Fun and friends: The impact of workplace fun and constituent attachment on turnover in a hospitality context

Abstract

Extending the growing body of research on fun in the workplace, this article reports on a study examinining the relationship between fun and employee turnover. Specifically, this research focused on the influence of three forms of fun on turnover – fun activities, coworker socializing and manager support for fun. With a sample of 296 servers from 20 units of a national restaurant chain in the US, coworker socializing and manager support for fun were demonstrated to be significantly related to turnover. In addition, constituent attachment was found to mediate the relationship between each of the three forms of fun and turnover. This research highlights that not all types of fun are equal and demonstrates that one of the key means through which fun influences retention is by facilitating the development of high quality work relationships.

Keywords

constituent attachment retention turnover workplace fun

Employee turnover is arguably one of the most significant human resource management challenges confronting managers, particularly in the hospitality industry. For example, turnover rates for entry-level employees in hotels and restaurants can easily exceed 50 percent annually (Hinkin and Tracey, 2000; Tracey and Hinkin, 2008). Such excessive turnover is both costly and disruptive to hospitality enterprises. Managers are confronted with a continuous cycle of recruitment, selection and training that strains their organizations as costs escalate and productivity losses ensue (Hinkin and Tracey, 2000). Given high turnover and the need to fill vacancies quickly, managers often fall victim to hiring warm bodies, which only compromises the service experience. Not surprisingly, managing employee turnover in the hospitality industry is one of the key concerns that “keeps managers up at night” (Enz, 2001). As such, determining how to promote retention among entry-level hospitality employees is warranted.

The vast body of turnover research has illustrated that classic turnover models account for only a modest percentage of variance in turnover behavior, and researchers have emphasized the need for more theoretical contributions tailored to specific contexts (Felps et al., 2009; Holtom et al., 2008; Mitchell et al., 2001). In their extensive review of turnover research, Holtom et al. (2008) identified job level and job type as key theoretical variables that have often been overlooked in research on the turnover process. The present study takes these characteristics into account by focusing on entry-level hospitality employees, who are typically younger workers who perform relatively low-skill, low-pay work in a highly social employment context.

The existing body of turnover research has reached consensus on a number of variables that reduce turnover. Griffeth et al.’s (2000) meta-analysis, for example, demonstrated that job satisfaction, leader−member exchange relationships and role clarity were among the strongest predictors of turnover. Other key predictors were those related to employee compensation, work group issues and employee stress. Notwithstanding the importance of these variables, the modest level of variance explained suggests that other variables may also be important in explaining the turnover process. In the context of entry-level hospitality employees, we contend that fun in the workplace may have a significant impact on leaving behavior and help promote retention in an industry where turnover rates are among the highest.

The purported benefits of fun have long been extolled in the popular management press. The roots of the modern workplace fun movement can be found in the writings of Deal and Kennedy (1982) and Peters and Waterman (1982), which encouraged the development of corporate cultures that promote fun, humor and play. More recently, fun has been promoted in publications like Fish! as a key ingredient to create energized and productive work environments (Lundin et al., 2000). Fun has been deemed to have a favorable impact on nearly every aspect of organizational life. It has been argued that fun leads to higher job satisfaction, morale, pride in work, creativity, retention and service quality, as well as lower absenteeism, anxiety and burnout (Abner, 1997; Abramis, 1989; Hemsath et al., 1997; Lundin et al., 2000; Yerkes, 2007). Whereas some academic research has demonstrated that fun does in fact have positive consequences for individuals and organizations (e.g. Peluchette and Karl, 2005; Stromberg and Karlsson, 2009; Tews et al., 2012), other studies have been more critical, highlighting that workplace fun may be met with resistance (e.g. Baptiste, 2009; Fleming, 2005; Taylor and Bain, 2003; Warren and Fineman, 2007).

The present study aims to substantiate the generalizability of fun to employee turnover among entry-level employees in the hospitality industry. In particular, this research will examine the effects of three forms of fun on turnover – fun activities, coworker socializing and manager support for fun. Drawing from a relational perspective of turnover (Allen and Shanock, 2013; Mitchell et al., 2001; Mossholder et al., 2005), we argue that fun may enrich the social experience of work and facilitate the development of high quality work relationships to embed individuals within an organization. Accordingly, we will also assess constituent attachment as a mediator in the fun−turnover relationship. Furthermore, this research examines whether some dimensions of fun have a stronger influence on turnover than others. We contend that coworker socializing and manager support for fun will matter more than fun activities because they are more regular features of the work environment and may be more authentic and genuine.

Prior research on workplace fun

Fun in the workplace is a broad construct, and several similar, yet slightly distinct, conceptualizations have been advanced. Fluegge (2008: 15) provides a broad conceptualization by defining workplace fun as “any social, interpersonal, or task activities at work of a playful or humorous nature which provide an individual with amusement, enjoyment, or pleasure”. Whereas Fluegge includes task activities in her conceptualization, McDowell (2004: 9) argues that fun involves activities that are “not specifically related to the job that are enjoyable, amusing, or playful”. Furthermore, Ford et al. (2003: 22) define fun as a “work environment that intentionally encourages, initiates, and supports a variety of enjoyable and pleasurable activities”. Of note in Ford et al.’s (2003) definition is that fun is intentionally promoted by the organization. However, Bolton and Houlihan (2009: 557) articulate that not all fun is organizationally sponsored and that it is important to distinguish between “packaged fun” and “organic fun,” the latter reflecting an “intrinsic and inherent part of organizational life”. Based on these various conceptualizations, fun can potentially be derived from multiple sources and may or may not be formally encouraged and initiated by the organization. It is important to highlight that these conceptualizations focus on features of the work environment that may facilitate enjoyment or pleasure, rather than employee attitudes or states − such as job satisfaction, engagement and positive affect − that could result from the existence of fun.

Three areas of inquiry have been the primary focus of previous research on fun. One area has focused on the prevalence and perceptions of fun. For example, Ford et al. (2003) examined the extent to which various fun activities were prevalent in organizations. Furthermore, Karl et al. (2005) assessed whether individuals perceive different activities as fun or not, and Plester (2009) demonstrated that informal and formal organizations have different boundaries as to what is considered fun. A second area has focused on individual differences and fun. In this context, Lamm and Meeks (2009) illustrated that there are generational differences in attitudes toward fun, and Karl et al. (2007) demonstrated that the Big Five dimensions of extraversion and agreeableness are related to more favorable attitudes toward fun. A third area of inquiry, most germane to the present research and discussed more fully below, has addressed the potential impact of fun.

One set of studies has examined the impact of experienced fun, which reflects whether individuals generally perceive the existence of fun in the workplace. Scale items corresponding to this conceptualization include: This is a fun place to work and At my workplace, we try to have fun whenever we can, among others (Karl and Peluchette, 2006b; Karl et al., 2007). In one of the first studies in this area, with a sample of healthcare employees, Peluchette and Karl (2005) established that experienced fun was positively related to job satisfaction. Also in healthcare contexts, Karl and Peluchette (2006a) demonstrated that experienced fun tempered the influence of emotional exhaustion on job dissatisfaction, and Karl et al. (2007) found that experienced fun was positively related to job satisfaction and negatively related to emotional exhaustion. In addition, Karl and Peluchette (2006b) found that experienced fun was positively related to job satisfaction and employee perceptions of customer service quality with a sample of students in service settings. Finally, with a sample of volunteers, Karl et al. (2008) demonstrated that experienced fun was positively related to job satisfaction and negatively related to turnover intentions.

