questions and answers about fun at...
TRANSCRIPT
Questions and Answers aboutFun at WorkRobert C. Ford, University of Central Florida; Frank S. McLaughlin, University of North Florida; John W. Newstrom,University of Minnesota-Duluth
Recently, much has been said about "tun at work" environments and their importance for employee
morale and productivity. Yet, there is no serious empirical or theoretical work on the nature or con-
sequences of having fun in organizations. In this article we discover, through the eyes of practicing
human resource managers, what a fun work environment is, its component characteristics, and its
advantages for employees, work teams, and organizations. We also discover the specific types of things these
human resource managers' organizations use to promote a fun work environment. Data were gathered from
a national e-mail survey of human resource managers. There were 572 usable replies. The human resource
managers strongly favor promoting a fun work environment because they believe such environments offer
great benefits both to the individual and the organization. To them, fun working environments are here to stay,
not just another passing managerial fad.
18 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING
Hardly a day goes by without reading an inter-view wilh a prominent executive or hearing aknowledgeable observer suggest that having funat work is important for employee morale andproductivity (see, for example: Meyer, 1999;Strand, 2000; Workforce. 2000; and Zbar, 1999).Authors of popular business books add furthersupport for the importance of having fun at work.These include Tom Peter's In Pursuit of Wow{1994). Deal and Key's Corporate Celebration{1998). Schneider and BowenVs Winning theService Game (1995). and Kouzes and Posner"sThe Leadership Challenge (1995). Kouzes andPosner exemplify the general theme of these writ-ers by concluding, "If you—and others—aren'thaving fun doing what you're doing, chances arepeople aren't doing the best they can do" (p. 59).Similar sentiments are echoed by many writers inthe trade press (see, for example: Boczany, 1985;Casison, 2000; Gordon, 1992; ^ ^ ^ ^
Hemsath, 1997; Kitchel, 1996; ^ ^ ^Mariotti, 1999; McGhee, 2000;Millis, 1999; and NationalUnderwriter. 1999).
Fun also gets strong endorsementsfrom respected practitioners. Chili'sfonner CEO, Norm Brinkcr. acknowl-edges the importance of creating afun work environment in his book.On the Brink {Brinker & Phillips,1996), by stating, "If you have fun atwhat you do, you'll never work a dayin your life. Make work like play—and play like hell" (p, 195). Freibergand Freiberg (1996) add furtheremphasis to the importance of having fun atwork. They describe the type of people SouthwestAirlines seeks in its hiring process: "First andforemost. Southwest Airlines looks for a senseof humor....We look for attitudes; people with asense of humor who don't take themselves tooseriously....with other-directed, outgoing person-alities, individuals who become part of an extendedfamily of people, who work hard and have fun atthe same time" (p. 67). Southwest knows that ifit is to achieve its core principle. "Make flyingfun," for its customers, it must make its employ-ees' jobs fun first.
Walt Disney, the man who established thebenchmark of service for service organizations,knew the importance of having fun at work asreflected in his statement. "You don't work for adollar—you work to create and have fun" (Walt
Southwest knows
that if it is to
achieve its core
principle, "Make
flying fun," for its
customers, it
must make its
employees* jobs
fun first.
Disney, 1994. p. 80). Disney worked hard toinstill this philosophy as a core value of the com-pany he created, and the Walt Disney Corporationis still an exemplar of customer service today.
Although the frequency of its discussion inthe popular press indicates there is much practi-tioner interest on this topic, there is no seriousempirical or theoretical work on the nature orconsequences of having fun in organizations.There is not even a generally accepted definitionof what constitutes a fun work environment orany agreement on what an organization can doto promote a fun work setting. While there aresome who write about play, humor, and a positiveorganizational culture, the lack of any specificdefinition of a fun work environment means themany discussions of its importance lack generalapplication or specific ideas as to what works andwhat does not.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ The purpose of this article is to dis-cover, through the eyes of practicinghuman resource managers, what is afun work environment, its componentcharacteristics, and its advantagesfor employees, work teams, and orga-nizations. We also discover the specif-ic activities these human resourcemanagers report are done by theirorganizations to promote a fun workenvironment. We oriented our studyto address eight questions that thecurrent body of writing on fun atwork leaves unanswered.
Human resource managers werechosen for this survey for two reasons.
First, they are typically responsible for adminis-tering programs that focus on increasing the valueof the organization's human resources, and theycarefully study the impact that various programsand activities have on those human resources.Thus, more than any other member of the man-agement team, they are most likely to be awareof how employees feel about their working envi-ronment and how that environment, including its.sense of being a fun workplace, affects behaviorand attitudes at work. Second, probably morethan any other potential group to survey, theyhave thought about what actually makes or couldmake their organization a fun place to work.
