, Reference Hunter, Jemielniak and Postula2010). In some contemporary workplaces, individuals are encouraged to adopt an informal and idiosyncratic approach to work, embracing the ‘freedom’ to express a true, ‘authentic’ self through the expression of fun (Fleming & Sturdy, Reference Fleming and Sturdy2009: 571). Some sociological scholars argue that these practices intrude on worker's identities, by attempting to ‘reshape their values and expression’ (Baldry & Hallier, Reference Baldry and Hallier2010: 150). This can result in a sense of alienation as workers ‘fake it’ while at work, to protect their ‘non-work’ selves from being captured by management. Although scholars do acknowledge that management-led fun initiatives may, at times, align with worker identities (Baldry & Hallier, Reference Baldry and Hallier2010) and concede that workers may sometimes challenge management attempts to dictate how they should enact fun at work (Fleming & Sturdy, Reference Fleming and Sturdy2011: 177), they also insinuate that power and control over fun sits predominantly with management (Hunter, Jemielniak, & Postula, Reference Hunter, Jemielniak and Postula2010).
Certain ethnographic literature on fun at work does allow for a slightly more ‘balanced’ conception of power; attributing some form of power-sharing to management and employees. Some authors acknowledge, for instance, the often ambivalent response of employees to fun initiatives (Baldry & Hallier, Reference Baldry and Hallier2010; Farrugia, Threadgold, & Coffey, Reference Farrugia, Threadgold and Coffey2017; Fleming, Reference Fleming2005; Fleming & Sturdy, Reference Fleming and Sturdy2011; Redman & Mathews, Reference Redman and Mathews2002). On the one hand, workers may appreciate management-led initiatives and associated positive outcomes. On the other hand, the initiatives may not suit the workers or place pressure on them to act in a certain way. For instance, workers may not respond well if they feel that management is placing a higher priority on fun than other more important aspects of worker wellbeing or productivity (Baptiste, Reference Baptiste2009; Fleming, Reference Fleming2005; Owler, Morrison, & Plester, Reference Owler, Morrison and Plester2010; Warren & Fineman, Reference Warren, Fineman, Westwood and Rhodes2007). Clancy and Linehan (Reference Clancy and Linehan2019) found that workers were more amenable to management-led fun initiatives if they perceived that they were implemented for their benefit, rather than the organisation's benefit.
To overcome the problems inherent in management-led fun – that is, fun ‘imposed from above’ – some researchers argue that the best scenario for management is to provide the workplace conditions where social fun is either organised by employees themselves (Georganta & Montgomery, Reference Georganta and Montgomery2019), or emerges organically, without being forced or manipulated (Becker, Reference Becker2012; Fleming, Reference Fleming2005; Plester, Reference Plester2009; Plester, Cooper-Thomas, & Winquist, Reference Plester, Cooper-Thomas and Winquist2015). In one recent study, Plester, Cooper-Thomas, and Winquist (Reference Plester, Cooper-Thomas and Winquist2015) found that spontaneous, organic fun that ‘just happens’, was a much more popular form of fun at work than management-led fun.
Although a great deal of research on fun at work examines social fun, there is one main exception: research relating to ‘flow’. Flow refers to a kind of optimal engagement or absorption in a task that involves a sense of competence, as well as a positive challenge (Csikszentmihalyi, Reference Csikszentmihalyi1975, Reference Csikszentmihalyi1991, Reference Csikszentmihalyi2000). Some researchers have linked the experience of flow to worker engagement, job satisfaction and individual fun (Abramis, Reference Abramis1999; Fluegge, Reference Fluegge2008; Owler & Morrison, Reference Owler and Morrison2012; Plester & Hutchison, Reference Plester and Hutchison2016; Plester, Cooper-Thomas, & Winquist, Reference Plester, Cooper-Thomas and Winquist2015; Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalellez-Roma, & Bakker, Reference Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalellez-Roma and Bakker2002). For instance, a study by Plester, Cooper-Thomas, and Winquist (Reference Plester, Cooper-Thomas and Winquist2015) revealed that workers constructed the experience of flow as a personal form of fun. Georganta and Montgomery (Reference Georganta and Montgomery2019) found that, for some workers, being immersed in and enjoying work, helped them pass the time more quickly. Nevertheless, the notion of ‘flow’ is generally under-researched in the ‘fun at work’ corpus (Plester, Cooper-Thomas, & Winquist, Reference Plester, Cooper-Thomas and Winquist2015). Previously published research has not highlighted, for instance, the extent to which workers consciously or unconsciously seek out flow experiences or the role they might play in creating flow experiences for themselves.
We can conclude that overall, the fun at work corpus has not focused sufficiently on the individual worker in creating and sustaining fun. The power to promote fun at work is assumed to rest with management, with individual capacities seldom being considered. Our paper begins to address this gap by exploring the experiences of individuals who report almost always having fun at work.
Research Method and Analytical Approach
Method
This study involved in-depth interviews with eight working adults who had at least 5 years' paid work experience (full-time or part-time). The other inclusion criteria for the study was that people ‘always (or almost always) had fun at work (a sense of light-hearted enjoyment) in any job they have held’. This definition is consistent with characterisations of experienced fun in the existing literature that include ‘positive emotional reactions such as enjoyment, amusement, and lighthearted pleasure’ (Michel, Tews, & Allen, Reference Michel, Tews and Allen2019: 99).
