Are We H aving Fun Yet : [629328]

“Are We H aving Fun Yet?” :
What Factors Influence Managers to Have Fun at Work ?

Abstract :
The Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates that there are 157,833,00 people in the civilian labor workforce.
112,061,430 of them can‟t stand their jobs (Crabtree, 2013) .
The reasons are many, but we believe the un derlying reason is that they are not having any fun! (Clark,
2009; Ford, McLaughlin, & Newstrom, 2003a)
Having a fun workplace impacts employee engagement, morale, productivity and safety (Bedeian &
Armenakis, 1998; Boyatzis, Smith, Van Oosten, & Woolford, 2013) . But, it only happens when
management is having fun (Bedeian & Armenakis, 1998) . The thin king is that if management is having
fun at work, then employees will have more fun in a give -and-take feedback loop.
Six important factors that influenced managers to have fun at work were discovered in this study of 11
Managers and 13 Employees .Among them were Mentoring, New Challenges, Empowerment, Peer/Co –
Worker Relationship s, Meaningful Work and Fun Activities (in order of importance).
The conclusion is th at managers who are viewed as mentors and role models will f oster an environment
that allows employees to contribute and feel empowered to make decisions , and engage in ne w,
meaningful work that c halleng es them. This leads to increased job s atisfaction which leads to higher
productivity.
This study examines these factors ,and the significance of their influence on managers to have fun a t work.
Keywords: Fun; Mentor; Protégé; Hard Work; Meaningful Work; Autonomy

Introduction
Why Don‟t Managers Have Fun at Work?
There are 15 7,833,00 people in the civilian workforce.Of those, 112,061,430 – or 71% – can‟t stand
their jobs (Crabtree, 2013) . What‟s worse, 14,567,985 of them are so disgruntled , that they actually
sabotage the workplace and their fellow employees as retribution (Crabtree, 2013) .
What is the cause of this dissent? It‟s the lack of fun in the workplace (Clark, 2009; Ford,
McLaughlin, & Newstrom, 2003b; Kinjerski & Skrypnek, 2006) .

There are numerous reasons for this lack of fun, but we beli eve the underlying cause is that
managers are not having fun (Bolton, Houlihan, & Renee Baptiste, 2009a; Chi, Chung, & Tsai, 2011;
Moberg, 2000) . This is mostly attribu ted to the high expectations placed on management to produce
profits (Head, 2003) . Those expectations, and the stress they create, make managers more demanding and
less forgiving (Hea d, 2003) , which leads to an unhealthy relationship between the manager and the
employee (Chi et al., 2011) . This rift makes employees less willing to contribute, reduces
productivity (Bates, 2004; Gallagher & Einhorn, 1976; Saks & Gruman, 2014) , creates an unsafe
workplace (Lutchman, Maharaj, & Ghanem, 2012) (Liao, 2004) ,and leads to a lack of personal esteem
(Herzberg, 1968) .In the long run, this type of management can be paralyzing (Chi et al., 2011) .
We also know that the “T one” is set at “The Top” – a company/department‟s culture and behavior
are directly related to the attitudes and behaviors of management (Poon Teng Fatt, 2002) . If the manager
is having fun at work, then the e mployees will have fun at work. If the manager is not having fun at work,
then the empl oyees will not have fun at work (Bolton et al., 2009a; Chi et al., 2011) .
My theory i s that if the manager is having fun at work, then the employees will have fun, creating
a feed -back loop (Chi et al., 2011) .

The Starting Point – A Personal Story
This study began because of my own personal experience. For the first 25 years of my
professional career, I had fun at work. I enjoyed every facet of my work, especially the challenges it
brought. I looked forward to each day, and felt great satisfaction when the challenges were not only
accomplished, but surpassed. The reason? I had mana gers that let me do my job. They gave me great
responsibility , challenged me and made work fun . They were – and still are – great mentors.
Then, in 2003 I left my comfortable job in sales, marketing a nd corporate communications for
two “dead -end” jobs (Comerford & Ubel, 2013) , ones that had no redeeming value, just a paycheck. They

were “cesspools” – environments that were toxic and un -motivating (Bedeian & Armenakis, 1998) . In
both instances, management was the root cause. The managers micro -managed the employees,
scrutiniz ing and questioning every move we m ade. Even the simplest, day -to-day tasks were inspected.
Worse, they would publicly berate an employee in front of their peers for small infractions . It became so
bad that e ach morning, I would sit in the parking lot and dread going into the office.
I was NOT having fun at work.
Because of that experience, I set out to discover what factors influence management to have fun
at work.
Research Question
What Factors Influence Managers to Have Fun at Work?
Discussion
When we began this study, we found that there is a great deal writte n about “Fun at Work ” in the
practitioner‟s world, but there is very little written about it in the academic world. In particular, there is no
definitive definition of the term “Fun at Work”.
Author Robert Ford writes that there is a great gap in the liter ature regarding the benefits of
having fun at work (Ford et al., 2003a) . Their findings concluded that a fun environment “ encourages,
initiates, and supports a variety of enjoyable and pleasurable activities that po sitively impact the attitude
and productivity of individuals and groups ” (Ford et al., 2003a) . The factors used to create this
environment varied, but provided the employees with a sense of positive well -being, and moved them
beyond the “satisfied -with-their-job” stage to a “having -fun” stage (Ford et al., 2003a) .
Bolton‟s (et al) work suggests that fun at work provides employees with an enhance d quality of
work -life, reputation, performance, communication and group cohesiveness (Bolton, Houlihan, & Renee
Baptiste, 2009b) . They note that fun is the extentto which a person perceives the existence of fun in their