Data were gathered, with permission, througha national e-mail survey of members of theSociety for Human Resource Management(SHRM). (See the Appendix for a condensed
HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 19
version of the survey questionnaire.)Approximately 4.000 randomly selected membersreceived a questionnaire asking for their opinionon issues related to fun at work. There were 572usable replies. Selected demographic characteris-tics of the respondents, such as age and geographiclocation, were statistically compared with thetotal membership of SHRM and no significantdifferences were found. The question.s focu.sedon managerial concerns about whether or notcreating a fun work environment was worthwhatever time and effort it would take. We hopedto discover if the reasons offered by the manywriters arguing in favor of promoting fun at workwere valid. Although we offer descriptive data,our results add an important new understandingto this largely unstudied issue.
Are Employees Having as MuchFun at Work as Managers ThinkThey Should?
The simple answer is no. Our human resourcemanager sample was asked to compare what theythought the level of fun ought to be in their orga-nizations compared to their perception of theactual level of fun they thought their employeeswere having. The responses show that the report-ed level of fun in organizations is surprisinglylow. Less than a fourth thought the amount wasabout right. On the other hand, three-fourthsthought their employees were having less funat work than they should. Only three percentindicated there was too much fun in their organi-zations. To expand on this question, managerswere also asked how often employees shouldbe able to experience fun in their organizations.More than 75 percent of the respondents indicatedemployees should have this opportunity frequentlyor often. On the opposite side of this issue,less than three percent of the respondents saidinfrequently or never.
Finally, as one more approach to answeringthis question, the managers were asked, on ascale of I to 10. how they rated their organiza-tions with regard to its fun work environment.Approximately one-fifth of the respondents ratedtheir organizations with a score of three or lessand approximately the same number rated theirfirm at eight or better. The remainder of therespondents rated their organizations in the middle.which we interpret as meaning they think theirown organizations are about average. While that
may be seen as good news, it really is not. Whenconsidered in light of the other two questions, itlikely means that while these respondents thoughttheir company was somewhere about average, itwas not very good. In other words, they believethat even though their organizations were nobetter or worse than others, they still had a longway to go to be the kind of fun work environmentthey felt was desirable.
What Makes a WorkEnvironment Fun?
One of the more challenging issues for managerwishing to create a fun work environment is todetermine exactly what makes a work environmentfun. Academic literature offers little guidance, sothe effort to determine which activities contributeto a fun work environment relies heavily on theanecdotal practitioner literature and consultants'books (see. for example: Hemsath &Yerkes.l997:Weinstein. 1996; Yerkes. 2001.)One writer suggests workplace morale and pro-ductivity improve when introducing quirkyworkplace activities, group lunches, or after-hoursoutings (Hale. 2002). Others suggest Halloweenpartie.s—according to a SHRM Benet"its survey,more than one-third of reporting organizationsoffered some sort of Halloween celebration(Lucas, 2000). Although many creative sugges-tions are made, we wanted to learn what organi-zations seeking to introduce fun into their workenvironments actually do to create this fun.
To obtain this data, the questionnaire con-tained 10 general categories of fun activitiesfrequently mentioned in the literature as goodways to promote a fun work environment. These10 items included celebrations, entertainment,playing games, having friendly competitions.social events, and humor, interestingly, humorand play have their own literature (see. forexample, Duncan, et al.. 1990). In addition, ourrespondents received a separate list of 23 specificitems to determine if they used any or all of theseitems to create a fun work environment in theirorganizations. Finally, a "write-in" provisionallowed the respondents to list as many as threeadditional activities their organizations used thatwere not already mentioned. These three mea-sures gave us a fairly comprehensive answer tothe question about what types and frequencies ofactivities these human resource managers use todet~me what creates a fun work environment.
20 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING
Frequency of Activities That Contribute to a Fun Work EnvironmentCategory of Activities Mean Scores
Recognition of personal milestones (e.g., birthdays, hiring anniversiiries)
Sociai events (e.g.. picnies. parties, social gatherings)
Public celebrations of professional achievements (e.g., award banquets)
Opportunities for community volunteerism (e.g., civic groups)
Stress release activities (e.g., exercise facilities, massages)
Humor (e.g., cartoons, jokes in newsletters, emails)
Games(e.g., dans, bingo, company-sponsored athlelic teams)
Friendly competitions among employees (e.g., attendance, sales contests)
Opportunities for personal development (e.g., quilting class, book club)
Entertainment (e.g., bands, skits, plays)
3.4
3.2
3.2
2.8
2.6
2,4
2.2
2.2
2.0
1.9
U.sing the list (if general categories of funactivities, the respondents rated each item on itsfrequency of use. Responses were made on a 5-point scale that ranged from "not at all" (1) to•"extensively" (5), and mean scores were devel-oped to report the results. As seen in Exhibit I,the three most frequently practiced categories ofactivities related to personal milestones, followedclosely by fun social events and public celebrationsof professional achievements. The mean scores onthe Exhibit also reveal the lack of general use ofeven these popularly mentioned activities to pro-mote a fun work environment. A "3" represents amiddle-range score, so it is surprising to see thelack of strong support for even obvious types ofcelebratory activities that promote fun at work.