Other studies have examined the impact of fun as a multidimensional, higher-order construct (Fluegge, 2008; McDowell, 2004). With a sample of oil company employees, McDowell demonstrated that fun was significantly related to job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover intentions. McDowell’s framework of fun included socializing, celebrating, personal freedoms and global fun. Socializing refers to friendly social interactions among coworkers; celebrating refers to marking special events and having social gatherings at work; personal freedoms refers to employees being afforded flexibility and autonomy regarding attire, playing music and playing around; and global fun refers to an overall evaluation of whether an organization has a fun work climate. Using the same framework of fun as McDowell, Fluegge found with a sample of working undergraduate students that fun had a positive impact on employee engagement, positive affect and job performance, including task performance, creative performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Because McDowell and Fluegge aggregated their dimensions of fun into a single measure, it could not be determined which aspects of fun were most influential.

Subsequent research by Tews et al. (2012) focused on the impact of fun in the context of applicant attraction. This study focused on fun activities, coworker socializing and fun job responsibilities with a sample of undergraduate job seekers who evaluated recruiting scenarios. This research demonstrated that fun was a stronger predictor of applicant attraction than compensation and opportunities for advancement. Moreover, coworker socializing and fun job responsibilities were stronger predictors than fun activities. These findings illustrate that fun is important in a recruiting context and that not all forms of fun are valued equally.

Turning to qualitative investigations, a number of studies have illustrated that fun potentially results in desirable outcomes. In detailing the organizational culture at Disney, Van Maanen (1991) illustrated that fun activities and coworker socializing were central features of the employment experience that enhanced camaraderie and bonding among employees, who were primarily of college age. In addition, Stromberg and Karlsson (2009), in a study with female meatpackers, demonstrated that work environments characterized by fun, humor and laughter promoted group cohesion and enhanced the quality of work life in an environment that might otherwise be perceived as “greasy, monotonous, and repetitive” (Stromberg and Karlsson, 2009: 638). Furthermore, Bolton (2004) detailed the use of humor among nurses. Even though the use of humor may be a form of organizational resistance in a highly pressurized work environment, she noted a number of benefits. She concluded that the use of humor is not necessarily detrimental as it may foster group cohesion and reduce the emotional exhaustion associated with service work.

Despite its potential benefits, other qualitative studies have cast workplace fun in a more critical light. Taylor and Bain (2003) illustrated that supervisor efforts to sponsor fun may at times be counterproductive. In addition, Baptiste (2009) found that senior managers could be resistant to participating in fun as such endeavors would “encroach on their already busy schedules” when confronted with work overload and other job stressors (Baptiste, 2009: 609). Furthermore, Fleming (2005), Fleming and Sturdy (2009), Redman and Mathews (2002) and Warren and Fineman (2007) detailed mixed results for different organizationally sponsored fun initiatives that encompassed elements such as social events, play and freedom for personal expression. Although some employees enjoyed and appreciated these initiatives, other employees were resistant and skeptical. For example, Fleming (2005) found that many employees disliked company-sponsored fun, considering it inauthentic and fake. Furthermore, Fleming and Sturdy (2009) found that some employees were resistant to participation in outside social activities, feigned interest in company fun and hid their true identities when personal expression was encouraged. Although fun could be beneficial, these diverse studies highlight that implementing fun in the workplace is not as straightforward as popular press publications suggest.

The present study

The present research extends research on workplace fun in several ways. This research will examine the impact of fun on turnover, drawing on job embeddedness theory which posits that relationships are a key factor enmeshing individuals in organizations (Mitchell et al., 2001). Mossholder et al. (2005) drew on job embeddedness theory to demonstrate that social networks influence turnover, yet they did not address the formation of such networks. Allen (2006) and Allen and Shanock (2013) described tactics that organizations use to aid newcomers in developing relationships. However, they did not address the possibility that fun could play a role. We extend these relational perspectives by incorporating the fun literature to demonstrate additional ways organizations can help embed its members. Along the same lines, this research will examine constituent attachment as a mediator in the fun−turnover relationship. Our contention is that fun will largely impact turnover through the development of high quality relationships, and thus constituent attachment may be a key process variable through which fun influences employees’ decisions to remain with or leave an organization. Finally, this research examines different forms of fun as discrete predictors of turnover. McDowell (2004) and Fluegge (2008) conceptualized fun as multi-dimensional, yet they analyzed fun as an overall construct. The qualitative research reviewed above suggests that not all fun is equal, and additional research is warranted that further examines this notion. These issues will be addressed in the context of entry-level employees in the hospitality industry, where fun may be highly valued.

The present research addresses elements of fun that specifically relate to the social experience of work. Specifically, three interrelated constructs are the focus of this research – fun activities, coworker socializing and manager support for fun. Fun activities include a variety of social and group activities initiated by the organization intended to promote enjoyment among employees. Although a wide variety of activities may be subsumed under this umbrella, the present research will assess the impact of more mainstream activities that are generally perceived favorably, such as social events, team building activities and public celebrations of achievements and personal milestones (Ford et al., 2003; Karl et al., 2005). Coworker socializing is characterized as coworkers being friendly, outgoing and social. Coworker socializing is examined because coworkers are central to most employees’ experiences on the job (Chiaburu and Harrison, 2008). Manager support for fun is conceptualized as the extent to which managers allow and encourage employees to have fun on the job. Manager support for fun is similar to McDowell’s (2004) personal freedoms construct in that it relates to the opportunity the organization affords employees to have fun. We focus specifically on manager support to provide a sharper focus on the potential source of fun and because managers are actively involved in supervising entry-level employees.

Fun activities, manager support for fun and coworker socializing are similar, yet distinct, constructs. These elements of fun are all intended to produce enjoyment among employees, foster cohesive relationships and embed individuals in the organization. However, these elements may be contrasted by level of formality. Fun activities are likely the most formal and “manufactured,” as by definition they are organized and sponsored by the organization. By contrast, coworker socializing is more informal, often initiated by coworkers themselves and more volitional. Manager support for fun lies somewhere in the middle. As managers supervise employees, manager support for fun could be considered formal. At the same time, manager support for fun is a means of affording freedom to have fun that may promote informal and serendipitous fun among employees. These elements of fun may occur simultaneously or not. For example, coworkers may socialize while engaged in fun activities supported by a manager, yet coworker socializing may occur independently as well. Furthermore, fun activities could be enthusiastically supported by a manager, whereas at other times there may be little or no demonstrated support. Although fun activities, manager support for fun and coworker socializing are related, these dimensions of fun are not rigidly linked. As such, value is to be gained by focusing on these dimensions as discrete constructs.

Theoretically, these three dimensions can be subsumed within the framework of factors that impact the social experience of work. With respect to traditional job design, Grant (2007) defines the social characteristics of work as the structural features of jobs that influence employees’ interpersonal interactions and relationships. Jobs with enriched social characteristics provide opportunities to work and interact with other people, develop friendships and exchange support (Grant and Parker, 2009), which in turn have favorable outcomes. A wide body of research supports this argument that the social characteristics of work are important. Humphrey et al.’s (2007) meta-analysis of 259 studies demonstrated that social characteristics explained unique variance in turnover intentions, organizational commitment, job satisfaction and performance. Extending these findings, fun in the workplace may also influence favorable workplace outcomes as well.