Interviewees responded to advertisements through the researchers' networks (i.e., staff intranet and business Facebook, website and e-newsletter) as well as a nation-wide radio interview on Radio NZ (Merriam & Tisdell, Reference Merriam and Tisdell2016). They were selected on a ‘first in’ basis.
Three men and five women, aged between 36 and 70 years, were interviewed. Roles varied and included a lecturer (Joanne), cleaner/gardener (Hannah), video producer (Gary), maintenance engineer (Robert), journalist/technical writer (Nicky), recruitment consultant (Gemma), IT administration manager (Kerri) and general manager (Jim). All those who responded to the advertisement were European (describing themselves as either Pākeha, New Zealand European or having been born in Europe).
Each person was asked the same questions; these included being asked to describe their background and current role, why it is enjoyable, how they had fun at work in every job they've ever had (including how they handled disappointments and difficult days) and the role of management in fun they had at work.
Interviews were transcribed, coded (using QDA Miner software), and analysed. Initial coding sought to identify the factors participants found fun and any strategies they utilised to create fun. The original intention was to utilise a modified phenomenological approach to analyse the data (Owler & Morrison, Reference Owler and Morrison2012). However, participants were not always able to articulate experiential or causal factors. A second layer of coding was then conducted, drawing on a critical realist approach (Fletcher, Reference Fletcher2016). ‘Causes’ of fun at work were identified, at both a structural and individual level, including those that participants might not be consciously aware of.
A critical realist approach
A critical realist approach allows for the influence of both structure (social structures that possess causal powers and liabilities) and agency (including individual values, meanings and ideas) in shaping a person's experience of fun (Fletcher, Reference Fletcher2016). Critical realism is based on the ontological position ‘that there is a real world, including a real social world, which exists independently of our knowledge about it’ (Fairclough, Reference Fairclough2005: 922). Any phenomenon and its causes might, therefore, be usefully analysed from a range of different theoretical perspectives (Mingers, Reference Mingers2015). A critical realist framework allows for an interdisciplinary approach to the phenomenon of fun at work, utilising insights from sociology, organisation studies and psychology.
On the one hand, critical realists are attentive to the structural operations of power. In this way, they show a similar concern to the sociological scholars discussed above (Baldry & Hallier, Reference Baldry and Hallier2010; Fleming & Sturdy, Reference Fleming and Sturdy2009, Reference Fleming and Sturdy2011). Critical realists accept a broad, social constructionist position that acknowledges any social phenomenon, such as fun at work, is socially produced. They are, however, critical of the extreme social constructionist position which does not also consider agency (Fairclough, Reference Fairclough2005; Newton, Deetz, & Reed, Reference Newton, Deetz and Reed2011). For critical realists, ‘people with their capacities for agency are [certainly] … socially produced, contingent and subject to change, yet real, and possessing real causal powers’ (Fairclough, Reference Fairclough2005: 923). It is the tension between individual volition and the causal powers of social structures (e.g., for promoting workplace fun) that is the key focus for analysis in the current study (Fairclough, Reference Fairclough2005).
Critical realists use a model of three related levels of reality in their analysis (Fletcher, Reference Fletcher2016; Leca & Naccache, Reference Leca and Naccache2016). First, there is the level of the empirical, which involves the ‘domain of experienced events … actors’ sensations, impressions, and perceptions of reality’ (Leca & Naccache, Reference Leca and Naccache2016: 183). Then, there is the level of the actual where ‘there is no filter of human experience. Events occur whether or not we experience or interpret them, and these true occurrences are often different from what is observed at the empirical level’ (Fletcher, Reference Fletcher2016: 183). For instance, while affective experiences like ‘fun’ are inherently social or relational (and can be analysed as such), they are also actual or substantial, given that they involve a human mind and nervous system (Lamb-Books, Reference Lamb-Books2016, Reference Lamb-Books2017). Finally, there exists the level of the real. The real is the causal structures that have effects that we see at the empirical level, and that also impact on the actual level. It is the role of critical realists to analyse this level, the causal mechanisms and the effects that they can have throughout each layer (Fletcher, Reference Fletcher2016; Leca & Naccache, Reference Leca and Naccache2016).
The goal of the critical realist researcher is to develop theories – however ‘fallible’ – which ‘help us identify causal mechanisms driving social events, activities, or phenomena’ (Fletcher, Reference Fletcher2016: 182). A critical realist approach is therefore often useful in analysing social problems, e.g., the impact of corporatisation on small business (Fletcher, Reference Fletcher2016), or phenomena that are difficult to categorise, e.g., spirituality at work (McGhee & Grant, Reference McGhee and Grant2017), or, as we argue, the experience of fun in the workplace. Critical realists are aware of relevant theories before engaging in research and analysis; however, they must be willing to modify these, should they find contradictory evidence (Fletcher, Reference Fletcher2016). Thus, there is a need for interdisciplinary research (Mingers, Reference Mingers2015). In the case of the individual phenomenon of ‘fun at work’, knowledge from disciplines including management, sociology and psychology, might all contribute to theorising this multifarious phenomenon and understanding the causal mechanisms involved.
Analysis and Findings: Four Themes Relevant to the Experience of Fun at Work
As discussed above, most fun at work literature assigns organisations the responsibility to provide opportunities for fun at work. From the transcripts it was possible to identify possibilities for fun ‘caused’ by organisational and structural components of the workplace; and, beyond that, societal forces shaping conceptions of both work and happiness were identified. Nonetheless, there was also a striking finding related to personal agency. That is, all participants in the study believed that they had control over their happiness at work.