Entertainment was the least used of the categories.The results presented in Exhibit 2 give more
details about what specifically creates a fun workenvironment. Respondents were asked to indicatewhether their organizations participated in 23different activities that we found mentioned inthe popular literature. Exhibit 2 is divided intotwo groups. The first group includes those itemsreported as used by more than 80 percent of therespondents. The most frequently mentioned or"big three" were casual dress days, employeerecognition and rewards, and company-providedfood and refreshments.
The second group lists less frequently usedactivities, but still used by one-fifth to one-half ofthe reporting organizations. In this category are a
Percentage of Organizations Using Fun ActivitiesFrequently Used Activities
C'asuiii dress diiys
Employee recognition and rewards
Company-provided food and refreshments
Less Frequently Used Strategies -^^^^^.
Bring-your-child-to- work day
Costumes days (e.g., iigly socks or Halloween Costumes)
Release time for community projects (e.g.. habitat, bkx)d drives)
Photos and funny captions (e.g., most beautiful baby cotitests)
Special props (e.g., balloons, flowers, hats, signs)
Fun (or "joy'") committees
Exercise room
Creative skits and songs for company events
Percent Using
84
83
82
44
39
34
27
24
2t
21
20
HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 21
wide array of activities that span many interestingideas as to what contributes to a fun work envi-ronment. These include tbe obvious activities ofhaving costume dress-up days, using funny propsto liven up the work environment, and creatingcommittees ot employees (fun committees) whoare responsible for lightening up the work envi-ronment. Also in this category are less obviousitems such as bring-your-child-to-work days,employee release time for community projects,and exercise rooms.
The remaining 12 items, not shown in theExhibit, were activities used by between 3 and 19percent of the responding managers and includedsuch things as hiring professional entertainers,creating employee musical groups, and offeringemployees stress-reduction rooms.
These responses tell us two important things:I) nearly everyone does three specificactivities to promote a fun work envi-ronment; 2) there is a wide variationin the other activities organizationsoffer to create a fun work environment.There is no widespread consensus asto which activities work best. Indeed,the top three activities seem relativelytraditional. These results also re-emphasize the diversity of opinionabout what makes a fun work envi-ronment fun as seen in Exhibit I.
In a separate section of our ques-tionnaire, the respondents had threeopen-ended opportunities to provideother examples of what their organi-zations did to create a fun workenvironment. This led to one of themost surprising results of the study. In a world oftime-pressured people, over 30 percent of thesebusy human resource managers took the time towrite down over 4(X) different items. While manyof these were variations of items already on thelist, these managers offered additional unique andnovel ways their organizations were promotingfun at work.
The majority of these items represented someway of celebrating a personal achievement orhaving some unique social event. Most of theseincluded food. Company picnics were written in27 times, more than any other item. Other foodevents including chili cook-offs, Friday buffets,anniversary dinners, donuts together, and icecream socials. Interestingly, "food reduction'"activities were also mentioned frequently under a
Many of these
ideas still follow
the old tradition
of using meals or
eating together
as a way to cele-
brate important
occasions and sig-
nify friendship
and fellowship.
variety of different names. These included weightclubs, weight watchers, weight reduction clubs,and Jack Sprat.
There is no shortage of efforts to do thingsthat arc fun. Many of these ideas still follow theold tradition of using meals or eating together asa way to celebrate important occasions and signi-fy friendship and fellowship. Whatever thesemanagers believe are the activities that lead toa fun work environment, they are still fairlywell focused on traditional celebratory eventsinvolving food.
DefinitionTo summarize what can be learned from these
three different efforts to capture whai character-izes a fun work environment, there are manydifferent definitions and little consensus as to
what is involved in creating a funwork environment. The most com-mon strategies involve celebrationsor special events accompanied byfood. There are other activities suchus community work projects andexercise programs that at first glanceseem to be unusual ways to promotea fun work environment. Doing thesesupports the idea that a fun workenvironment represents a combina-tion of factors that collectively addup to tangibly and publicly showingconcern for the person, that person'sachievements and worth, and thedesire to make that person believethat the organization is a good placeto be. The respondents seem to
believe that the cumulative impact of thesediverse types of "fun" activities is to create acorporate culture that shows a sense of apprecia-tion of and respect for the employee and thatwill allow that person to conclude that thisorganization is a fun place to work.