Qualitative research findings highlight that workplace fun is important and valued more in some employment contexts than others. The fundamental premise of this research is that fun is especially relevant in the context of the hospitality industry. The hospitality industry is typically thought of as a fun and social industry, and individuals may want to work in hospitality because it is fun and dynamic. Not all hospitality environments are equally fun, however. To the extent that employee needs and expectations are met with respect to fun, employees may be more or less likely to remain with their place of employment. Although job responsibilities and compensation levels may be very similar across hospitality establishments (Andersson et al., 2005; Steel, 2004), fun may be less so, thereby potentially affecting retention.

In one respect, fun may be important in the context of the hospitality industry because fun may compensate for other less desirable aspects of work. Entry-level employees in the hospitality industry often perform routine tasks, are paid relatively low wages with few benefits, are afforded few opportunities for advancement, and work shifts that are frequently erratic and irregular (Brown et al., 2006; DiPietro and Milman, 2004; Hinkin and Tracey, 2000; Leidner, 1993; Maxwell, 2008). To the extent it can be promoted, fun may serve as a counterweight to these conditions and enhance the quality and meaningfulness of the work experience, in effect increasing perceived inducements according to March and Simon’s (1958) widely used model of organizational participation. Drawing on Bolton’s (2004) arguments, fun could also reduce the emotional labor associated with service work. It is well documented that employees often experience emotional exhaustion and burnout from the emotional labor inherent in serving customers (Brotheridge and Grandey, 2002; Glomb and Tews, 2004; Hochschild, 1983; Morris and Feldman, 1996). Fun in the workplace, however, may alleviate emotional exhaustion and burnout whereby employees can take time off task and recharge (Sonnentag, 2003).

Fun is also thought to be relevant in a hospitality context because employees are disproportionately younger than in other industries (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013). Younger individuals in general may value fun. Bolton and Houlihan (2009) noted that fun companies are typically more youthful companies with employees who are typically under 35 years old (Bolton, 2006; Gordon, 1992; Woudhuyesen, 2001). Fun may also be particularly important for younger workers today − the Millennials − the cohort of individuals born in 1980 onwards (Lamm and Meeks, 2009; Parker and Chusmir, 1990; Smola and Sutton, 2002). Such individuals grew up in a period of relative prosperity and have experienced relatively comfortable lifestyles (Raines, 2003). In an employment context, Millennials desire to balance play with work, freedom and social involvement (Carless and Wintle, 2007; Cennamo and Gardner, 2008; Dries et al., 2008; Loughlin and Barling, 2001; Smola and Sutton, 2002). In fact, Lamm and Meeks (2009) found that fun exhibited a stronger relationship with job satisfaction and performance with Millennials than with Generation Xers, the preceding generational cohort.

Similarly, fun is argued to be important among these employees because it may lead to the development of friendships. With respect to turnover, Mossholder et al. (2005: 608) argued that solid interpersonal relationships “enmesh individuals within a relational web, making them less susceptible to forces that could dislodge them”, and demonstrated that having a broader social network on the job is central to reducing turnover. Friendships are especially important among younger individuals, who value developing new relationships beyond the traditional family context (Erikson, 1968; Tokuno, 1986). Friendships at work may provide a source of social contact, intimacy and support with establishing an adult identity. In addition to being valued by younger individuals, friendships are thought to be important in a hospitality context given the social intensity of the work environment, where quantity and frequency of social interactions are high. When the work is high in social intensity, coworkers have been demonstrated to have a greater influence on employees (Chiaburu and Harrison, 2008). The work for entry-level hospitality employees is socially intense because employees typically work alongside one another with duties that require regular interaction. Workspaces are often undefined, making it difficult to avoid interpersonal contact. To quote Schneider (1987: 437), “people make the place,” and particularly so in entry-level hospitality work because of the numerous constituents with whom one works.

Fun activities, coworker socializing and manager support for fun put employees in contact with each other, and such contact is a necessary precursor to the development of friendships. More importantly, individuals can interact with another more informally through these avenues and get to know each other beyond the traditional confines of their job roles. Coworker socializing, by its very definition, relates to enhanced friendly communication and camaraderie among peers. With respect to fun activities, they may provide an architecture for individuals to connect with each other on a more meaningful basis, often in a non-task context. Barsoux (1993) argues that such activities are an essential part of humanizing organizations. Finally, manager support for fun could facilitate a more relaxed business attitude in general, where individuals may be more apt to interact in a friendly manner without fear of negative repercussions. When there is fun on the job, work is not merely about task and goal accomplishment, but also about relationships that may enhance organizational embeddedness.

Fun in the workplace may meet entry-level hospitality employees’ needs and values in several respects, and therefore, fun may have a significant impact on turnover. Certainly one of the primary reasons why individuals work is for the compensation that a paycheck provides. That said, individuals work for more than just a paycheck and seek intrinsic satisfaction, enjoyment in their work and quality relationships with others (Grant and Parker, 2009). Given the vast amount of time spent on the job, clearly individuals would prefer the experience to be enjoyable and to have fun. Based on these arguments, fun is hypothesized to have a negative relationship with employee turnover.

Hypothesis 1a: Fun activities will be negatively related to turnover.

Hypothesis 1b: Coworker socializing will be negatively related to turnover.

Hypothesis 1c: Manager support for fun will be negatively related to turnover.

Drawing on the previous discussion, we believe that fun will largely impact employee turnover through the development of relationships, which we examine in terms of constituent attachment. Specifically, constituent attachment reflects an employee’s attachment to key constituents in the workplace such as coworkers (Maertz and Griffeth, 2004). Such attachment has been argued to be a key factor that embeds employees in the organization and reduces turnover (Maertz and Griffeth, 2004). As argued above, fun may lead to the development of friendships on the job and thereby enhance one’s level of constituent attachment. Therefore, constituent attachment is hypothesized to mediate the relationship between fun and turnover. Assessing constituent attachment as a mediator in the fun−turnover relationship will not only serve to help explain how fun impacts turnover, but also validate the extent to which friends and attachment to others in the workplace influence individual decisions to remain with or leave an organization. We recognize that fun may also influence turnover in other ways, such as through greater levels of affective organizational commitment and lower levels of job stress. Nonetheless, we propose that constituent attachment is a key mediator in the fun−turnover relationship.

Hypothesis 2a: The relationship between fun activities and turnover will be mediated by constituent attachment.

Hypothesis 2b: The relationship between coworker socializing and turnover will be mediated by constituent attachment.

Hypothesis 2c: The relationship between manager support for fun and turnover will be mediated by constituent attachment.

A final issue to be examined is whether some dimensions of fun have stronger relationships with constituent attachment and turnover. Although we argue that each of the three forms of fun is important, coworker socializing and manager support for fun may be more so. In one respect, fun activities may be less important because they are less frequent and do not permeate the day-to-day experiences for employees. Coworkers and managers are constant features in an employee’s work life. As such, these individuals have a greater opportunity to impact the quality of one’s experiences on the job than fun activities. In another respect, fun activities may be less valued because they are more formal and manufactured. Warren and Fineman (2007) illustrated that to the extent it is manufactured, fun may be met with ambivalence. Because fun activities are larger and more public endeavors, employees may feel less free to be their authentic selves. In contrast, as they are more informal and organic, coworker socializing and manager support for fun are believed to be more impactful. In fact, Stromberg and Karlsson (2009) suggested that informal, organic fun is particularly valuable in organizations and argued that, in spite of attention directed toward formal fun, organizations should not lose sight of organic fun and humor. Coworker socializing and manager support for fun are therefore argued to have a stronger impact on constituent attachment and turnover than fun activities.