workplace , and th at a fun environment demonstrates a higher level of caring and gives a company a
competitive advantage over other, less fun firms in regards to recruiting personnel (Bolton et al., 2009b) .
Kinjerski&Skrypnek‟s rese arch discovered that leadership was the most important factor in
creating a fun and spirited work environment (Kinjerski & Skrypnek, 2006) . They identified such
influencers as “ the ability to realize one‟s full pot ential; being associated with a good or ethical
organization; interesting work; having good colleagues; serving mankind; service to future generations,
and service to one‟s immediate community ”. that boosted employee‟s spirits at work.
Beyond these studie s, very little else has been written in the academic world. We believe our
study further defines the term “Fun at Work”.
Findings
Early on in the interview process, it became clear that “FUN ” and “NOT FUN ” were two very
distinctly separate categories. Ther efore, e ach response was coded as “FUN” or “NOT FUN”, and then
broken down into more specific/related categories .In particular, we discovered six specific categories
contributed to fun in the workplace . Overall, the respondents thought that Mentoring, Empo werment
(Autonomy) and New Challenges (Hard Work) were all fun. Respondents thought that Fun Activities
were fun, but with much less importance than the others. The findings are as follows (in order):
1. Mentor 91% of Respondents spoke of Mentoring as fun
2. New Challenges 89% of all Respondents regarded New Challenges as fun
3. Empowerment 84% of the Respondents had fun when they were Empowered
4. Peer/Co -Worker
Relationships 82% of Respondents considered strong Relationships as fun
5. Meaningful Work 73% o f Respondents had fun when performing Meaningful Work
6. Fun Activities 70% of all Respondents had fun through Fun Activities

Responses that were co ded as “FUN” varied across the six categories , but generally consisted of
statements such as:
 (Employee) Mentor: “ He was open to comments from us, open to figuring out ways to do things.
We gelled – it was a really great sales team. I left there in 1993, we‟re still in touch .”
 (Employee) New Challenges: “ I had fun learning how TV shows were put together. How all of
that worked, how the technology worked and how there were producers and all of these people –
all the behind the scenes stuff. So that was fun for me to learn it, and to feel like I was a part of
it.”
 (Manager) Empowerment: “ Empowerment is giving p eople the capacity to say, „What if we tried
it this way?‟ It‟s, giving them ownership. Empowerment‟s about giving people a sense that they
own their little piece of the company. And it‟s much more fulfilling for them, if they have that
sense of ownersh ip, and mission. ”
 (Employee) Peer/Co -Worker Relationships: “ I liked interaction with people. I liked the team I
worked with. I think that was a big important part of it. They knew how to have the appropriate
fun in the workplace ”.
 (Employee) Meaningful Wor k: “I was highly motivated, and my motivating factor wasn‟t money.
I just wanted to do a good job .”
 (Manager) Fun Activities: “ I was constantly manufacturing things so that people could have fun”.
Below are the finds of the specific categories.
Finding # 1: Mentor
A great deal has been studied about “Mentorees” – the Protégés – yet Mentoring has received
very little research in academ ia. This is surprising since 91% of the participants made multiple
references to Mentoring being fun. Of the two groups, 100 % of all Managers believed that being a
Mentor was fun, and 76% of all Employees felt that having a Mentor was fun. Many of our

respondents used terms like “great pride”, “selflessness”, “joy of training”, and “role model” to
characterize mentoring.
Manag ement:
 “I can‟t tell you how many people point to me and say „You changed my life‟”.
 “Since my very first opportunity to be a supervisor, I wanted to know what were the ambitions of
the person who worked for me.”
 “What I enjoy the most, what makes my d ay most fun , is the teaching and the sharing of what I
know about voice acting with a new student.”
 “I would go down and see them. And I would find out what did they need to make their job better.
And I took care of things for them. Simple things like – I saw their white lab coats hanging up – I
said „when‟s the last time somebody got you guys new lab coats?‟ „It‟s been a while‟ got them all
that kind of stuff. Supplies that they needed. They were like „oh my God!‟ When they had
problems, they knew they could call me. ”
Employees:
 “She groomed me to become a manager. She really did. And she was a great manager. She knew
how to manage people, she believed in a one -minute manager philosophy .”
 “This person made a career out of having – was a strong believer that when everyone is content
and having fun, the harmony creates a better work environment .”
 “We each had our own mentor there. And mentors were very, very important to both of us .”
 “He was behind me a thousand percent. He encouraged me to take risks. Allowe d me to make
mistakes. And was there to support me when I made them. And I would take a mistake to heart .”
Both the young and old/male and female groups believed that Mentoring and Being Mentored
was great Fun.