On the basis of what these respondents report-ed, we offer the following working definition of afun work environment: "A fun work environmentintentionally encourages, initiates, and supports avariety of enjoyable and pleasurable activities thatpositively impact the attitude and productivityof individuals and groups." This might be moresuccinctly stated as "a work environment thatmakes people smile." These responding managersindicate that a fun work setting is created throughactions, including funny, humorous, or playful
22 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING
activities, that publicly communicate manage-ment's belief to the employee that the personaland professional accomplishments he or she hasachieved are valued by the organization. Whilethis definition seems similar in many ways totraditional motivation theory and its explanationof the factors that lead to job satisfaction, a funwork environment goes beyond mere job satisfac-tion. Our respondents report a broad array ofactivities that collectively communicate a senseof pleasantness, happiness, and positive well-being that makes working not only satisfyingbut also tun.
What Are the Advantages andDisadvantages of a FunEnvironment for theOrganization?
An increasing body of evidence indicates thata positive organizational environment or fun workculture is a valuable asset for organizations (Ford& Heaton. 2000). Luthans (2002) talks aboutthe value of subjective well being (SWB) as acontributor to a positive organizational behavior.The linkage between working in a fun work envi-ronment and having a sense of well being seemssomewhat obvious and the SWB concept incorpo-rates a number of factors such as life satisfaction.
job satisfaction, and levels of experiencing pleas-ant emolions and mood.s (Diener. 1999). Otherauthors, like Perrin (1998), state that, "Commonsense supports the theory that having fun atwork helps generate profitable business" (p. 40).She suggests other important benefits for theorganization such as lower turnover and fewerstres.s-related problems.
This question then is an important one formanagers to answer. The organization does notwant to create problems for itself or its people bypromoting a fun work environment. On the otherhand, it does wish to gain benefits sufficient tooffset any costs it incurs in promoting a fun workenvironment. Thus, we a.sked managers severalquestions about the advantages and disadvantageswriters and observers associate with a fun workenvironment. Responses were made on a five-point scale with response categories ranging from"substantial decrease" to "substantial increase."The results are given in Exhibits 3. The top partof the Exhibit lists potential advantageous out-comes, and the bottom part lists potential disad-vantageous outcomes of endorsing and creatinga fun work environment. One column of resultscombines "substantial and moderate increases"responses (improvement), and the second columnof results combines "substantial and moderateincreases" responses with "no effect" responses(improvement and no change).
Effect of Fun Work Environments on Organizations
Advantage
Attract new employees
Communications among employees
Commilment to the organization
Cusiomer satisfaction
Strength of corporate culture
Employee turnover
Quality of employee productivity
Absenteeism rates
Speed of learning new tasks during training
I'ndcrstaniJing of organization's mission
Disadvantage
Accident rates
Professionalism at work
Frequency of employee errors
Cost of operations
Repons of sexual harassment
Equipment damage by playfulness
Percent ReportingImprovement Improvement
and No Change
9492
88
87
85
78
74
72
59
55OMEnHBraS
mmmm453332
2821
14
9796
97
96
96
87
93
78
85
93liw||llj»ia|||
•Hi8677
88
64
8t
84
HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 23
In sum, Exhibit 3 shows the respondentsbelieve a fun work environment has a positiveimpact by improving advantageous outcomesand a lesser but still positive effect on disadvanta-geous outcomes. Human resource managers seelittle negative impact of any of the items measured.even on the disadvantageous outcomes.
This list offers some good news and somebetter news. The good news is that the advantagesclaimed in the literature are seen by the respondingmanagers as positive advantages for their organi-zations. These managers believe having fun atwork leads to a number of beneficial outcotnes,such as a greater ability to attract new employees,improved turnover and absenteeistii, better com-munication among employees, greater employeecomtTiitment to the organization, an improvedorganizational culture, and ;in increase incustomer satisfaction. The high per-centage agreements shown in Exhibit3 offer strong support for the ideathat organizations can gain severalimportant advantages from promotingfun at work.
On the other side of this issueis the respondents' evaluation ofthe items noted in the literature asdisadvantages of having a fun workenvironment. Here the good newsgets even better. According to theserespondents, even the perceived dis-advantages of promoting ;i fun workenvironment are not really disadvan-tages. Indeed, as indicated in the•'Improvement or No Change" column, noexpected disadvantage item gets fewer than sixout of 10 respondents agreeing that having funat work either improves the situation or has noeffect at all.