Hypothesis 3: Coworker socializing will have a stronger relationship with constituent attachment and turnover than will fun activities.

Hypothesis 4: Manager support for fun will have a stronger relationship with constituent attachment and turnover than will fun activities.

Method

Sample and procedure

The sample for this research includes 296 servers from a casual dining restaurant chain in the US. The employees were from 20 restaurants, which encompass one of the company’s regional districts. The sample was 65 percent female and 61 percent Caucasian. The average age was 27 years old. The average organizational tenure at the beginning of the study was 2.58 years. Data were obtained on fun and constituent attachment through employee surveys. Seven hundred and twenty-five servers were initially invited to participate in the study. The employees received a packet containing the survey itself, information about the study and an assurance of confidentiality. Employees completed the surveys during work time. Of the 725 surveys distributed, 305 were returned with useable data, yielding an initial participation rate of 42 percent. Turnover data were obtained six months following survey administration from organizational records and then matched with the survey responses. Nine participants of the initial 305 were excluded from the study as they were terminated, resulting in the final sample of 296.

Measures

All measures used a five-point response scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree, unless otherwise noted.

Fun activities

This scale comprised five activities based on the work of Ford et al. (2003). The scale was refined through discussions with the organization’s Vice President of Human Resources to ensure that the activities and corresponding item wording were appropriate for the organizational context. The five activities included: (i) social events (e.g. holiday parties and picnics); (ii) team building activities (e.g. company-sponsored athletic teams and bowling nights); (iii) competitions (e.g. team sales and productivity contests); (iv) public celebrations of work achievements (e.g. public recognition for outstanding results); and (v) recognition of personal milestones (e.g. public recognition of birthdays, weddings and anniversaries of employment). The employees indicated how frequently each activity occurred with a five-point scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 = all the time (α = .76).

Coworker socializing

The four-item coworker socializing scale was based on McDowell’s (2004) measure. Sample items included: My coworkers and I socialize outside of work and My coworkers and I joke around with each other (α = .83).

Manager support for fun

Five items were used to measure manager support for fun. These items were based on the perceived supervisor support measure developed by Shanock and Eisenberger (2006) and adapted to reflect support for having fun in the workplace. Sample items included: My managers care about employees having fun on the job and My managers allow employees to play around on the job (α =.92).

The three fun constructs were examined at the individual level of analysis as opposed to the group level. Theoretically, examining these constructs at the individual level was appropriate as the employees in our sample did not work the same shifts or the same number of hours from week to week, and they worked with different managers and coworkers on any given shift, which is common in high volume restaurant settings with a large number of employees and shift managers. As such, the level of fun experienced was believed to vary from employee to employee. Inter-class correlations [i.e., ICC(1) and ICC(2)] were to examined to justify examining the variables as individual-level phenomena. The ICC(1) indicates the amount of variance explained by group membership, and the ICC(2) is an assessment of interrater reliability among participants within each unit compared to those participants between units. Although the F-tests for each of the predictors were significant, the ICC values were all below values typically considered acceptable in organizational research (Bliese, 2000). The specific values are as follows: fun activities [F_{(19, 276)} = 2.67, p < .01, ICC(1) = .10, ICC(2) = .63]; coworker socializing [F_{(19, 276)} = 1.89, p < .05, ICC(1) = .06, ICC(2) = .47]; and manager support for fun [F_{(19, 276)} = 2.24, p < .05, ICC(1) = .08, ICC(2) = .55]. Given that these findings do not provide support for restaurant-level aggregation, these three variables were examined at the individual level.

Constituent attachment

Constituent attachment was measured with five items based on the work of Maertz and Campion (2004). Sample items included: I enjoy working at [company name] because of the people I work with and I would lose valuable friendships if I quit [company name] (α =.82).

Voluntary turnover

Six months was the time frame used to examine turnover. Six months, as opposed to a longer time, was used for two reasons. This time frame was employed because annual turnover rates in the hospitality industry are very high. This time frame was also used because employee perceptions of fun may change over time. The longer the time frame, the less predictive a perceptual variable measured at one point in time becomes (Mossholder et al., 2005). Voluntary turnover was coded dichotomously as 1 for leavers and 0 for stayers. As discussed above, of the 305 respondents who completed surveys at the beginning of the study, nine cases were not used because their turnover was involuntary. For the final sample of 296 employees, 87 employees were leavers and 209 were stayers.

Control variables

Employee age, gender and pre-study tenure were used as control variables as they have been found to relate to turnover in previous research (Griffeth et al., 2000; Mossholder et al., 2005). Ethnicity was also included as a control as some have suggested that minorities are more likely to leave than non-minorities (Hom and Griffeth, 1995). Gender was coded 1 for male and 0 for female. Ethnicity was coded 1 for Caucasian and 0 for other ethnic groups.

Discriminant validity

Results from a confirmatory factor analysis provide support for the discriminant validity of the three fun and constituent attachment survey measures. A four-factor model in which the items loaded on their respective constructs was assessed using Mplus 6 with the sample covariance matrix as input and a maximum likelihood solution (Muthén and Muthén, 2010). Although the model possessed a statistically significant chi-square statistic [χ²(144, N = 296) = 266.22, p < .01], the individual fit indices provided adequate support for the four-factor model (Hu and Bentler, 1999). Specifically, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was .96, the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) was .95, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was .05 (90% confidence interval ranging from .04 to .06), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) was .06. In addition, the chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio was less than 2.0, suggesting good overall model fit (Byrne, 1989). Table 1 presents the factor loadings of the scale items, where all items loaded .40 or higher on their respective constructs. Table 2 presents the correlations among the factors which ranged from .18 to .63. Discriminant validity was further established with pair-wise chi-square difference tests between a two-factor model and a general factor model for all possible combinations of latent variables (Bagozzi and Phillips, 1982). In each pair-wise analysis, the general factor model demonstrated a significantly worse fit.

Table 1.

Confirmatory factor analysis item loadings.

	Mean	SD	Fun activities	Coworker socializing	Manager support for fun	Constituent attachment
Fun activities
Public celebrations of work achievements	1.89	.99	.72
Team building activities	1.96	1.01	.70
Recognition of personal milestones	2.38	1.12	.67
Social events	2.39	1.07	.63
Competitions	3.45	.99	.40
Coworker socializing
My coworkers and I share stories with each other	3.78	.99		.87
My coworkers and I joke around with each other	4.13	.92		.79
My coworkers and I socialize at work	3.95	.87		.69
My coworkers and I socialize outside of work	3.19	1.15		.66
Manager support for fun
My managers encourage employees to have fun on the job	3.15	1.13			.92
My managers emphasize employee fun in the workplace	3.06	1.08			.91
My managers try to make my work fun	3.07	1.08			.90
My managers care about employees having fun on the job	2.90	1.13			.89
My managers allow employees to play around on the job	2.39	1.13			.56
Constituent attachment
I want to continue working with my coworkers here	3.72	.89				.83
I want to continue to work here because I like my coworkers	3.70	.95				.81
I enjoy working at [company name] because of the people I work with	3.82	.96				.78
I would lose valuable working relationships with the people here if I quit	2.99	1.13				.48
I would lose valuable friendships if I quit [company name]	2.86	1.17				.43

Note: n = 296. Factor loadings are standardized estimates.