Finding #2: New Challenges
Very few people want to be stuck in a rut at work, doing the same job over and over again. But at
the same time, many people find change to be a burden. We discovered that, New Challenges – hard
work, new jobs, and new technology – were considered fun by 8 9% of the participants. Of the two groups,
100% of the Management group believed that this was an essential component to having fun, while 77%
of the Employees considered New Challenges as fun.
Management:
 “(Employees) have to be motivated to want to figu re it out – that‟s what it boils down to , so –
“how do you make that interesting?” that‟s where I‟m at, trying to find a way to hit hard with
stuff that‟s very important.”
 “I had fun learning how TV shows were put together. How all of that worked, how the technology
worked and how there were producers and all of these people – all the behind the scenes stuff. So
that was fun for me to learn it, and to feel like I was a part of it.”
 “It was fun for me to learn something new”
 “If we got a new client we would need to start right away writing press releases for them or
pitching stories for them. So I h ad to do a lot of research. I ha d to do a lot of background checks
or investigations to make sure I was knowledgeable enough to write the press release , and infor m
the media who then informed the public. So I really, I enjoyed that challenge of ok, let‟s get
going, let ‟s learn everything about this so I can get to work.”
 “I don‟t think you can make gains if you don‟t take risks. And I say that to my clients all t he time.
Here‟s a new technology I want to try for you. This looks like it‟s going to be amazing but I can‟t
promise you because you‟re the first one that‟s gonna do it. And we can‟t make gains unless we
take some risks.”

Employees :
 “I do best when I am able to start something new and build something that wasn't there before.
That's one of my strengths. So I like the opportunity to start something new.”
 “So what‟s fun about work is that every day is different.”
 “Learning new topics, auditing techniques, o r even finding different ways to like, because I do a
lot of analysis work, finding a new way to speed it up.”
 “You innovate and it‟s something that you like to do so you always find new things. And you say,
„You know what, I tried that so let me try this cause it‟s something that your passionate about‟”.
 “You had two different audiences that you were producing commercials for. So there was a lot of
diversity as far as your audience demographics, which made it challenging, interesting. Made it
fun. Yeah, a bsolutely.”
Finding #3: Empowerment
Having fun at work means being given the independence and freedom to do your job. 84% of the
participants stated that this was vital to the amount of fun they had at work. 100% of the Managers
believed that providing emp loyees with Empowerment was fun, and 78% of the Employees had fun when
Empowered. This included the following:
Management:
 “If somebody is doing their job, if they're hitting their sales goals – I'm very happy to leave them
alone.”
 “I think delegating allo wed me to accomplish more. When I had a sales department I had more
control over the message I was trying to put out there as a marketing person.”
 “When we say that I managed these people, there really wasn‟t much managing to be done. They
knew their jobs , they knew what to do, they did their jobs well – and we all got along famously.
So it really was a nice experience – especially as a people manager.”

Employee :
 “The freedom of that creativity. To be able to come up with different ideas, and not have
some body – for the most part – have somebody say „no – do it this way, do it that way‟”.
 “I think it makes me feel good. It makes me feel important and it makes me feel like I um, am
valued and it makes me, you know, I have a sense of pride when I do something well and it‟s mine
and I own and I accomplish that.”
 “I love my job, because it‟s j ust fun. It‟s no pressure. I work for myself technically. The weight
of somebody over top of you, watching every move, is not there. I‟m responsible for the outcome
of what happens.”
Finding #4: Peer/Co -Worker Relationships
A great deal has been written about the significance of getting along with your co -workers.
Employees who have strong bonds with the fellow employees are more productive and have better
outcomes in the workplace. The finding of this study supports those claims. Our study showed that 91 %
of the Managers believed that Peer/Co -Worker Relationships were an important part of having fun at
work, and 62% of the Employees agreed.
Managers:
 “A team is a situation where you have a collaboration of people that all are working on a unified
goal. Wh en you share that and attain it with a group, that‟s a team effort.”
 “I remember having them all over my house for dinner one night. Several people who worked for
me. And I enjoyed being able to do that sort of thing – I tried to get to know on more of a
personal level.”
 “I‟m very human, very compassionate and passionate. So I enjoy people‟s personalities. I
appreciate people‟s differences. I understand people need different things, different types of
attention.”

 “So I get to work with all different kinds o f personalities. A little bit of culture shock every once
in a while, based on location. But, but I love being able to solve problems for them. And I love
being able to explain things on the technology side to them in a way that they can grasp on to it,
understand it and appreciate it.”
Employees :
 “I liked the team I worked with. I think that was a big important part of it. They knew how to have
the appropriate fun in the workplace.”
 “There was a decent amount of down -time, and that was always really fun because we would get
to have some laid back time to hang out with each other as coworkers.”
 “I like the interaction with all the different types of people that I meet.”
 “I was one of those people that it charged me up to be around people that were excit ed and were
energetic and moved quickly from this to this.”
Finding #5: Meaningful Work
Many employees are passionate about their work because it provides purpose and meaning. The
fact that this scored so low for having fun was a great surprise. This theme was expected to be much more
prominent. But, as the data tells us, only 73% of the overall participants thought this was an important
factor in having fun. Their responses included:
Manage rs:
 “You know, there‟s a certain gratification that derives from w orking and it evolves. There‟s a
gratification in meeting someone‟s needs, their wants.”
 “So that‟s really kind, you know, what helped shaped me. Ok? It was the fact that I was having
a lot of fun doing what I was doing and hopefully sharing that fun wit h the listener and making
them smile. And that‟s what I‟ve always thought that‟s what I‟ve put there for. To entertain a
little bit and make you smile a little bit.”