With the exception of the somewhat obvious"cost of operations," the other noted disadvan-tages were clustered around 80 percent wherethe respondents believed the situation would beimproved iti a fun work environment or wouldhave not been affected at all. In a separate calcu-lation (not reported in the exhibit), the disadvan-tages leaned in the direction of indicating that anyeffect a fun work environment has on the expect-ed disadvantages may in fact be positive. In otherwords, rather than increasing accidents, equip-ment damage, cost of operating, or even reportsof sexual harassment, fun work environmentstended slightly to lessen these possible negatives.
According to
these respon-
dents, even the
perceived disad-
vantages of pro-
moting a fun
work environment
are not really
disadvantages.
These responses are encouraging and lead usto conclude there are few or no disadvantages topromoting a fun work environment and some realadvantages. Creating a fun work environment isworth serious consideration by all managers. Thedegree to which people find working in a funwork environment makes the organization a desir-able place to work is important.
Lawler (1992) notes several of the factors weassessed in our study as important contributors toa high-involvement organization. In his review ofthe types of rewards high-involvement organiza-tions should make available to employees, hestates, "When work units are successful, managersshould be sure that everyone involved is acknowl-edged and that celebrations and other forms ofrecognition occur. This recognition can be some-thing as small as a pizza for everyone; a day of
casual attire: a chance to go homeearly; a meeting in which a seniormanager acknowledges the employ-ees' good work: or a special party,dinner or weekend excursion" (p. 195).Later, he adds, "A skilled highinvolvement manager needs to devel-op the ability to give social rewards togroups and individuals who performparticularly well" (p. 195). Our dataaffirm and illustrate the importance ofthese types of factors in creating a funwork environment. Indeed, it might beargued that a fun work environment isthe result of the successful practice ofhigh-involvement management.
What Are the Advantages andDisadvantages of a FunEnvironment for the Employee?
The other side of the organization's equationrelates to the advantages and disadvantages forthe employee and his or her work group. Hereagain, existing literature generally supports theidea that there are both advantages and disadvan-tages for the employee. It is believed that happyor satisfied workers suffer less stress, show high-er levels of organizational citizen behaviors, missless work, are more creative, and have better,more rewarding friendships at work than thosewho are not happy. Based on this literature, weasked the surveyed managers to indicate whatthey thought the advantages and disadvantages of
24 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING
Effect of Fun Work Environments on Employees
Advantage
Employee enthusiasm
Group cohesiveness
Employee satisfaction
Employee creativity
Friendships ai work
Organizational citizenship
Employee anxiety and stress
Complaints of boredom
Mutual trust among employees
Disadvantage
liiicrpcrsonai conflicts
Respect among coworkers
Respect from higher ups
Work taketi seriously by other departments
a fun work environment were lor their employees.Their responses are presented in Exhibit 4, in the.same format as Exhibit 3.
Exhibit 4 shows, in descending order, thepercentage of managers reporting improvement ineach outcome. A high percentage indicates strongagreement from our respondents that the expectedadvantage was an actual advantage. The low per-centage numbers seen at the bottom of the tablewhere the disadvantages are hsted means therespondent saw no increase in the items claimedto be disadvantages. Exhibit 4 also includes a col-umn representing the combination of substantial,moderate increase, and no change to reflect thedegree to which our responding human resourcemanagers saw little negative impact of any of theitems measured.
Reviewing the advantages and disadvantagesand the high level of improvement a fun workenvironment can yield, it seems evident thesemanagers beheve there are many advantages andfew disadvantages to employees of a fun workenvironment. The greater than 90 percent positiveagreement that a fun work environment leads toincreased employee enthusiasm, group cohesive-ness, and employee satisfaction is impressive.Equally impressive is the degree to which a funwork environment is believed to be associatedwith increased employee creativity and friend-ships at wt)rk. Even the lower- ranked advantagesgather agreement from almost eight out of 10
Percent ReportingImprovement Improvement
and No Change95 %
94
96
92
91
85
84
82
79
72
63
46
38
97
96
96
91
97
85
87
97
89
95
88
87
respondents who believe a fun work environmentresults in improvements in the important individ-ual outcomes.
The respondents did not see the expected dis-advantages as real disadvantages. The high levelof agreement that fun work environments lead todecreases in interpersonal conflicts dispels thepopular notion that creating a fun environmentcan cause increases in such conflicts or that workgroups that are having fun are not likely to havethe respect of other departments or top manage-ment. The responding managers believe other-wise. They indicate that fun work environmentslead to an increa.se, instead of a decrease, inrespect from higher-level management and co-workers, and their work is taken seriously byother departments.
In the opinion of these human resource man-agers, the presumed disadvantages of having afun work environment, reported in Exhibit 4, arenot true. Indeed, when the "no effect" or neutralpercentages are considered, fewer than one out of10 managers felt any of the items identified fromthe literature as a disadvantage was a disadvan-tage in his or her organization. Instead, theserespondents felt that the item either led to anactual improvement in that factor or had no effectat all. When we calculated average scores forthese items (not reported in the table), the dataconfirm that the degree to which negatives areseen as negatives is minimal. These managers
HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 25
make a compelling case for the value of creatingfun at work for both the organization and theindividual.