Our analysis identified four main themes relevant to participants' experience of fun that highlighted the complex interplay of both structural and agential causes. The first theme relates to the conditions necessary to always (or almost always) have fun at work; second, who holds responsibility for fun; third, the value placed on positivity and fourth, what is required to enjoy one's work tasks. We discuss each of these themes below; for each theme, we begin with an overview, then consider both structural and agential causes. It is worth noting that these themes or phenomena will, of course, relate to one another. Moreover, structural aspects identified as playing a causal role concerning one theme may also contribute to others. For instance, the pleasant working conditions that provide the best opportunity to always have fun (discussed under theme one), are also important to the other phenomena.
Conditions necessary to always (or almost always) have fun at work
The structural working and social conditions of our respondents might be considered ideal for facilitating satisfaction and enjoyment at work. As we discuss below, these include conditions that have previously been associated with positive wellbeing, along with skills and attributes linked to achievement. On the other hand, these workers believed that their overwhelming experience of enjoyment in the workplace was different from that of their peers.
Structure – ‘ideal’ working conditions
As argued above, the literature on fun in the workplace generally accords management the power to elicit or facilitate fun at work. Based on research done on worker wellbeing (within organisational and management studies), the work situations of all participants were those often associated with wellbeing. For instance, participants all worked in well-organised environments and experienced fair supervision, an adequate salary, positive collegial relationships and safe working conditions; it is well documented that the absence of these factors, can result in worker dissatisfaction (Herzberg, Reference Herzberg1964, Reference Herzberg1966; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, Reference Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman1959; McLean, Smits, & Tanner, Reference McLean, Smits and Tanner1996; Morrison & Owler, Reference Morrison and Owler2018; Smits, Tanner, & McLenn, Reference Smits, Tanner and McLenn1995). Workers in the study were also accorded autonomy in their work, validation and positive challenge; factors known to enhance worker satisfaction (Herzberg, Reference Herzberg1964, Reference Herzberg1966; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, Reference Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman1959; McLean, Smits, & Tanner, Reference McLean, Smits and Tanner1996; Morrison & Owler, Reference Morrison and Owler2018; Smits, Tanner, & McLenn, Reference Smits, Tanner and McLenn1995). Moreover six participants had a tertiary qualification. These workers had the opportunity to develop successful personal skills from an early age, such as self-awareness, professionalism and relevant knowledge. Social and cultural capital has been empirically linked to employment success across a range of populations (Arenas, Di Marco, Munduate, & Euwema, Reference Arenas, Di Marco, Munduate and Euwema2017; Vorhies, Davis, Frounfelker, & Kaiser, Reference Vorhies, Davis, Frounfelker and Kaiser2012). It might appear then, that optimal structural and organisational conditions already existed for the workers in our study to experience fun at work. However, there was also something distinctive about these workers compared to their peers.
Agency – employing personal power
Participants' experience of fun was different from that of most of their colleagues who, by and large, possessed similar backgrounds and working conditions. Participants responded with enthusiasm to our study, marketed as examining the experiences of ‘remarkable workers’ who always (or almost always) experienced fun at work. The fact that participants self-identified as being suited for the study and viewed their experience of work as unique or even ‘remarkable’, was part of the appeal of being involved. As Fincham (Reference Fincham2016) explains, work is generally ‘not intended to be fun’. Therefore, definitions of work do not generally include fun. Rather, ‘if a person does have fun whilst at work, this is [considered] a happy by-product of the real purpose of work – which is to be productive, in whatever form that might take’ (121). The participants in our study were aware that while always (or usually) experiencing fun at work was standard for them, it was atypical for the rest of the working population. Indeed, they considered fun at work as critically important for them, as the following examples illustrate:
Next to my wife and family, it [fun at work] is probably the most important thing in my life (Jim)
I have to have fun [at work]. Life is too short (Hannah)
For me it is vital that I do [have fun at work] (Gary)
[Fun at work] would be my top thing (Robert)
The positive structural conditions of employment in New Zealand, including protective employment legislation and optimum working conditions, combined with the social and cultural capital possessed by our respondents, no doubt contributed to their ability to experience and prioritise fun. As Nicky explains:
I know that if there is a problem with the job I can make it go away. If I was stuck working three jobs and low income and I didn't have any exit from the job, or control over my future I would be miserable, but because I feel autonomous I have always had a safety net, so I don't feel trapped (Nicky).
Nevertheless, the participants appeared somewhat distinct amongst their peers, who shared similar backgrounds and capital; Nicky recognised this reality when discussing her husband for instance: ‘I have tried to get my husband to enjoy his job, but he just doesn't seem to be able to and he has had a range of jobs. He is like a grumpy old man’ (Nicky).
While most people in the study experienced good work conditions, their experience of fun was however not contingent upon these conditions. In this regard, it is important to distinguish the experience of fun at work from other related concepts such as job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is generally measured in relation to specific aspects of work, for example ‘opportunities to advance’, ‘work environment’, ‘hours of work’ and so on (Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy, Reference Wanous, Reichers and Hudy1997). A worker might not be having ‘fun’, but still be satisfied with many of these work-related outcomes. Similarly (as we found), a person could be in a relatively menial job or find many aspects of work unsatisfying, but still have fun.
