Fun in the Workplace: A Leadership Perspective - Rasmussen College

This essay explores the concept of having fun at work, examining both its advantages and disadvantages. It highlights research indicating that happy employees are more productive and healthier, while also noting that a gloomy work environment can lead to absenteeism and decreased motivation. The essay discusses the potential downsides of fun activities distracting employees and undermining discipline, as well as the risk of clients perceiving service providers as immature. Conversely, it emphasizes the benefits of fun in enhancing productivity, fostering collaboration, preventing burnout, building trust, and improving communication. The role of fun in creating a stress-free environment that supports creativity and increases job satisfaction is also explored, using Google as an example of a company that prioritizes employee well-being. The essay concludes that while fun at work is generally beneficial for employee happiness and organizational success, it must be balanced to avoid disrupting focus and productivity.

RASMUSSEN COLLEGE SCHOOL OF NURSING
Introduction
Topic – Having Fun at Work is a Good Idea?
It is found after much research that the
happy employees are the most productive
and healthier . The concept of having fun in
the workplace should not be ignored by any
organization. Researchers have also found
that absenteeism is a major issue in
workplace due to gloomy and strict
workplace environment (Becker and 2016).
According to the latest reports it leads to loss
of motivation and energy along with severe
health problems (Bilginoglu and Yozgat
2017). The present report will focus on the
pros and cons of having fun at workplace.
Advantages
• Fun at workforce enhances the ultimate
productivity and facilitates learning. The
collaborative result is a better environment. It is an
active e prevention to higher rates if burnouts (Fine
and Corte 2017).
• It helps to build trust and strengthens
communication. The outcome is improved
employee-employer bonding. Strong
communication and trust leverages creativity ,
encouragement , and welcomes innovative ideas.
The stress free environment is supportive of
creativity (Houlihan and Harvey 2015).
• The job satisfaction of the employees also
becomes heightened that extends the overall well-
being. The job satisfaction leaves a greater impact
on the performance of the employee (Moore and
Piwek 2017).
• The customer service automatically increases
when the employee service is equally increased
(Payton2015).
• One of the best example is Google. It has one of
the most gold standard of fun filled workplaces.
They believe that until they provide a good life to
the employees, they cannot succeed.
Disadvantages
• It is likely that the employees might not focus on the works and
become more distracted by the fun activities (Perryer et al. 2016).
• Extra focus on the fun activities might end up everything to go beyond
control and discipline. Although certain extent of fun and humor is
necessary in the workplace but loss of silence and discipline might
lead to chaos (Plester and Hutchison 2016).
• The customers or the clients might think that the service providers are
immature and not serious about the task and their responsibilities
(Plester, Cooper-Thomas and Winquist 2015).
• The office is a working place where the employees are supposed to
work for which they get paid too (Reich and Hershcovis 2015). The
entanglement of the professional and personal life might lead to loss
of productivity and focus.
Conclusion
Therefore, from the above discussion it can be
concluded that having fun ta workplace is good
for the employees because they are the
foundation of an organization. The stress free
atmosphere can keep the employees happy and
satisfied. However, it has certain cons too as an
excessive amount of fun in the workplace can
lead to loss of focus from work. Notably, a
considerate amount of weekly fun activities would
not disrupt the operations.
Reference
Becker, F.W. activities at work: Do they matter to hospitality employees?. Journal of Human Resources in
Hospitality & Tourism, 15(3), pp.279-296.
Bilginoglu, E. and Yozgat, U., 2017. IS “WORKPLACE FUN” A NEW MANAGEMENT FASHION
OR ANOTHER PASSING FAD?. Journal of Management Marketing and Logistics, 4(4),
pp.448-455.
Fine, G.A. and Corte, U., 2017. Group pleasures: Collaborative commitments, shared
narrative, and the sociology of fun. Sociological Theory, 35(1), pp.64-86.
Houlihan, M. and Harvey, B., 2015. Can Fun Translate to Funds?. The Journal for Quality
and Participation, 38(3), p.15.
Moore, P. and Piwek, L., 2017. Regulating wellbeing in the brave new quantified
workplace. Employee Relations, 39(3), pp.308-316.
Payton, F.C., 2015. Workplace design: The Millennials are not coming—They're here.
Design Management Review, 26(1), pp.54-63.
Perryer, C., Celestine, N.A., Scott-Ladd, B. and Leighton, C., 2016. Enhancing workplace
motivation through gamification: Transferrable lessons from pedagogy. The International
Journal of Management Education, 14(3), pp.327-335.
Plester, B. and Hutchison, A., 2016. Fun times: the relationship between fun and
workplace engagement. Employee Relations, 38(3), pp.332-350.
Plester, B., Cooper-Thomas, H. and Winquist, J., 2015. The fun paradox. Employee
Relations, 37(3), pp.380-398.
Reich, T.C. and Hershcovis, M.S., 2015. Observing workplace incivility. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 100(1), p.203.
Tews, M.J., Michel, J., Xu, S. and Drost, A.J., 2015. Workplace fun matters… but what
else?. Employee Relations, 37(2), pp.248-267.
Tews, M.J., Michel, J.W. and Noe, R.A., 2017. Does fun promote learning? The
relationship between fun in the workplace and informal learning. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 98, pp.46-55.
and Tews, M.J., 2016. Fun West, S.E., Hoff, E. and Carlsson, I., 2016. Play and
Productivity: Enhancing the Creative Climate at Workplace Meetings with Play Cues.
American Journal of Play, 9(1), pp.71-86.
Yucel, D. and Minnotte, K.L., 2017. Workplace support and life satisfaction: The mediating roles of work-
to-family conflict and mental health. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 12(3), pp.549-575.