Table 2.

Factor intercorrelations from confirmatory factor analysis.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4
1. Fun activities	2.41	.74	−
2. Coworker socializing	3.76	.80	.18	−
3. Manager support for fun	2.91	.96	.50	.37	−
4. Constituent attachment	3.42	.78	.33	.63	.48	−

Note: n = 296. All correlations were significant at the .01 level.

Analytic strategy

Random coefficient modeling (RCM) was used to test the hypothesized relationships. RCM was used because the study participants were nested within restaurants, whereby an assumption of independence may not hold. The ICC(1) estimate for the null model for turnover was .06, F_{(19, 276)} = −0.88, p < .01, indicating that 6 percent of the total variance in turnover could be explained by restaurant. Because we hypothesized a mediation model, the ICC(1) for constituent attachment was also estimated. The ICC(1) estimate for the null model for constituent attachment was .08, F_{(19, 276)} = 3.40, p < .01, indicating that 8 percent of the total variance in constituent attachment could be explained by restaurant. As these effects were significant, RCM was appropriate for testing our hypotheses. RCM partitions the total variance into within-group and between-group components, thereby controlling for non-independence (Bliese and Hanges, 2004). The analyses were calculated using the open-source platform R and the nonlinear and linear mixed effects (NLME) package for R and S-Plus (Pinheiro and Bates, 2000). The generalized linear mixed model with normal random effects using the penalized quasi-likelihood function was used to assess the impact of fun on turnover, a dichotomous variable. The linear mixed-effects model was used to assess the impact of fun on the constituent attachment mediator, a continuous variable. In each model, the dependent variable was regressed on the control variables, fun activities, coworker socializing and manager support for fun.

To test the proposed mediating relationships, separate equations with one independent variable, constituent attachment, and turnover were estimated. Support for mediation was examined following Kenny et al.’s (1998) three criteria for testing indirect effects: (i) the independent variable is related to the mediator; (ii) the mediator is related to the dependent variable, controlling for the independent variable; and (iii) the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable becomes non-significant (complete mediation) or significantly lower (partial mediation), controlling for the mediator. Furthermore, the significance of the indirect effects was assessed using the z-prime version of the Sobel test outlined in MacKinnon et al. (2002).

Differences in effect sizes for the dimensions of fun were examined as follows. If two coefficients were non-significant, the coefficients were deemed to be equivalent because they were not different from zero. In the case where one coefficient was significant and one was not, the significant coefficient was deemed to be larger because this coefficient was different from zero. Finally, when both coefficients were significant, Paternoster et al.’s (1998) formula for testing the equality of regression coefficients was employed to determine if one coefficient was significantly larger.

Results

Table 3 provides the descriptive statistics and partial correlations among the study variables. Partial correlations were computed controlling for restaurant location. Table 4 displays the direct effects of the dimensions of fun on turnover. The model explained 24 percent of the variance (McFadden’s pseudo-R²). Table 5 presents the results of the mediation analyses.

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics and partial correlations controlling for restaurants.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Previous tenure	2.58	3.42	−
2. Age	27.16	7.79	.48**	−
3. Gender	.65	.48	.02	.00	−
4. Ethnicity	.61	.49	.06	.05	.03	−
5. Coworker socializing	3.76	.80	−.10*	−.20**	.01	.08	−
6. Fun activities	2.41	.74	−.01	.00	−.01	−.06	.21**	−
7. Manager support for fun	2.91	.96	.01	.03	−.09	.02	.34**	.43**	−
8. Constituent attachment	3.42	.78	−.07	−.04	.11*	.09	.49**	.35**	.39**	−
9. Turnover^a	.29	.46	−.21**	−.18**	−.09	.04	−.11*	−.05	−.15*	−.16**	−

Note: n = 296. Gender: male = 0 and female = 1. Ethnicity: other = 0 and Caucasian = 1. Turnover: 0 = stayer and 1 = leaver.

p < .05; **p < .01.

Correlations with turnover are point-biserial.

Table 4.

RCM predicting voluntary turnover.

Variable	b	SE_b	t-value
Pre-study tenure	−.23**	.08	−2.75
Age	−.04	.02	−1.62
Gender	−.43	.30	−1.46
Ethnicity	.52*	.31	1.71
Fun activities	−.12	.22	.54
Coworker socializing	−.33*	.20	−1.67
Manager support for fun	−.30*	.17	−1.74
Pseudo R ^2a	.24

Note: n = 296. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Gender: male = 0 and female = 1. Ethnicity: other = 0 and Caucasian = 1.

p < .05; **p < .01.

Table 5.

RCM analyses with constituent attachment mediator.

Variable	b	SE_b	t/z	Sobel test
Previous tenure	−.23**	.09	−2.71
Age	−.03	.02	−1.30
Gender	−.46	.31	−1.52
Ethnicity	.45	.31	1.45
Model 1: Mediation of fun activities and turnover relationship
Step 1 Fun activities to constituent attachment	.37**	.06	6.43
Step 2 Constituent attachment to turnover (controlling for fun activities)	−.58**	.21	−2.77
Step 3 Fun activities to turnover (controlling for constituent attachment)	−.09	.22	.42	−2.54**
Model 2: Mediation of coworker socializing and turnover relationship
Step 1 Coworker socializing to constituent attachment	.48**	.05	9.66
Step 2 Constituent attachment to turnover (controlling for coworker socializing)	−.42**	.22	−1.97
Step 3 Coworker socializing to turnover (controlling for constituent attachment)	−.23	.21	−1.18	−1.87*
Model 3: Mediation of manager support and turnover relationship
Step 1 Manager support to constituent attachment	.33**	.04	7.73
Step 2 Constituent attachment to turnover (controlling for manager support)	−.43*	.21	−2.01
Step 3 Manager support to turnover (controlling for constituent attachment)	−.23	.17	−1.36	−1.99*

Note: n = 296. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported.

p< .05; **p < .01.

Hypotheses 1a, 1b and 1c, which proposed that fun activities, coworker socializing and manager support for fun would be negatively related to turnover, were partially supported. Both coworker socializing (b = −.33, p < .05) and manager support for fun (b = −.30, p < .05) were significant and negatively related to turnover. However, fun activities were not (b = .12, p > .10).

Hypothesis 2a, which proposed that constituent attachment would mediate the relationship between fun activities and turnover, was supported. Fun activities were significantly related to constituent attachment (b = .37, p < .01), supporting step 1, and constituent attachment was significantly related to turnover after controlling for fun activities (b = −.58, p < .01), supporting step 2. After controlling for constituent attachment, the fun activities−turnover relationship was non-significant (b = −.09, p > .10), and the Sobel test was significant (z’ = −2.54, p < .01), providing support for complete mediation. Although fun activities were not demonstrated to have a direct relationship with turnover (Hypothesis 1a), they were found to have an indirect relationship through constituent attachment.