For workers in the study, fun at work was their standard experience. Most participants were not initially able to explain why or how they achieved fun at work, viewing it instead as something ‘normal’ for them and therefore not something that required analysis. The notion that certain people have a greater capacity for happiness is in line with findings within positive psychology. Research conducted with identical twins has identified a hereditary ‘happiness set-point’ which varies between individuals (Lykken & Tellegen, Reference Lykken and Tellegen1996; Tellegen, Lykken, Bouchard, Wilcos, Segal, & Rich, Reference Tellegen, Lykken, Bouchard, Wilcos, Segal and Rich1988). This theory holds that individuals return to their genetic set point after a fluctuation brought on by very positive or very difficult events. If we are to accept this explanation, it is possible that our participants simply have a high ‘set-point’ for happiness. However, researchers have found that background and personal agency are also significant. Theorists in this area believe that the happiness set-point only accounts for 50% of experienced happiness. A further 10% can be accounted for by life circumstances or situations. This leaves 40% resulting from the specific behaviour of an individual (Lyobomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, Reference Lyobomirsky, Sheldon and Schkade2005; Lyubomirsky, Reference Lyubomirsky2007). Studies have found that there are several actions any person can take that can enhance their experience of happiness. Actions include such activities as practising gratitude and positive thinking, investing in social connections and maintaining physical health (Lyubomirsky, Reference Lyubomirsky2007).
While participants were not always able to articulate why or how they always had fun at work, a careful reading of the transcripts revealed certain attitudinal and behavioural patterns. It became clear that each participant had a strong sense of control over their experience of work. Rather than viewing power and control as being held by management, participants were empowered to make changes at times within their environment, however small, to ensure they had more fun. Joanne described how she had learned to have control over her experience of work:
Growing up with a factory and having parents who were both directors of the factory and very involved in the running in it, I saw that you can control your own work environment. You can make work what you want it to be. So why wouldn't you make that fun? (Joanne)
Specific strategies that individuals mentioned to help them have fun at work included being organised; setting boundaries regarding workload or tasks and learning to say ‘no’ when necessary in order to reduce stress; getting on well with others, including open communication with both colleagues and management; various self-care strategies such as going for a walk, meditation at the start of the day or finding someone to chat to if upset; doing difficult tasks at the beginning of the workday; recognising what you are good at and the contribution you can uniquely make in a work situation and, finding a mentor.
In general, the people in our study enjoyed their current job and intended to stay in the role for the foreseeable future. However, they all believed that they had the choice to leave a job if they felt that conditions were unreasonable. And, all had done so in the past. As Hannah explained, ‘I would question why I'd do a job … that I wasn't getting much satisfaction from’ (Hannah).
Fun at work seemed almost habitual for the participants in our study; as a result, most were not initially able to explain, at least at the start of the interview, why or how they achieved fun at work. Social psychologists use the term ‘habit’ to refer to ‘a phenomenon whereby behaviour persists because it has become an automatic response to particular, regularly encountered, contexts that is acquired through associative learning’ (Kurz, Gardner, Verplanken, & Abraham, Reference Kurz, Gardner, Verplanken and Abraham2015: 114). If a behaviour is repeatedly and satisfactorily performed, a mental ‘context-behavioural-response’ association is activated. Given a sufficiently established association, the context will automatically activate the behaviour, ‘with minimal awareness or cognitive effort’ (Kurz et al., Reference Kurz, Gardner, Verplanken and Abraham2015: 114). Gemma mused for instance that, while she always has fun at work, she is unsure how she achieves this: ‘I do know people that are unhappy in their roles and that is strange to me …I have never been in that position, but not sure if that is my doing, I don't know’.
In summary, participants worked within organisations providing conditions associated with worker wellbeing. However, they nevertheless stood out from their peers in terms of always, or almost always experiencing fun. Although some psychological theories argue that certain people may have a higher set-point for happiness, there are things most people can do to be happier. While study participants were not initially able to identify specific actions or behaviours, this may be because such actions had become habitual. A deep reading of the manuscripts revealed a sense of control in relation to their work environment; that is, the ability to take action to ensure more fun at work. Below we discuss three ways that this sense of control was particularly evident, beginning with a sense of personal responsibility.
Who holds responsibility for fun at work
In line with most fun at work research, participants believed that management did play some role in facilitating fun, including providing a supportive and fair environment. However, they also held a conviction that they, themselves, were responsible for the fun they had at work; both dimensions are illustrated by the following quote:
[When I was working for public broad-casting] I think it was primarily my responsibility [to have fun at work], it is up to me and it comes down to attitude. If your attitude is ‘I am going to have a horrible day’, you invariably will. But it was great when management supported us and treated us fairly (Gary).
As we discuss below, our participants' strong ethos of personal responsibility was no doubt influenced by the environment, culture and historical context in which they grew up. However, they may also be unique in their capacity to demonstrate self-control, leading to positive actions.
Structure – historical, cultural and economic context
Discourses of personal responsibility, situated within the everyday social and political spheres, reflect a complex historical, moral and cultural heritage. They are connected with the liberal, individualistic notion of a person who lives within a modern state and takes moral responsibility (or not) for their actions (Fingarette, Reference Fingarette2004). How participants developed a strong ethos of personal responsibility was not something that we discussed with them; and, as critical realists would argue, they themselves may not be able to articulate the causes. However, historical, moral, political and cultural discourses, combined with familial and community influences, would no doubt be significant in shaping the identities, philosophies and actions of the workers in our study.