 “When you get involved in the (Awards Ceremony Name Omitted), you ‟re recognizing people
who do extraordinary things for others without expectation of compensation or reward or
recognition. And it‟s humbling.”
 “If I said, „y ou‟reall here at a first amendment media company to make money for the owners‟,
there‟d be a very limited fulfillment. If you say, „You‟re here working for a first amendment
media company so that we can inform the public, so that they‟re involved, so we can address
issues in our community, so that we can provide a vehicle for local businesses to be successful.‟ If
you tel l a sales person, “Your job is to go on out and sell as many ads as you can and bring
money in”, you got a very different kind of mentality and sense of fulfillment.”
Employees :
 “I told my boss once I feel like God put me here for a reason, and sometimes i t‟s not always
about me. It may be about other people. What I could do to help them.”
 “I‟m more about I want to make you happy, what do I have to do to make you happy?”
 “I think I felt more passion because I saw the direct affect it had on somebody. You ca me in and
you said „I‟m looking for x, y and z‟, and I could then show you this is what I can do. And then
whether it be you were happy right then.”
 “I love coming in here and finding a problem and fixing it. „Oh you know what? I never looked
at it like that‟. That‟s what brings me here every day.”
The data was further broken down to 91% Management and 62% Employees.
Finding #6: Fun Activities
As Ford writes, there is very little written that defines the term “Fun at Work”. Because of that ,
many people in academia believe that having “fun at work ” mean s doing fun activities like lunches,
parties and other social events. This study dispelled those thoughts , as Fun Activities scored the lowest of
all the findings. The bottom line is that this was t he least popular fun finding by all participants.

Manage rs:
 “We were in the entertainment business. Some of the bosses emphasized that, so we would take
people, we‟d wine and dine them, make them feel comfortable as clients.”
 “Where I'm at now, when we lau nch a new product, very often we will have a launch party. With
games and prizes and trivia – you know, sometimes it‟s focused on whatever that product is and
sometimes it ‟s not at all. But it's just to get everybody together, get everybody laughing, in a good
mood, and you get their attention – we launch the new product and it‟s like shooting them out of a
cannon – they hit the streets running.”
 “Just get everybody together at lunchtime. Leave everything aside and sit down and eat a bowl of
soup. So that w as one thing that we did. Another thing that we did was we had a meeting every
Tuesday. And I would start it with a game. So we‟d have to go around the table and everybody
had to name two things that happened to them.”
Employees :
 “They literally shut down the entire zoo, and they also brought in food. You had different stations
of all different types of food – and to me that‟s just like -hey we care, obviously this is costing us –
I mean to close down a zoo for the day? I imagine there‟s a large cost to it but we care enough
about you to do all this stuff.”
 “So like, there were treadmill desks in different, like these little offices. So when you got tired of
sitting, you could go and walk on the treadmill and do your work at the same time. The desks
would raise to standing desks.”
 “I mean the building was so funky and so cool. They had a huge cafeteria, it was more like a
restaurant. Like a cool restaurant though. We had chefs on staff and they had a fitness center
and they had closets with clothes in it”

Literature Review
Much of the research that supports these patterns comes from such esteemed authors a s Porter,
Kahn, Herzberg, Gagne, Boyatzis and Vroom, who cite improvements in productivity, job satisfaction
and overall well -being of the company as the end result. Their discoveries provide a supportive
framework for this study and is presented below.
Mentoring
What is often studied about Mentoring is the protégé outcome. Very little is dedicated to the
effects of mentoring for the mentor. Stenfors -Hayes ‟ study focused on this notion. The study discovered
that the second -most popular reason why mentors liked mentoring was it “ related to being fun ” (Stenfors –
Hayes et al., 2010) . This was behind rewarding te rms such as “stimulating” or “developing”, and was
overwhelmingly popular amongst all her participants (Stenfors -Hayes et al., 2010) . She wrote “(Mentors)
appreciated feeling important and needed” (Stenfors -Hayes et al., 2010) . Cheryl Wright notes that
mentors express the great pride they realize in their protégé‟s accomplishments (Wright & Wright, 1987) .
She also writes that the mentors feel a sense of immortality as if they are passing on their knowledge, and
creating a lasting contribution to the workplace (Wright & Wright, 1987) . Ragins and Scandura agree
with Wright a nd found that mentors feel a great sense of satisfaction and fulfillment from being a mentor,
especially when the protégé is a young adult (Ragins & Scandura, 1999) . Seligman and Achor also wrote
that fulfilling and meaningful work leads to happy employees (Achor, 2011; M. E. Seligman, 2004) . The
belief is that managers who mentor will increase their own personal happiness, which will affect thei r
employees‟ job satisfaction (Chi et al., 2011) .
This discovery was further supported by Chi, Chung and Tsai, who found that “ the relationship
between leader‟s positive moods and team performance ” directly enhanced employee performance and
led to more cohesive team structures (Chi et al., 2011) . They further discovered that this positive mood
affected group “tone” and the amount of team socialization, productivity, and job satis faction (Chi et al.,
2011) . Thompson wrote that a leader who is caring and involved is the “ the critical ingredient ” in