Do Different Types ofOrganizations Have DifferentTypes and Amounts of Fun?
Are some types of organizations better able tohave fun than others? Some people believe thatorganizations that sell an intangible service pro-mote fun work environments more than would amanufacturing organization. Others may believebig organizations have less fun than smaller onesAs part of the questionnaire, we asked our respondents about their organization's characteristicsto identify which ones, if any, relate significantlyto the amount of fun in their work environment.Items included organizational size.gender of the workforce, the degreeof union involvement, whether theorganization was a for-profit or not-for-profit organization, and the easeof attracting new employees.
We conducted a statistical analysisto better understand the direction anddepth of the relationships betweenorganizational characteristics and thedifferent types of fun activities thatwere measured in Exhibit 1. Ananalysis shows some interestingthings about the relationshipsbetween the types of fun differentpeople seek in different organiza-tions. For example, there is aninverse relationship between thenumber of employees in the totalorganization and the amount of humor, socialevents, and recognition of personal milestones.The higger the organization, the less theseactivities are used. When the number ofemployees in a specific unit is analyzed,however, only personal development activitiesand fun social events are inversely related tosize. The only activity that si/e of organizationand size of unit have in common is fun socialevents. Both report that bigger means fewerfun social events.
Comparing for-profit and non-profit organiza-tions on the degree to which they participated inthe fun activities listed In Exhibit 1 showed differ-ences only in the use of games, fun social events.
There is an
inverse relation-
ship between
the number of
employees in the
total organization
and the amount
of humor, social
events, and recog-
nition of personal
milestones.
and friendly competitions. For-profit organizationsparticipate in these activities more frequently thannot-for-profits do. Perhaps there is some concernby not-for-profits that engaging in these types offun events and activities will show them to he notserious enough about their not-for-profit missionso they tend to avoid them. For the other sevenfun categories, there is no difference betweenfor-profit and not-for-profit organizations.
Comparing the percentage of the workforcebelonging to a union with participation in funactivities is interesting because only fun socialevents and friendly competitions show a signifi-cant and negative relationship. The greater thedegree of unionization, the lesser the frequencyof these two categories of fun. Because many ofthe remaining eight types of fun activities mayfall under a bargaining agreement, the fact that
they show no difference based on thedegree to which the work force isunionized is curious and worthy offurther investigation. In a comparisonof unionization with an assessment ofoverall level of fun. the relationshipis also negative: The higher the per-centage of unionized employees, theless likely responding managers willsee their organization as having fun.
Finally, with regard to the ease ofattracting new employees, almostevery type of fun activity is signifi-cantly related. Those organizationsthat have an easier time attractingnew employees do more fun thingsthan those that have a harder time.The extent to which this is cause andeffect is unknown, but the fact that
so many of these fun activities are associatedwith ease of attracting new employees is impor-tant to recognize. It seems fair to conclude thatthese responding managers believe a fun workenvironment makes it easier to attract newemployees. The reason this is true may be attrib-uted to the positive organizational culture thatmay he associated with such fun activities. Itseems somewhat obvious that prospectiveemployees are more likely to he attracted toorganizations that have positive employmentcultures. The array of fun activities this studyassesses can be the foundation of a strategy fororganizations seeking to create a positive andattractive organizational culture.
26 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING
Do Different Types ofEmployees Want DifferentTypes and Amounts of Fun?
To expand upon the answer to the prior ques-tion on what types of organizations have whattypes of fun, we also sought to find out if a varia-tion in the types of employees had any influenceon the types and amount of fun sought in thework environment. Some anecdotal literaturesuggests older employees are less playful thanyounger employees, less-educated employees willHnd different things to be fun than more educatedemployees, men are more playful than women,and hourly workers seek more fun and differenttypes of fun aetivities than salaried employees.We collected data from the human resources man-agers to offer some insights on these previouslyuntested beliefs.
The data show a number of interesting differ-ences in types and amounts of fun activitiesacross different employee eharacteristics. Forexample, the age distribution of the managersseems to be quite important while the age ofthe workforce appears to be much less so.Organizations with older managers participateless frequently in five of the 10 types of funactivities measured. These include celebrations ofprofessional achievements, offering entertainmenttype events, playing games and participating incompany-sponsored athletic events, fun social
events and parties, and friendly competitions.While some of these may be obvious, the reasonsorganizations with older employees offer theseless frequently than organizations with youngeremployees are certainly provocative and worthyof further investigation. In a separate statisticalcomparison, the relationship between age of man-agers and the overall assessment of the level offun in the organization was also negative. Perhapsthese differences reflect a different age demo-graphic and the timeless differences betweengenerations, degree of interest in committing timeand energy to work-related activities, and overallenergy levels.