Some social theorists are understandably reluctant to suggest that workers should have primary responsibility for their own happiness at work. They remind us that the ‘seemingly private aspects of one's daily life are politically relevant to the operations of power’ (Garrett, Reference Garrett2016: 1912). Corporate, organisational and governmental forces might disproportionately benefit from workers taking active responsibility for their happiness. Some writers draw attention to the ‘marketisation’ of public services and institutions, including universities that require new identities and practices from staff (Curtis, Reference Curtis2014). They refer to a growing HR trend to promote ‘resilience’ amongst public service workers such as academic staff at universities, by training individuals to cope with, and recover well from, negative workplace stressors (Calitz, Reference Calitz2018). Training might include positive coping strategies, flexibility, problem-solving and communication skills (Bardoel, Pettit, De Cieri, & McMillan, Reference Bardoel, Pettit, De Cieri and McMillan2014; Calitz, Reference Calitz2018; Crane, Reference Crane2017). A key critique of this trend is that responsibility is placed on the individual to change themselves in the face of unreasonable workplace stressors, rather than address wider social forces and other organisational demands placed on workers (Garrett, Reference Garrett2016; Gill & Donaghue, Reference Gill and Donaghue2016).
One of the participants in our study worked in the public service as an academic whose role combined administration, teaching and research. It is interesting that she was the only person who mentioned adopting resilience-building techniques:
I follow … a company called Emphasis on Excellence. There were a few things about saying no and strategies … [I have been doing that for] about five years now. It really turned things around. It is about limiting people who are negative, how much airtime I give them (Joanne).
Managing the stress and large workloads associated with academic work was being promoted as a worthwhile endeavour at Joanne's university. However, while Joanne was not immune to pressures to ‘do more with less’, she appeared quite firm and proactive with management and colleagues in her attempts to maintain a realistic and sustainable work-load:
I believe that if something at work is difficult to do to the point that I am not making progress – that is, becoming frustrated and not having fun – it is because I am trying to do work or a task that falls outside of the scope of my current role. As a result, I then … talk to management about extending my role and thereby providing access to resources, tools and information that I would need to complete the task … [Or, alternatively] I focus on doing my own work and step back from trying to do others' work for them (Joanne).
Agency – taking responsible action
A feature of participants' accounts was a description of the need to take responsibility for both their thoughts and deeds in order to have fun at work. This involved enacting self-control. Self-control is generally defined ‘as the ability to override predominant response tendencies resulting in the inhibition of undesirable behaviours to support the pursuit of long-term goals’ (De Ridder & Gillebaart, Reference De Ridder and Gillebaart2017: 89). Kerry explains how her goal of fun and enjoyment at work moderates the choices that she makes regarding her thoughts and behaviours at work:
One [secret of having fun at work] is to take responsibility for your own thoughts and actions and not blame other people, even though it might be someone else who instigates it (Kerri).
Psychology researchers have discovered that people with ‘higher trait self-control’ (TSC) tend to experience greater happiness and wellbeing than their peers (Cheung, Gillebaart, Kroese, & De Ridder, Reference Cheung, Gillebaart, Kroese and De Ridder2014; De Ridder & Gillebaart, Reference De Ridder and Gillebaart2017; Hofmann, Luhmann, Fisher, Vohs, & Baumeister, Reference Hofmann, Luhmann, Fisher, Vohs and Baumeister2013). Cheung et al., (Reference Cheung, Gillebaart, Kroese and De Ridder2014) found that TSC positively relates to ‘promotion focus’, which is associated with more happiness. Individuals with greater TSC are more likely to approach goals as strategies that result in a positive outcome (e.g., following one's dreams and aspirations or enjoying work). As a result, they tend to engage in positive, proactive steps towards their goal (e.g., focusing on their interests and strengths or upskilling in useful areas). On the other hand, TSC negatively relates to ‘prevention focus’, and less prevention focus is associated with more happiness. Those with a prevention focus, approach goals as something they ‘should’ or ‘must’ achieve out of a sense of duty (e.g., living up to one's duties and obligations with minimal mistakes). They are more likely to focus on having to avoid certain actions to achieve their goal (e.g., avoiding conflict at work or staying away from distractions).
Several participants spoke of the need to take responsibility for acknowledging the work they are best suited for and most enjoy. This allows them to focus their energy at work in a personally meaningful way. For instance:
My advice [to other workers] would be to work out what makes you happy and really take responsibility for that…Having fun at work means that you are enjoying simulating yourself in doing what you are good at (Joanne).
I think you have to be truthful to yourself and understand yourself. You have to work out what it is that you want. There is no point in trying to be the best manager if it does not satisfy you (Jim).
Participants also stated the need to take responsibility for work challenges, entering a positive, proactive discussion with management when problems arose at work. Once dealt with, the issue would not get in the way of them progressing or enjoying their work. For example:
I take responsibility for enjoying my work and if there is a problem I need to talk to my manager and sort it out. If I can't sort it, I need to find a new job (Nicky).
I think it is up to you [the responsibility to enjoy your work]. If it's something you don't like then you discuss it with your employer and work it out, but I think no-one is responsible for your happiness or sadness or whatever and the sooner you learn that the better (Hannah).