Hypothesis 2b, which proposed that constituent attachment would mediate the relationship between coworker socializing and turnover, was supported. In step 1, coworker socializing was significantly related to constituent attachment (b = .48, p < .01). In step 2, constituent attachment was significantly related to turnover (b = −.42, p < .01). In step 3, coworker socializing was not significantly related to turnover (b = −.23, p > .10), and the Sobel test was significant (z’ = −1.87, p < .05), providing support for complete mediation.

Hypothesis 2c, which proposed that constituent attachment would mediate the relationship between manager support for fun and turnover, was also supported. In step 1, manager support for fun was significantly related to constituent attachment (b = .33, p < .01). In step 2, constituent attachment was significantly related to turnover (b = −.43, p < .05). In step 3, coworker socializing was not significantly related to turnover (b = −.23, p > .10), and the Sobel test was significant (z’ = −1.99, p < .05), providing support for complete mediation.

Hypothesis 3, which proposed that coworker socializing would have a stronger relationship with constituent attachment and turnover than fun activities, was supported. The relationship between coworker socializing and constituent attachment (b = .48, p < .01) was deemed to be significantly larger than the relationship between of fun activities and constituent attachment (b = .37, p < .01), as demonstrated by Paternoster et al.’s (1998) formula for testing the equality of regression coefficients (t = 1.41, p < .10). Furthermore, coworker socializing was deemed to have a stronger relationship with turnover than fun activities because coworker socializing was a significant predictor of turnover (different from zero), whereas fun activities were not (not different from zero).

Hypothesis 4, which proposed that manager support for fun would have a stronger relationship with constituent attachment and turnover than fun activities, was partially supported. Manager support for fun was deemed to have a stronger relationship with turnover than fun activities because manager support for fun was a significant predictor (different from zero), whereas fun activities were not (not different from zero). However, manager support for fun did not have a stronger relationship with constituent attachment. The effect size for the relationship between manager support for fun and constituent attachment (b = .33, p < .01) was smaller than the effect size for the relationship between fun activities and constituent attachment (b = .37, p < .01). Furthermore, there was no significant difference between the coefficients (t = .55, p > .10).

Discussion

No play? No stay? This article has illustrated that the answer to this question is yes, and this research has contributed to the growing body of research on fun in the workplace in three primary ways. First, this research demonstrated that fun is significantly related to employee turnover, serving to further validate claims in the popular management press that fun has a beneficial impact on individuals and organizations. Second, this research highlighted that only some forms of fun relate directly to employee turnover. These results signal the importance of focusing on the component parts of workplace fun, rather than treating fun as a single construct, as has been done in other research (Fluegge, 2008; McDowell, 2004). Third, this research demonstrated that constituent attachment is a key mediator in the fun−turnover relationship. In doing so, this research has helped to answer how and why fun impacts the turnover process.

This research has also contributed to broader turnover literature by demonstrating that fun is a significant predictor of turnover in the hospitality industry. Scholars have argued that greater attention be paid to the context in which turnover and retention is studied (Holtom et al., 2008). It was argued that fun would be relevant in curbing turnover among entry-level employees in the hospitality industry in two key ways. On one front, fun would compensate for terms and conditions of employment that may not necessarily be favorable in the hospitality industry, such as limited pay and benefits and opportunities for advancement. That is, fun would enhance the work environment. On another front, fun would be especially valued by younger individuals, who represent a large proportion of individuals employed in this sector of the economy. Our sample was, in fact, relatively young, with an average age of 27 years. Notwithstanding the potential relevance of fun in other contexts, the current findings suggest that fun is relevant in hospitality and may serve as one potential antidote to this industry’s perennial turnover challenge.

Of the three forms of fun examined in this research, coworker socializing and manager support for fun were found to have direct relationships with turnover. Thus, entry-level employees in the hospitality industry appear to particularly value coworkers who are friendly, outgoing and who socialize with one another, as well as managers who allow and encourage fun on the job. Coworker socializing and manager support for fun are more informal aspects of workplace fun vis-a-vis fun activities, and they may have been particularly important because employees and managers in the hospitality industry regularly work alongside each other with job duties that involve constant interactions. Fun relating to coworkers and managers may have largely defined employees’ experiences on the job and contributed to decisions whether one remained employed with the organization. In line with previous qualitative studies (e.g. Stromberg and Karlsson, 2009), our findings highlight that scholars and practitioners should pay focused attention to these more informal forms of fun and not just formal activities, as may often be the case.

The present article has also made progress toward specifying how fun impacts employee turnover by demonstrating that constituent attachment operates as a mediator in the fun−turnover relationship. The results herein support our premise that fun can enhance the social experience of work and lead to higher quality relationships and retention. Thus, a central vehicle through which fun reduces turnover is by facilitating opportunities for employees to get to know one another and develop friendships at work. Our findings support previous arguments that young adults, who dominate the hospitality labor force, particularly value the establishment of friendships through work (Erikson, 1968; Tokuno, 1986). On the whole, our results support the view that fun is instrumental in strengthening constituent attachment, and they are consistent with the relational perspective of turnover that proposes that high quality relationships embed individuals within organizations (Allen, 2006; Allen and Shanock, 2013; Mossholder et al., 2005). We are not suggesting that fun in the workplace is the only means to facilitate friendships and constituent attachment, but rather one potential viable strategy.

Although fun activities were not a significant direct predictor of turnover, they were positively related to constituent attachment, which in turn, was significantly related. That fun activities were only indirectly related to turnover through consistent attachment indicates such activities have a more diffuse impact on individuals’ decisions to remain with or leave the organization. The positive relationship between fun activities and constituent attachment is of note given the debate in the literature regarding the value of fun activities. Our findings suggest that employees are not necessarily resistant to fun activities, as suggested by others (Fleming, 2005; Redman and Mathews, 2002). Rather, they may lead to bonding among employees and the formation of friendships. Fun activities are not necessarily valuable in all contexts, but may particularly be so in entry-level jobs with a relatively young workforce.

Even though there was a positive relationship between fun activities and constituent attachment, such activities most likely did not have universal appeal among all employees. Future research should focus on answering what specifically motivates an individual to participate in a given activity and enjoy such participation. For example, it may be that job pressures, such as work overload and work−family conflict, are negatively related to participation in fun activities. Furthermore, participation in these endeavors may be more enjoyable when participation is voluntary rather than mandatory, when an employee likes and shares common interests with his or her peers, and when activities are more informal whereby an individual can be his or her authentic self. When these conditions are met, fun activities may be more akin to leisure and perceived less as formal work obligations to endure.

The practical implication of this research is that incorporating fun into the workplace is a potentially viable strategy to enhance retention. Given the importance of coworker socializing, employees should be appropriately socialized, organizations should facilitate team building efforts, and employees should be selected based on attributes such as personality that may lead to the development of cohesive relationships (Mount et al., 1998). Regarding the importance of manager support for fun, managers should not be “all work and no play” and allow employees to have fun on the job. At the same time, managers should be aware of the potential dangers of workplace fun and ensure that such fun does not translate into playing around whereby productivity and service standards suffer. Thus, managers need to strike the delicate balance between work and play. With respect to fun activities, such endeavors should be strategically implemented and carefully designed to ensure congruence with employees’ needs and interests to help ensure maximum benefit. Overall, it should be emphasized that fun should be aligned with the culture of the organization at hand (Plester, 2009; Warren and Fineman, 2007). A longstanding corporate value of the restaurant chain studied in this research is “creating a fun environment for guests and employees,” which may have been a contributing factor to the significant results demonstrated herein. What may be fun in one context could be less valued and be met with resistance in another.