successful organizations. They found that the manager‟s ability to communicate was instrumental i n the
success of both the employee and the company (Thompson, 1996) .
Boyatzis wrote that leaders “ use their emotional intelligence to build shared hope, compassion
and mindfulness ” in their relationships with emp loyees (Boyatzis, Smith, & Beveridge, 2012) . The
authors propose a model of “coaching” in which the “coach” (manager), establishes a trusting relationship
with the “coachee ” (employee) and freely discuss their hopes and dreams. This evokes a sense of caring
and compassion, and creates an organization open to new ideas and possibilities (Boyatzis et al., 2012) .
New Challenges
Many of the participants of this study noted how New Challenges were fulfilling, engaging and
fun. While a great deal has been written about the relationship of engagement to employee effort
(Lockwood, 2007; Meyer & Gagnè, 2008; Rodríguez -Muñoz, Sanz -Vergel, Demerouti, & Bakker, 2014) ,
the notion of hard, challenging work as “fun” has not received much attention. Schaufeli writes that
“Challenging jobs produce engagement ” (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007) , which creates a sense of
fulfillment, which makes an employee have fun.
Furthermore, Individuals who are self -determined, are driven by two distinct qualities: Extrins ic
Motivators and Intrinsic Motivators. These are explained by Gagne and Deci‟s article: Self -Determination
Theory (SDT) and Work Motivation (Gagné & Deci, 2005) , which builds on the work of Porter and
Lawler (Porter & Lawler, 1968) and Vroom (Vroom, 1982) . The SDT classifies Intrinsic Motivation as an
example of Autonomous Motivation , which involves “ acting with a sense of voliti on and having the
experience of choice ” (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Porter & Lawler, 1968) . The authors discovered that people
engage in an activity “ because they find it interesting („I work becaus e it is fun! ‟)” (Gagné & Deci, 2005) .
Conversely, people who are controlled feel pressured by deadlines, surveillance and evaluations (Gagné
& Deci, 2005) .

Gagne later writes with Meyer that self -determination “ has been demonstrated to lead to higher
levels of performance, persistence, initiative and creativity ” (Meyer & Gagnè, 2008) , which in turn
creates employees who are more eng aged and satisfied with their jobs (Meyer & Gagnè, 2008) .
Empowerment
Wilkinson defines empowerment as a “ form of employee involvement ”. This notion gained
considerable attention in the 1980s for its focus on task -based involvement (Wilkinson, 1998) . The author
wrote that “ it is employers who decide whether and how to empower employees ” (Wilkinson, 1998) ,
which leads to an “ enhance d employee contribution to the organization ” (Wilkinson, 1998) . Wilkinson
cites Elton Mayo who wrote that “ involving workers had strong business as well as moral benefits ”
(Mayo , 1945) . Wilkinson also drew upon author Tom Peters, who wrote the best -selling book In Search
of Excellence in 1982. The theory is that “ managers could unleash the talents of individuals by
dismantling organizational bureaucracy ” (Wilkinson, 1998) .
The Enthusiastic Employee: How Companies Profit by Giving Workers What They Want (Sirota
& Klein, 2013) applies to several different areas of this paper, but in Chapter Five they write “ giving
trained workers latitude in the way they do their jobs has a major positive impact on their performance ”
(Sirota & Klein, 2013) . The notion is that employees know how to do their jobs most efficiently and
effectively, and take ownership of their work. The authors discovered that employees who are micro –
managed feel as though they cannot be trusted to carry out their duties, and are less inclined to perform
productively (Sirota & Klein, 2013) .
Peer/Co -Worker Relationships
“The integration of fun and work isn‟t about what you do, it‟s about who you‟re being when
you‟re doing your work ” (Yerkes, 1997) .
In her work Determinants of Employee Engagement and Their Impact on Employee Performance,
author J Anitha cites that team and co -worker relationships are vital to a company‟s “interpersonal

harmony” (Anitha, 2014) . Khan also found that “s upportive and trusting interpersonal relationships, as
well as a supportive team, promote employee engagement ” (Anitha, 2014) . Sirotta wrote that this “ social
capital ” is significant as well. He discovered that “ cooperative relationships are critical for effective
performance and, therefore, for a sense of achievement in one‟s work ” (Sirota & Klein, 2013) . He wrote
that conflict among employees is “ needlessly costly ”.
According to the Gallup Management Journalstudy, supervisors play a critical role in workerwell –
being and engagement. The survey considershow employee perceptions of happiness and well -being
affect job performance. Happy andengaged employees are better equipped to handlestress and change, are
much more likely to havea positive relationship with their manager, feelmore valued by their employer
and are moresatisfied with their lives. People with h igher levelsof engagement appear to substantially
enjoy morepositive interactions with co -workers than do theirless -engaged counterparts. The study
suggeststh at organizations can boost firm productivity ifthey recognize these issues and help employees
improve their well -being (Lockwood, 2007) .
Meaningful/Fulfilling Work
In his book The Happiness Advantage , Author Shawn Achor writes that happy people are more
likely to succeed than unhappy people. Achor calls upon the work of noted author Martin Seligman, who
he regards as a “ pioneer in positive psychology ”, to validate his findings (M. Seligman & Psychologists,
2006; M. E. Seligman, 20 04). Achor writes that Seligman categorizes happiness into three measurable
components: pleasure, engagement and meaning. He writes that people who are happy have a
psychological advantage (Achor, 2011) .
Boyatzis ‟ research is also related to this theory (Boyatzis, 2013) . He discovered that “ positive
emotions have been shown to result in more altruistic, helpful, cooperative and conciliatory behavior ”
that creates a feed back loop between management and employees (Boyatzis, 2013) . He further discovered
that the relationship between an employee‟s job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and effort is