I also think you have to confront serious issues. If you do have a situation with the boss, you have to pin him down and have a frank conversation. So, deal with it (Gary).
To conclude, the workers in our study did not appear weighed down by a sense of personal responsibility for fun at work; their accounts did not reflect an arduous sense of duty to themselves, others, or the organisation. Rather, a sense of self-control and freedom of expression seemed strongly evident.
The value placed on positivity
All participants had a generally positive orientation or outlook towards the world, which they viewed as something that helped them achieve fun at work. Some participants may have been influenced by popular psychology or contemporary trends to find happiness as part of a duty to the self. However, they nevertheless appeared particularly skilled at taking positive action, either consciously or habitually, to have more fun at work.
Structure – the era of ‘positive thinking’
Positive thinking has become associated with the rise of popular psychology self-help books since the 1970s, although Peale published his famous book The Power of Positive Thinking in 1952. Expressions such as ‘positive thinking’ or ‘think positively’, alongside terms such as ‘optimism’ have become a familiar part of the cultural lexicon (Ehrenreich, Reference Ehrenreich2010) and are now house-hold terms. Work-based resilience initiatives, discussed above, often incorporate related ‘positive’ coping strategies (Bardoel et al., Reference Bardoel, Pettit, De Cieri and McMillan2014; Pykett, Jones, & Whitehead, Reference Pykett, Jones and Whitehead2016). Indeed, some critics argue that happiness at work, as promoted through positive psychology, has become a valuable form of cultural capital that equips those who are already successful to become even more so (De La Fabián & Stetcher, Reference De La Fabián and Stetcher2017). So the workers in our study might be said to possess both cultural capital and work environments that best set them up for workplace success and happiness. However, while orientated to positivity, they did not, on the whole, appear to be strategically adopting ‘happiness strategies’ learned from self-help books or resilience courses. Indeed, two people explained that they learned the value of being positive through general life experience:
[Over the years I've learned that] I don't let work stress me and I have fun at work. Have a laugh with the boys, and a laugh with the girls. You know, so … they see me as that in the workshop. Robert's the funny dude. He's the dude who comes in and brings a smile to everyone's faces (Robert).
In 1997, three people in my life died. Two close friends and my father. That was a real eye opener. I thought ‘I have to make the most of every bit of my life. I am not going to be miserable, what's the point’…I'm glad I discovered that thing, of making the most of life. You've only got X number of years and then you are gone. I often think of that silver lining (Kerri).
For the people in our study, positivity appeared to come quite ‘naturally’. They practise a positivity at work that feels both logical and deeply meaningful to them personally.
Agency – ‘natural’ optimism
Optimism and positive thinking have, for some time been a ‘serious’ subject of research for positive psychologists (Lyubomirsky, Reference Lyubomirsky2007; Seligman, Reference Seligman2006). Psychologists define optimism in several different ways, involving both thought and action (Lyubomirsky, Reference Lyubomirsky2007), which may differ from popular understandings. Some view it as a macro expectation about a positive future, where the individual believes they will achieve their goals (Scheier & Carber, Reference Scheier and Carber1993). Others identify optimism through the explanations provided for outcomes in their life (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, Reference Abramson, Seligman and Teasdale1978; Peterson, Reference Peterson1991). An optimistic person will be more likely to attribute external explanations to negative or disappointing outcomes, while a pessimistic person will be more likely to blame themselves (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, Reference Abramson, Seligman and Teasdale1978). The third set of researchers focus on neither goals nor attributions, but rather on particular strategies to meet goals (Snyder, Reference Snyder1994). As Lyubomirsky (Reference Lyubomirsky2007) explains: ‘this approach is concerned with people's determination to attain a particular goal and their beliefs regarding specific steps needed to read that goal’ (102). They believe that they have the power to ‘take action’.
A positive outlook appears to have led the individuals in our study to adopt a range of actions. For instance, over his career, Jim ‘never allowed [himself]…the luxury of looking back’ but rather, chose to see ‘the good in things’. Gary has also learnt to leave the past in the past. If things haven't gone so well at work, his strategy is to ‘separate the bad day and accept that today wasn't the best, but tomorrow is a new day, and that's how I dealt with the bad ones. Put them aside’.
Joanne focuses on ‘the positives’ in her research, despite ‘flak from my colleagues who call it happy clappy’. She believes that ‘you catch more flies with honey than vinegar’ and ‘if you only look at what's wrong, then you aren't getting that positive energy to go around and make changes’. She also saves positive emails from students or jokes in a ‘‘Warm Fuzzy’ folder… that are inspiring or happy’. She can easily access these if she is ‘having a really bad day’ and they will ‘make me happy’. Being quite creative, Joanne also aims to ‘bring colour into my life’ with a ‘bright green pencil case and highlighter pens’ because for her ‘vibrancy equals fun’. As photography is a hobby, she also makes sure to have her photographs around her at work.
Joanne also talked about the need to limit contact with negative people: ‘When you go out with friends for lunch and all they can do is moan, I think well next time just a quick chat or coffee and I cut those conversations short…It is about limiting people who are negative, how much airtime I give them’.
Gemma shares her positivity in social ways, explaining that part of having fun at work is being ‘a positive outlook person and probably make an effort to find out how people are doing [and] make the time to have a quick chat’. While work can be difficult for people at times, such as during departmental restructures, she aims to ‘stay positive and engage with people … keeping things happy and light-hearted’.