Our results should be interpreted in the context of two primary limitations. First, the data were collected from one employee group in one organization. Although the results are meaningful, future research should assess the impact of fun on turnover in other contexts to substantiate the generalizability of the results herein. In particular, research is warranted to determine where else fun may matter and where it may not be relevant. For example, to what extent does the importance of fun generalize to other industries or more professional occupations? Furthermore, is fun less important for older workers, or is fun valid irrespective of age? A second limitation is that the data on fun were only obtained through self-report survey measures. A valuable extension of the current study work would be to conduct field experiments where fun is experimentally manipulated. Such interventions could focus on manager support for fun, for example, where managers adopt a more causal business attitude, encourage employees to socialize and allow employees to have fun on the job. This research would further substantiate cause and effect relationships and provide further guidance for applied practice.

Other avenues of research are also worth pursuing. One opportunity is examining the influence of fun relative to other constructs in reducing turnover. For example, research is warranted that simultaneously examines the impact of fun with different facets of organizational, supervisor and coworker support to place fun in the larger nomological net of workplace support. Similarly, fun should be examined with other potentially relevant constructs, such as work−life balance, work overload, job characteristics and opportunities for advancement. Although the present research has demonstrated that fun may be important, additional work is needed to establish its relative importance and incremental validity. Another opportunity is to examine the impact of fun on turnover and performance in a single study. The present research has demonstrated that fun curbs turnover, yet research is warranted to test whether fun may or may not detract from other important outcomes at the same time. It may be that fun detracts from productivity, or fun may enhance performance. Finally, research should further examine the relationship between coworker socializing and constituent attachment. It was hypothesized that socializing would enhance attachment, as socializing is a precursor for employees to develop cohesive relationships. At the same time, the relationship is likely bi-directional, whereby greater attachment also promotes socialization. It would thus be useful to examine the relationship between these variables longitudinally over time.

Fun in the workplace has long been believed to have beneficial outcomes for individuals and organizations. The growing body of research has validated that fun does in fact matter in promoting healthy workplaces and is not merely a management fad. The present research has contributed to this body of work by demonstrating that fun is instrumental in reducing turnover among entry-level employees. Moreover, this research demonstrated that not all fun is equal in reducing turnover, suggesting that consideration be paid to the form it takes. Despite its limitations, this research represents is a step toward obtaining a sharper focus on how workplace fun shapes individuals’ experiences on the job and decisions to remain with or leave an organization.

Footnotes

Funding

This research was supported by a grant through the Caesars Hospitality Research Center at the University of Nevada Las Vegas, NV, USA.

Michael J Tews is an assistant professor in the School of Hospitality Management at The Pennsylvania State University, USA. He received his PhD in Human Resource Management from the School of Hotel Administration at Cornell University, USA and his Masters in Industrial Relations from the London School of Economics, UK. His research addresses issues relating to employee selection, training and development, and retention in hospitality and service contexts. His research has appeared in outlets such as Academy of Management Annals, Group and Organization Management, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Journal of Service Management, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Organizational Research Methods and Personnel Psychology. [Email: mjt17@psu.edu]

John W Michel is an assistant professor of management in the Sellinger School of Business & Management at Loyola University of Maryland, USA. He received his PhD from the Organizational Studies program at the University at Albany, SUNY, USA. His research examines topics including supportive and fun work environments, leadership, prosocial behavior, and employee selection and retention. His work has appeared in outlets including Group and Organization Management, Human Performance, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Journal of Service Management, Journal of Vocational Behavior and Personnel Review. [Email: jwmichel@loyola.edu]

David G Allen is a Distinguished Professor of Management in the Fogelman College of Business and Economics at the University of Memphis, TN, USA. He earned his PhD from the Beebe Institute of Personnel and Employment Relations at Georgia State University, GA, USA. His primary research interests include the flow of people into and out of organizations (e.g. retention/turnover, recruitment and talent management). His research has been published in Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Perspectives, Human Relations, Human Resource Management, Human Resource Management Review, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Organizational Research Methods, Personnel Psychology and other outlets. [Email: dallen@memphis.edu]

References

Abner

(1997) Corporate America takes fun seriously. Women in Business 49(5): 42.

Abramis

(1989) Finding the fun at work. Psychology Today 23(2): 36–38.

Allen

(2006) Do organizational socialization tactics influence newcomer embeddedness and turnover? Journal of Management 32(2): 237–256.

Allen

Shanock

(2013) Perceived organizational support and embeddedness as key mechanisms connecting socialization tactics to commitment and turnover among new employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior 34(3): 350–369.

Andersson

Holzer

Lane

(2005) Moving Up or Moving On. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Bagozzi

Phillips

(1982) Representing and testing organizational theories: A holistic construal. Administrative Science Quarterly 27(3): 459–489.

Baptiste

(2009) Fun and well-being: Insights from senior managers in a local authority. Employee Relations 31(6): 600–612.

Barsoux

(1993) Funny Business: Humor, Management, and Business Culture. London: Cassells.

Bliese

(2000) Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In: Klein

Kozlowski

SWJ

(eds) Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 349–381.

10.

Bliese

Hanges

(2004) Being both too liberal and too conservative: The perils of treating grouped data as though they were independent. Organizational Research Methods 7(4): 400–417.

11.

Bolton

(2004) A bit of a laugh: Nurses’ use of humour as a mode of resistance. In: Dent

Barry

Chandler

(eds) Questioning the New Public Management. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing, 177–190.

12.

Bolton

(2006) Editorial today: The UK’s best could do so much better. Personnel Today 2006 (7 March): 14.

13.

Bolton

Houlihan

(2009) Are we having fun yet? A consideration of workplace fun and engagement. Employee Relations 31(6): 556–568.

14.

Brotheridge

Grandey

(2002) Emotional labor and burnout: Comparing two perspectives of “people work”. Journal of Vocational Behavior 60(1): 17–39.

15.

Brown

Haltiwanger

Lane

(2006) Economic Turbulence: Is a Volatile Economy Good for America? Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

16.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013) Employed Persons by Detailed Occupation and Age, Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey. Available at www.bls.gov/cps/occupation_age.xls.

17.

Byrne

(1989) A Primer of LISREL: Basic Applications and Programming for Confirmatory Factor Analytic Models. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

18.

Carless

Wintle

(2007) Applicant attraction: The role of recruiter function, work-life balance policies and career salience. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 15(4): 394–404.

19.

Cennamo

Gardner

(2008) Generational differences in work values, outcomes and person-organisation values fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology 23(8): 891–906.

20.

Chiaburu

Harrison

(2008) Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 93(5): 1082–1103.

21.

Deal

Kennedy

(1982) Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

22.

DiPietro

Milman

(2004) Hourly employee retention factors in the quick service restaurant industry. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration 5(4): 31–51.

23.

Dries

Pepermans

DeKerpel

(2008) Exploring four generations’ beliefs about career: Is “satisfied” the new “successful”? Journal of Managerial Psychology 23(8): 907–928.

24.

Enz

(2001) What keeps you up at night? Key issues of concern for lodging managers. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 42(2): 38–45.

25.

Erikson

(1968) Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc.

26.