On the other hand, that these same differencesdo not show up for non-managers creates a differ-ent challenge for the non-managerial workforce.The frequency of these activities offered inorganizations with younger managers with oneexception, friendly competitions, does not repeatfor younger employees. What younger managersvalue as fun activities is not generally reflectedin the answers representing employees. The typeand frequency of desired fun activities that appealto younger versus older managers present aninteresting challenge for those seeking to effec-tively manage hoth their managerial and non-managerial employees. Managing managers andmanaging employees require different strategiesto accommodate their differing expectations oftypes of fun activities desired in the job. It ispossible that younger managers have a greater
Rationale for Managerial Resistance to FunRationale for Resisting
Time constraints (I cannot afford the time)
Financial costs ( l l wil l cost too much)
Lack of personal creativity (I don't know how to have fun)
Fear of looking silly (I do not want to look stupid)
Perceived employee apathy (don't think they would care)
There is no evidence that it wil l work (unproven benefits)
Fear of non-support from superiors for fun
It is not part of my job
Fear of losing control i f 1 create a little bit of fun
Inconsistent with organization's productivity culture
Fear someone wil l take offense or legat action
Some employees wi l l be distracted by fun activities
Fear that Department's work would not be taken seriously
Percent Agreeing
IS2
72
62
60
60
58
58
56
55
55
53
53
48
HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 27
awareness that having fun at work can lead toserious and productive advantages as discussedabove under question number three.
Further analysis of these workforce compari-son of fun activities show some other interestingpoints about the value of fun work environmentsand differences in educational level. This is truefor both employees and managers. Organizationswith higher levels of educated managers offermore personal development activities, recognitionof personal milestones, and stress relief activitiesthan organizations with less educated managers.The only category showing a difference for thenon-exempt workforce is that more educatedemployees work in organizations that offer morefriendly competitions. This same cat- ^ ^ ^ ^ ^egory of fun activities also shows upas the only significant difference inage of the non-management work-force. Younger employees are foundin organizations that have more fre-quent friendly competitions. Finally,in comparing male versus femaleworkforces, organizations offer morefrequent stress release activities toworkforces with higher percentagesof female than males. This is aninteresting finding that merits furtherdiscussion and investigation, becauseit is the only one of the ten activitiesthat shows a significant difference.
If fun is as
important to a
productive work
environment
... as these
managers say it
is, then manage-
ment should
increase the
What Inhibits theCreation of a Fun WorkEnvironment?
level of fun in
their work
environments.
From the answers to our earlier questions, it isclear that most people would like to have morefun in their jobs than they are currently having.They believe that doing so will have beneficialresults for them, their work teams, and their orga-nizations. Much of ihe reason they are not havingthe level and kinds of fun that they think shouldbe part of their work environment seems to bedue to resistance at the supervisory and manageri-al levels. Sometimes the resistance can be overtand sometimes it can be more subtle. In order tobetter understand the factors that lead to resistance.the questionnaire listed thirteen items noted in thelargely anecdotal literature cited above as factorsthat prevent employees from having more fun inthe workplace. Responses were made on a nine-point scale with scale categories labeled from"very likely" to "very unlikely." The results are
summarized in Exhibit 5. Each item shows thepercent of the managers that responded positively{above neutral) to the question. How likely is itthat this rationale will cause managerial resistanceto creating a fun work environment?
These items can be divided into two groups.The first group represents factors that reflecta managerial fear that having a fun workenvironment will lead to productivity losses,create dangerous situations or produce unneces-sary costs. This group contains items like ' i can'tafford the time." "it costs too much," and "'there'sno evidence that it will work." The second grouprepresents factors that reflect a fear that havinga fun work environment will be seen by others^ ^ ^ ^ ^ as somehow unprofessional or be
personally embarrassing. This groupincludes items like. "I don't want tolook stupid." "My supervisor wouldnot condone it," and "We are here towork and not play." Each of the thir-teen items was agreed to by at leastforty-eight percent of the respondents.One item. "I cannot afford the time,"had eighty-two percent of theresponding managers agreeing.
While these managers may not beclear as to what exactly constitutes afun work environment, they are clearabout what inhibits its creation intheir organizations. The.se factorsgenerally center on perceived costsand the negative perceptions ofprofessionalism that a fun work envi-ronment may create. These responsesprovide both a road map for creating
a fun work environment and a list of the road-blocks to any such efforts. If fun is as importantto a productive work environment and as desiredas these managers say it is, then managementshould increase the level of fun in their workenvironments by neutralizing the negative percep-tions noted here.