Similarly, Kerry makes ‘a conscious effort to be positive’ at work out of consideration for others. When she ‘walks through the door at work, I leave all domestic problems behind. A lot of people spend a lot of time moaning and groaning about stuff that is not appropriate for the workplace and I don't want to be one of those people’.
Hannah is self-employed and often works on her own. To help herself have fun at work, she consciously tries to see the ‘silly side’ of things during the day which she loves to share with others in the evening. She explained for instance that ‘as I was stepping outside today to go and see the chickens … I noticed I was wearing pink socks which contrasted greatly with my red shorts. I burst out laughing … It is important to laugh at little things … many many times a day. [Then later] sharing my fun is an extremely important part of life. I just have to tell someone or take them to see the things I've enjoyed’. She explained that ‘my mother also said, you make it [your own day]; you force yourself to smile and it is all over’. For Hannah, it is also very useful to look forward to things: ‘We went to Europe for my first time two years’ ago … I can always fantasise and think about where we will go, short or long term… my husband also says ‘look over the top’, a saying we have when something is not enjoyable, look to the next thing, you stop thinking about it and you get there. I'm really, really busy this week but then I know on Saturday we are planning a picnic or a walk to the glacier’ (Hannah).
In conclusion, our participants were certainly influenced by popular culture, often mentioning familiar ‘positive’ mantras such as ‘finding a silver lining’, ‘counting your blessings’ and ‘looking on the bright side’. However, in taking ‘positive’ actions such as those listed above, participants appeared to be making a choice that came quite naturally – one that their colleagues might have found more difficult.
What is required to enjoy one's work tasks
Given the sound education and work opportunities of our participants, it is more likely that they were able to enjoy stimulating roles. However, each person discussed a sense of both mastery and challenge, while completing their work tasks. Moreover, several mentioned the ability to ‘find’ challenge in jobs that they might not find immediately interesting.
Structure – basic working conditions met
Organisational research shows that, when adequate work conditions exist (e.g., safe working conditions, adequate pay and reasonable colleagues), people can then focus on enriching, motivating factors of work (e.g., growth and learning) (Agarwal & Gupta, Reference Agarwal and Gupta2017; Herzberg, Reference Herzberg1966; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, Reference Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman1959; Morrison & Owler, Reference Morrison and Owler2018; Vito, Brown, Bannister, Cianci, & Mujtaba, Reference Vito, Brown, Bannister, Cianci and Mujtaba2016). With the basic working conditions met, the workers in our study were able to focus on enjoying work-tasks. A big part of the ‘fun’ that these workers experience at work appears to relate to the tasks that they do.
Agency – enjoying ‘mastery and challenge’ in work tasks
Each person discussed a sense of both mastery and challenge while completing their work tasks. The psychological concept of flow was a feature of the fun experienced by participants. As discussed above, flow is a term used by positive psychologists to refer to an optimal experience of motivation, unique for each person, gained through the completion of tasks. During flow, a person is engrossed in and enjoying a task for its own sake. The crucial element of flow is to establish an optimal balance between mastery and challenge. An individual needs to feel that they have the skills needed for the task, and also that there is sufficient challenge to engage them (Csikszentmihalyi, Reference Csikszentmihalyi1991; Reference Csikszentmihalyi2000). They have a strong sense of control over their situation; feeling able to meet the challenge.
For example, Robert explained that one of the ways that he has learned to enjoy his work over the years, is to ‘be organised and get good at what I do’. Then, ‘if something breaks, I enjoy going and figuring out how to fix it. Fixing it and getting it going brings me enjoyment…brings a smile to their face and production's underway again’ (Robert).
Being good at her work as a journalist is also highly important for Nicky. She explains that ‘I really like to work, getting stuck in and getting it finished; I find happy clients satisfying’. Nicky also loves the growth involved and ‘learning about new things all the time, because every story involves asking more questions … You are always talking to experts and finding out more about different topics … I look forward to the work and I get lost when writing a story and get that sense of flow and you lose track of time’ (Nicky).
Lyubomirsky (Reference Lyubomirsky2007) explains that, for flow to be experienced, a worker needs to find a way to view a task as something they ‘choose to do’ (as a valued activity), rather than something they are being ‘forced to do’ (190). The workers in our study did not appear to feel compelled to complete their tasks. Perhaps they avoided this by deliberately finding ways to experience flow in their tasks.
Kerry explained how she tries to find creativity, in fairly dry work tasks: ‘I am quite creative. I built the intranet for SharePoint even though SharePoint is quite dull and dry, there are some creative aspects of it and it's a bit of a puzzle and that's why I like it. I like having to solve problems and figure things out and helping other people which is why I like it. A lot of people say that to me after they've used it, “Oh this is fun”’ (Kerri).
Hannah appeared particularly adept at finding fun in apparently menial and messy tasks. She had chosen to live in a beautiful part of New Zealand, which has few work opportunities. As a cleaner and gardener, not her ‘chosen’ profession, Hannah finds a sense of competence in doing a good job: ‘I remember my mum telling me any job done well is a job worth doing and if you don't like the job, focus on something you will like. Those are the values I grew up with … I used to think anyone can do anything and then I realised that I can do some things better’. She also finds a way to inject challenge into the process: ‘It is like childbirth and labour. Every contraction is one nearer the end. Every bit of rubbing and scrubbing is one nearer the end, and I have my radio on the national programme and someone's got to do it, it might as well be me’ (Hannah).