Felps

Mitchell

Hekman

Lee

Holtom

Harman

(2009) Turnover contagion: How coworkers’ job embeddedness and job search behaviors influence quitting. Academy of Management Journal 52(3): 545–561.

27.

Fleming

(2005) Workers’ playtime? Boundaries and cynicism in a “culture of fun” program. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 41(3): 285–303.

28.

Fleming

Sturdy

(2009) “Just be yourself!” Towards neo-normative control in organizations? Employee Relations 31(6): 569–583.

29.

Fluegge

(2008) Who put the fun in functional? Fun at work and its effects on job performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

30.

Ford

McLaughlin

Newstrom

(2003) Questions and answers about fun at work. Human Resource Planning 26(4): 18–33.

31.

Glomb

Tews

(2004) Emotional labor: A conceptualization and scale development. Journal of Vocational Behavior 64(1): 1–23.

32.

Gordon

(1992) Structured fun. Training 29(9): 23.

33.

Grant

(2007) Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review 32(2): 393–417.

34.

Grant

Parker

(2009) Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive perspectives. Academy of Management Annals 3(1): 317–375.

35.

Griffeth

Hom

Gaertner

(2000) A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management 26(3): 463–488.

36.

Hemsath

Yerkes

McCullen

(1997) 301 to Ways to Have Fun at Work. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

37.

Hinkin

Tracey

(2000) The cost of turnover. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 41(3): 14–21.

38.

Hochschild

(1983) The Managed Heart. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

39.

Holtom

Mitchell

Lee

Eberly

(2008) Turnover and retention research: A glance at the past, a closer review of the present, and a venture into the future. Academy of Management Annals 2(1): 231–274.

40.

Hom

Griffeth

(1995) Employee Turnover. Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern College Publishing.

41.

Bentler

(1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6(1):1–55.

42.

Humphrey

Nahrgang

Morgeson

(2007) Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(5): 1332–1356.

43.

Karl

Peluchette

(2006a) Does workplace fun buffer the impact of emotional exhaustion on job dissatisfaction? A study of health care workers. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management 7(2): 128–141.

44.

Karl

Peluchette

(2006b) How does workplace fun impact employee perceptions of customer service quality? Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 13(2): 2–13.

45.

Karl

Peluchette

Hall

(2008) Give them something to smile about: A marketing strategy for recruiting and retaining volunteers. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing 20(1): 91–96.

46.

Karl

Peluchette

Hall

Harland

(2005) Attitudes toward workplace fun: A three sector comparison. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 12(2): 1–17.

47.

Karl

Peluchette

Harland

(2007) Is fun for everyone? Personality differences in health care providers’ attitudes toward fun. Journal of Human Health Services Administration 29(4): 409–447.

48.

Kenny

Kashy

Bolger

(1998) Data analysis in social psychology. In: Gilbert

Fiske

Lindzey

(eds) The Handbook of Social Psychology (4th edn, vol. 1). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 233–265.

49.

Lamm

Meeks

(2009) Workplace fun: The moderating effects of generational differences. Employee Relations 31(6): 613–631.

50.

Leidner

(1993) Fast Food, Fast Talk. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

51.

Loughlin

Barling

(2001) Young workers’ work values, attitudes, and behaviours. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 74(4): 543–558.

52.

Lundin

Paul

Christensen

(2000) Fish! New York, NY: Hyperion.

53.

McDowell

(2004) Fun at Work: Scale Development, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, and Links to Organizational Outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Alliant International University, San Diego, CA.

54.

MacKinnon

Lockwood

Hoffman

West

Sheets

(2002) A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods 7(1): 83–104.

55.

Maertz

Campion

(2004) Profiles in quitting: Integrating process and content turnover theory. Academy of Management Journal 47(4): 566–582.

56.

Maertz

Griffeth

(2004) Eight motivational forces and voluntary turnover: A theoretical synthesis with implications for research. Journal of Management 30(5): 667–683.

57.

March

Simon

(1958) Organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.

58.

Maxwell

(2008) Wage differentials, skills, and institutions in low-skill jobs. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 61(3): 394–409.

59.

Mitchell

Holtom

Lee

Sablynski

Erez

(2001) Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal 44(6): 1102–1121.

60.

Morris

Feldman

(1996) The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of emotional labor. Academy of Management Review 21(4): 986–1010.

61.

Mossholder

Settoon

Henagan

(2005) A relational perspective on turnover: Examining structural, attitudinal, and behavioral predictors. Academy of Management Journal 48(4): 607–618.

62.

Mount

Barrick

Stewart

(1998) Five-factor model of personality and performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Human Performance 11(2/3): 145–165.

63.

Muthén

(2010) Mplus User’s Guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

64.

Paternoster

Brame

Mazerolle

Piquero

(1998) Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology 36(4): 859–866.

65.

Parker

Chusmir

(1990) A generational and sex-based view of managerial work values. Psychological Reports 66(3): 947–950.

66.

Peluchette

Karl

(2005) Attitudes toward incorporating fun into the health care workplace. The Health Care Manager 24(3): 268–275.

67.

Peters

Waterman

(1982) In Search of Excellence. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

68.

Pinheiro

Bates

(2000) Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

69.

Plester

(2009) Crossing the line: Boundaries of workplace humour and fun. Employee Relations 31(6): 584–599.

70.

Raines

(2003) Connecting Generations: The Sourcebook for a New Workplace. Menlo Park, CA: Crisp Publications.

71.

Redman

Mathews

(2002) Managing services: Should we be having fun? The Services Industries Journal 22(3): 51–62.

72.

Schneider

(1987) The people make the place. Personnel Psychology 40(3): 437–453.

73.

Shanock

Eisenberger

(2006) When supervisors feel supported: Relationships with subordinates’ perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 91(3): 689–695.

74.

Smola

Sutton

(2002) Generational differences: Revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23(4): 363–382.

75.

Sonnentag

(2003) Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between non-work and work. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(3): 518–528.

76.

Steel

(2004) Job markets and turnover decisions. In: Griffeth

Hom

(eds) Innovative Theory and Empirical Research on Employee Turnover. Greenwich, CT: Information Age, 73–82.

77.

Stromberg

Karlsson

(2009) Rituals of fun and mischief: The case of the Swedish meatpackers. Employee Relations 31(6): 632–647.

78.

Taylor

Bain

(2003) ‘Subterranean worksick blues’: Humor as subversion in two call centres. Organization Studies 24(9): 1487–1509.

79.

Tews

Michel

Bartlett

(2012) The fundamental role of workplace fun in applicant attraction. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 19(1): 103–111.

80.

Tokuno

(1986) The early adult transition and friendships: Mechanisms of support. Adolescence 21(83): 593–606.

81.

Tracey

Hinkin

(2008) Contextual factors and cost profiles associated with employee turnover. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 49(1): 12–27.

82.

Van Maanen

(1991) The smile factory: Work at Disneyland. In: Frost

Moore

Louis

Lundberg

(eds) Reframing Organizational Culture. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, 11–24.

83.

Warren

Fineman

(2007) ‘Don’t get me wrong, it’s fun here, but …’. Ambivalence and paradox in a ‘fun’ work environment. In: Westwood

Rhodes

(eds) Humour, Work and Organization. London: Routledge, 92–112.

84.

Woudhuyesen

(2001) Frisky businesss. People Management 5 (April): 44–45.

85.

Yerkes

(2007) Fun Works: Creating Places Where People Love to Work. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.