directly related to the m anager‟s ability to generate a Positive Emotional Attractor (PEA) (Boyatzis,
2013) .
Herzberg wrote that Job Enrichment is not a “ one-time proposition, but a continuous management
function ” (Herzberg, 1968) . He also wrote that “ not all jobs can be enriched ” (Herzberg, 1968) . Many
companies don‟t have the time, staff, resources or money to implement such a wide -ranging, all –
encompassing initiative. Therefore, all the work done to identify methods to increase job satisfaction
could possibly end up underutilized – or not utilized at all.
Further research by Shuck and Rose found that leaders who “ develop high levels of employee
engagement within their organizations enjoy increased levels of competitive advantage ”(Shuck & Rose,
2013) . Their research explored the strategies practitioners can use to “ cultivate positive conditions for
employee engagement ” (Shuck & Rose, 2013) . Their study discovered that employees “ give to the
organization what they perceive they receive in return ”, and that employers “ must be adept at showing
that work is purposeful and meaningful ” (Shuck & Rose, 2013) in order to create a more engaged
employee who is more productive and satisfied with their job.
Sirota & Klein wrote that empowering employees demonstrates trust and goodwill “ that allows
people to go beyond what is required ” (Sirota & Klein, 2013) , and builds a Win -Win partnership that
builds their confidence and self -esteem. It is a give -and-take arrangement, in which employees not only
share in the firm‟s successes, but also in their financial gains (Sirota & Klein, 2013) . This Partnership
Theory is the “ surest path to a high -performance organization ” (Sirota & K lein, 2013) .
Yerkes sums it up best: “ People are demanding more from their jobs than merely a paycheck.
They expect to enjoy what they do and they will search and move until they are satisfied with their work
experience ”. (Yerkes, 1997)

Fun Activities
Our findings indicate that Fun Activities are the least important factor in creating a fun and
engaging workplace. Even so, it was still an important ingredient in the overall success.
Ford explains “ introducing q uirky workplace activities, group lunches, or after -hours outings,
workplace morale and productivity improve ”(Ford et al., 2003b) . Some of the ways to promote fun
activities in the workplace include “ celebrations, en tertainment, playing games, having friendly
competitions, social events and humor ” (Ford et al., 2003b) .

Analysis
Several important findings emerged f rom the research: Mentoring is fun ; Hard Work is fun and
Fun Activities are not as important as we were led to believe in having fun at work. Many of the
participants said that having fun at work gave them the ability to grow as individuals, become more
creative, more responsible and more independent. M entoring was the most surprising discovery,
especially the fact that it scored the highest among the six findings. More importantly, we discovered that
there is very little literature written about the “Mentor” side of the equation – the benefit to the Men tor.
We found that the breadth of research centers on the effect mentoring has on the protégé – very little is
written about the effect it has on the Mentor. This will be studied further in an upcoming study.
Many of our Employees considered Mentors as Rol e Models who provided them with structure
and balance and great training . They s howed a high degree of selflessness, and led by setting a good
example. The Managers spoke about the joy of training the protégé, about the loyalty the protégé
exhibited, and t he great pride that results from seeing the protégé grow. One Mentor summed it up this
way: “ I can‟t tell you how many people point to me and say, “You changed my life ”.
We were not surprised to discover that people viewed the New Challenges category with such
high regard. This category included such topics as hard work, risk -taking, undertaking new projects,

learning new processes, identifying and implementing new policies and procedures, and career changes.
Schaufeli and Salavona break down “engagement” i nto three distinct categories: Vigor, Dedication and
Absorption (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007) . They write that Vigor “ refers to high levels of energy and
resilience, the willingness to invest effort in one‟s job, not being easily fatigued and persistence in the
face of difficulties ”; Dedication “refers to a strong involvement in one‟s work, accompanied by feelings of
enthusiasm and significance, and by a sense of pride and inspiration ”; and Absorption, which refer s to “a
pleasant state of total immersion in one‟s work which is characterized by time passing quickly and being
unable to detaching oneself from the job ” (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007) . Comerford writes that give n the
choice, many employees would prefer more effortful work than effortless work (Comerford & Ubel,
2013) . Lockwood regards the opportunity to perform well at challenging work among her top ten ways to
measure employee engagement. She writes that employers should “ provide opportunities and challenges ”
for employees so that they become further engaged with the work (Lockwood, 2007) . One of our
respondents was so engrossed with his work, he lamented: “ I hardly ever go out. My friends were going
to have interventions because I wasn‟t coming out. They were pissed off at me. And it‟s like – I don‟t miss
it! Now there‟s just not enough time to do the stuff that I want to do .”
In summary, we believe that incorporating a mentoring program into a company will provide
numerous long -term benefits. We also believe that this program should be organic and nature, not
structured. Managers should be encouraged to mentor, but they should be the ones to decide whom they
will mentor. We believe that this initiative will directly affect all other factors and create a more enjoyable
workplace.
Methodology
Aninductive reasoning approach using semi -structured interviews was used to condu ct this
research. Data was gathered through face -to-face interviews using open -ended questions that created
context and directed the dialog. This made for a more flexible interview process with participants feeling