As discussed, previous research on fun in the workplace has largely failed to examine the role workers might play in creating flow experiences (Abramis, Reference Abramis1999; Plester & Hutchison, Reference Plester and Hutchison2016; Plester, Cooper-Thomas, & Winquist, Reference Plester, Cooper-Thomas and Winquist2015; Schaufeli et al., Reference Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalellez-Roma and Bakker2002). Our research begins to address this gap. While the people in our study had some degree of choice over the specific role they were employed to do, they also actively found ways to experience fun through ensuring a rewarding mix of competence and challenge in their work tasks.
Limitations and Future Directions
The current study identified ways in which ‘remarkable’ workers have control and agency over their lived experiences of enjoying work, but we maintain that almost all employees have periods, or at least moments, of genuine enjoyment in their jobs. Future research might examine these times or events to explore what might be necessary for those who may be less positive and optimistic to access their internal capacity for work-related joy.
A key limitation of this study was the lack of ethnic or socioeconomic diversity in the interviewees. Future researchers should attempt to investigate flow experiences and workplace fun with those from a variety of cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. Alternatively, conducting similar research in countries with very high happiness indices (Helliwell, Layard, & Sachs, Reference Helliwell, Layard and Sachs2019) such as the Nordic nations, or very low indices such as those in central Africa might shed light on the effect of wider cultural, social and economic effects on workplace fun.
Conclusion and Implications for Practice
To conclude, fun at work literature focuses most often on exploring the power and influence of management in creating fun for employees. In contrast, individual capacities to promote fun at work are seldom considered. Our paper begins to address this gap by exploring the experiences of individuals who report almost always having fun while working. A critical realist approach to analysis allowed us to identify the ‘causal’ influences of both structure and agency, in shaping participants' experiences of fun. Utilising a critical realist approach to analyse ‘fun at work’ has contributed uniquely to the body of critical realist literature, as well as providing an alternative and nuanced analytical framework for the study of fun and enjoyment at work. We discovered that while these individuals often had work involving positive social, organisational and management features, their experience of fun also reflected a sense of personal power and control. In other words, there was a sense that there was always something that could be done to improve a work situation and, consequently, to improve their enjoyment. Moreover, if simply ‘nothing’ could be done, they all felt that they had the choice to leave the role. We might conclude then, that the workers in our study possess a hopeful, optimistic, agentic, outlook when it comes to enjoying their work (Gallagher & Lopez, Reference Gallagher and Lopez2009).
Our findings should be useful to both organisations and individuals in identifying ways to promote fun at work. The accounts of participants might inspire other workers to adopt a hopeful outlook and implement some deliberate strategies to enhance their enjoyment of work. Broad strategies might include: (1) prioritising fun, enjoyment and wellbeing at work; (2) taking responsibility for identifying the kinds of tasks they enjoy doing and are good at, and having the courage to discuss challenges to work enjoyment with management; (3) practicing ways to ‘be positive’ and ‘optimistic’ and (4) ensuring a productive mix of competence and challenge in work tasks. Specific actions will be different for each worker, although some of those mentioned in the paper may be a good place to start. For instance, being organised, becoming good at what you do, practising self-care (such as going for a walk), communicating well (to both managers and colleagues) and setting healthy personal and work-load boundaries.
Management might also be inspired to encourage a sense of optimism and control in individual workers. Empirical research suggests that a hopeful outlook is positively associated with performance at the workplace (Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, Reference Luthans, Avolio, Avey and Norman2007; Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa, & Li, Reference Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa and Li2005; Luthans, Norman, Avolio, & Avey, Reference Luthans, Norman, Avolio and Avey2008). Wandeler, Marques, and Lopez (Reference Wandeler, Marques, Lopez, Oades, Steger, Delle Fave and Passmore2016) explain that, in general, ‘hope is promoted by encouraging individuals to develop their own ideas of how to overcome impediments, while adequate support should be made available for employees to learn how to cope with setbacks and gain experience in finding alternative solutions’ (53). Based on the ideas and experiences shared by participants in our study, managers might usefully encourage a sense of control and agency in employees by providing training on the four broad strategies discussed above; providing an open door policy for discussion; promoting open communication amongst all staff; ensuring that people are well-matched to their tasks and roles; providing opportunities for mentoring, and providing opportunities for upskilling, growth and development.
Kathryn Owler has a lifelong interest in vocational experience, specialising in research on finding meaning, wellbeing and fun in work. She has published several papers and a book on this topic. Kathryn is currently a director of Joyworkz Ltd., an Auckland-based workplace wellness company.
Rachel L. Morrison teaches undergraduate and post-graduate Organisational Behaviour/Work Psychology within Faculty of Business and Law at the Auckland University of Technology (AUT), New Zealand. Rachel has a particular focus on interpersonal relationships in the workplace. She looks at both the positive (friendly/supportive) and negative (distracting/hostile) aspects of co-worker interactions. Rachel has published articles in a variety of academic management and psychology journals including Applied Ergonomics, Sex Roles, and the Journal of Management and Organisation, and has edited two research volumes on organisational relationships with international collaborators; Friends and Enemies in Organizations: A work Psychology Perspective and Relationships in Organizations: A work Psychology Perspective.