comfortable with their responses. The int erviews were designed to extract the significant factors that
created a fun and engaging workplace – and those factors that created a not -so-much fun environment.
The sample used for the data collection included managers and employees in the advertising,
marketing and sales industry in the Greater Albany -Schenectady -Troy, NY (Capital Region) market. One
of the underlying reasons this industry was chosen was because of its naturally creative, independent and
innovative approach to conducting business. The results obtained can be applied across multiple other
industries and organizations and is not impacted by size or locale.
The cyclical process of conducting the interviews, reviewing the transcripts, listening to the
recordings, gathering the data and codi ng the responses provided theoretical ideas, and themes that were
broken down into categories.
Sample:
The sample include d twenty -four (24) interviewees from different companies or organizations. The group
was solicited through The Albany, NY Chapter of th e American Marketing Association; The Albany, NY
Ad Club (member of AAAA); the Albany, NY Chapter of the Public Relations Society of America
(PRSA), the Capital Region Chamber of Commerce and through personal/professional contacts. The
breakout is below.
Under 50 Over 50 Total
M/F Level Managers 3 8 11
M/F Employees 9 4 13

The interviews averaged one -hour in length and were conducted in “neutral” settings such as
coffee shops, public libraries or third -party offices that provided the participants with a setting that
allowed them to share their most intimate and personal thoughts without the fear of intrusions. IRB
protocol was followed in each interview to assure consent, accuracy and confidentiality. After conductin g
twenty -two interviews, the researcher determined that no new themes or ideas were emerging and
completed the study after the two remaining/previously scheduled interviews were concluded.

The interviews were coded using an open -coding approach made popul ar by Saldana . The
interviews were manually, as well as electronically, coded using a custom -designed database created by
the author. This allowed for a high degree of flexibility with regard to sorting and analyzing the data.
After the completion of the i nitial coding, each interview was reviewed for consistent coding. Focused –
coding and axial -coding were then applied to examine common themes.The interviews were categorized
into two primary groups: FUN and NOT FUN and then further broken down into their re spective
demographics including age, manager or employee.
Limitations
One of the key reasons why the advertising, marketing and sales industry were selected for this study was
their naturally creative, independent and innovative approach to conducting bu siness. While this brought
great insight into our findings, we realize that other industries – such as manufact uring – may have a
much different outcome . We were also limited to the Greater Albany, NY/Capital Region market. While
ranked 52nd in market size , future research should include other/larger markets.
Future Research
This study provided several key findings, especially the significant role mentoring plays in a
manager‟s fun at work. We also discovered five other factors that influence senior -level managers to have
fun at work.
What needs to be done next is a further study on what is not fun in the workplace. Our findings
indicate d several factors . New owners; new managers; lack of training were among the more prominent
responses. F urther work is needed to developa meaningful body of data, though .
Furthermore, consideration needs to be given to a more standardized method of assessing F un at
Work that would provide a clear -cut definition into the term.

Lastly, we would like to examine the different types of Mentorship programs: Structured or
Organic. We believe that an organic mentorship program – one that develops informally and mutually –
has more impact on the amount of fun a manager has than a more s tructured/formal mentorship.

References
Achor, S. (2011). The happiness advantage: The seven principles of positive psychology that fuel success
and performance at work Random House.
Anitha, J. (2014). Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63 (3), 308 -323.
10.1108/IJPPM -01-2013 -0008 Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.11 08/IJPPM -01-2013 -0008
Bates, S. (2004). Getting engaged. (cover story). HR Magazine, 49 (2), 44 -51. Retrieved from
https://ezproxy.strose.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&A
N=12256319&site=ehost -live
Bedeian, A. G., & Armenakis, A. A. (1998). The cesspool syndrome: How dreck floats to the top of
declining organizations. Acad emy of Management Executive, 12 (1), 58 -63.
10.5465/AME.1998.254978 Retrieved from
https://ezproxy.strose.edu/ login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&A
N=254978&site=ehost -live
Bolton, S., Houlihan, M., & Renee Baptiste, N. (2009a). Fun and well -being: Insights from senior
managers in a local authority. Employee Relations, 31 (6), 600 -612.
Bolton, S., Houlihan, M., & Renee Baptiste, N. (2009b). Fun and well -being: Insights from senior
managers in a local authority. Employee Relations, 31 (6), 600 -612.

Boyatzis, R. E. (2013). When pulling to the negative emotional attractor is too much or not enough to
inspire and sustain outstanding leadership. The Fulfilling Workplace: The Organization‟s Role in
Achieving Individual and Organizational Health, , 139 -150.
Boyatzis, R. E., Smith, M. L., & Beveridge, A. J. (2012). Coaching with compassion: I nspiring health,
well-being, and development in organizations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, ,
0021886312462236.
Boyatzis, R. E., Smith, M. L., Van Oosten, E., & Woolford, L. (2013). Developing resonant leaders
through emotional intelligence, vision and coaching. Organizational Dynamics, 42 (1), 17 -24.
Chi, N., Chung, Y., & Tsai, W. (2011). How do happy leaders enhance team success? the mediating roles
of transformational leadership, group affective tone, and team Processes1. Journal of Applie d Social
Psychology, 41 (6), 1421 -1454. 10.1111/j.1559 -1816.2011.00767.x
Clark, R. M. (2009). Are we having fun yet? creating a motivating work environment. Industrial and
Commercial Training, 41 (1), 43 -46.
Comerford, D. A., & Ubel, P. A. (2013). Effort av ersion: Job choice and compensation decisions
overweight effort. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 92 , 152 -162.
Crabtree, S. (2013). Worldwide, 13% of employees are engaged at work. Verfügbar Unter Gallup World:
Http://Www.Gallup.Com/Poll/16526 9/Worldwide -Employees -Engaged -Work.Aspx [Abrufdatum
20.07.2014],
Ford, R. C., McLaughlin, F. S., & Newstrom, J. W. (2003a). Questions and answers about fun at work.
Human Resource Planning, 26 (4), 18 -33.

Ford, R. C., McLaughlin, F. S., & Newstrom, J. W. (2003b). Questions and answers about fun at work.
Human Resource Planning, 26 (4), 18 -33.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self ‐determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26 (4), 331 -362.
Gallagher, W. E., & Einhorn, H. J. (1976). Motivation theory and job design. Journal of Business, , 358 –
373.
Head, S. (2003). The new ruthless economy: Work & power in the digital age Oxford University Press
New York.
Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 46 (1),
53-62. Retrieved from
https://ezproxy.strose.edu/login?url=http://search.ebsco host.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&A
N=3866617&site=ehost -live
Kinjerski, V., & Skrypnek, B. J. (2006). Creating organizational conditions that foster employee spirit at
work. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27 (4), 280 -295.
Lockwood, N. R. (2007). Leveraging employee engagement for competitive advantage. Society for
Human Resource Management Research Quarterly, 1 , 1-12.
Lutchman, C., Maharaj, R., & Ghanem, W. (2012). Safety management: A comprehensive approach to
developing a sustainable system CRC Press.
Mayo, E. (1945). The social problems of an industrial civilization.
Meyer, J. P., & Gagnè, M. (2008). Employee engagement from a self -determination theory perspective.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1 (01), 60 -62.

Moberg, D. J . (2000). Role models and moral exemplars: How do employees acquire virtues by observing
others? Business Ethics Quarterly, 10 (03), 675 -696.
Poon Teng Fatt, J. (2002). When business can be fun. Management Research News, 25 (1), 39 -48.
Porter, L. W., & Law ler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance.
Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. A. (1999). Burden or blessing? expected costs and benefits of being a
mentor. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20 (4), 493 -509.
Rodríguez -Muñoz, A., Sanz -Vergel, A. I., Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2014). Engaged at work and
happy at home: A spillover –Crossover model. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15 (2), 271 -283.
Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2014). What do we really know about employee engagement? Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 25 (2), 155 -182. 10.1002/hrdq.21187
Schaufeli, W., & Salanova, M. (2007). Work engagement. Managing Social and Ethical Issues in
Organizations, , 135 -177.
Seligman, M. E. (2004). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential
for lasting fulfillment Simon and Schuster.
Seligman, M., & Psychologists, Q. (2006). Positive psychology & positive interventions.
Shuck, B., & Rose, K. (2013). Reframing employee engagement within the context of meaning and
purpose: Implications for HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 15 (4), 341 -355.
10.1177/1523422313503235 Retrieved from
http:// journals.ohiolink.edu/ejc/article.cgi?issn=15234223&issue=v15i0004&article=341_reewtcmap
ifh

Sirota, D., & Klein, D. (2013). The enthusiastic employee: How companies profit by giving workers what
they want FT Press.
Stenfors -Hayes, T., Kalén, S., Hult, H., Dahlgren, L. O., Hindbeck, H., & Ponzer, S. (2010). Being a
mentor for undergraduate medical students enhances personal and professional development.
Medical Teacher, 32 (2), 148 -153.
Thompson, J. W. (1996). Employee attitudes, organizational performance, and qualitative factors
underlying success. Journal of Business and Psychology, 11 (2), 171 -196. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25092544
Vroom, V. H. (1982). Work and motivation Robe rt E. Krieger Publishing Company.
Wilkinson, A. (1998). Empowerment: Theory and practice. Personnel Review, 27 (1), 40 -56.
10.1108/00483489810368549 Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.11 08/00483489810368549
Wright, C. A., & Wright, S. D. (1987). The role of mentors in the career development of young
professionals. Family Relations, , 204 -208.
Yerkes, L. (1997). 301 ways to have fun at work Berrett -Koehler Publishers.