Our study data do not allow us to make hardclaims that creating a fun work environment isa proven method for increasing productivity orprofits. Yet, some of the results from this surveysuggest that such positive outcomes are possible.Indeed, when one considers the beliefs of theseresponding managers that a fun work environ-ment has many advantages, it seems reasonableto suggest that fmding ways to decrease roadblocks to having more fun at work is worthserious consideration.
28 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING
Some ways that management can signal toils employees thai fun work environments aredesirable are to formally make policy statementsendorsing it and to formally recognize and rewardemployees and supervisors who promote fun atwork. Our respondents tell us that very little iscurrently being done along this line. Less than fivepercent report their organizations have a formalpolicy relative lo a fun work environment andmore than ninety-five percent report that there isno reward for promoting fun at work. If havingmore fun at work is as important as these respon-dents believe, there is much work to be done.
Who Makes a WorkEnvironment Fun?
Who has the responsibility for creating a funwork environment? A discussion of this questionfrequently appears in the literature. Most believethat it is the CEO's job. For example, the presi-dent of Brady Corporation. Katherine Hudson(2001) emphasizes the importance of her role inbuilding a fun culture. She feels that she benefitsgreatly by lightening up. and she talks aboutdoubling sales and tripling income during herleadership. She concludes. "Our performance isa sign that a company can be fun and friendly forits employees and fierce with its competitors. Infact, the fun has made us tierce, by making theorganization more flexible and dynamic. And. Ihope it has made life more enjoyable for peoplewho work there" (p. 54).
To addres.s thi.s question, the survey asked therespondents about whom or what was responsiblefor creating a fun work environment. One ques-tion asked the human resource managers who orwhat was primarily responsible for providing theimpetus for fun at work in their units. One-fourthof iheni indicated it was based on a corporateculture. Another fourth indicated it was topmanagement who was primarily responsible forcreating a fun work environment. Since organiza-tional scholars suggest that top management'smost important job is defining the corporate cul-ture. the.se respondents affirmed the importanceof top management in defniing the culture of fun(Schein. 1985). If it's going to happen, it muststart at the top.
What is surprising in this survey data is thediscovery that the efforts of the employees them-selves were given credit for creating a fun workenvironment by seventeen percent of the HR
managers. On a less positive note, the respon-dents identified other managers as initiators ofa fun work environment less than one third ofthe time. They believe that creating a fun workenvironment is a responsibility of the top man-agement either directly or indirectly through theirarticulation and reinforcement of the corporateculture. It seems on the basis of their responsesthat a fun work environment happens only with acommitment by the top management even thoughthere is some evidence that individual employeeswho are spirited leaders of fun can also make ithappen a significant percentage of the time.
Southwest Airlines is the classic example ofmany visible efforts to promote fun taken by itsfamous former CEO, Herh Kelieher. Indeed, thequotes at the beginning of this article by WaltDisney and Norm Brinker give further evidencethat these top managers knew iheir role in defin-ing and sustaining a fun culture both by wordand action.
SummaryThe human resource managers responding
to our questionnaire are very much in favor ofpromoting a fun work environment because theybelieve such environments offer great benefitsboth to the individual and the organization. Tothem, fun working environments are here to stayand are not just another passing managerial fad.However, they believe that in most ca.ses. thelevel of a fun environment must be increased iforganizations are to obtain the many benefitsthe.se environments provide.
This article reports information received fromhuman resource practitioners that can assist anymanager contemplating the benefits and costs ofpromoting a fun work environment in his or herorganization. The respondents tell us that havinga fun work environment is a good thing and hasmany positive and very few negatives for eitherthe employee or the organization. We see in theiranswers what types of things and activities theyuse to promote fun, and what methods are cur-rently being used for implementing a fun workenvironment. They also show the potentialimpediments to a fun environment and suggeststrategies that managers can use to t)vercomethese barriers.
The bottom line is that fun in the workplaceseems lo be as good as the anecdotal literaturesays it is. The large number of respondents andthe expertise of Human Resources give us great
HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 29
hope that this topic is here to stay and that moreorganizations will be seeking more ways topromote a fun work environment. The exact defi-nition of what constitutes a fun work environmentand its exact impact on group productivity.individual satisfaction, and organizationalperformance is yet to be di.scovered. However,these respondents give us considerable reason tobelieve that when future studies are performed,they will confirm the beliefs of these humanresource managers. We conclude that a fun workenvironment is good for the organization, thework team, and the individual employee andshould be strongly encouraged and supportedby management at all organizational levels.
Biographical SketchesRobert C Ford, PhD. is a professor of manage-ment at the University of Central Florida. Hisdoctorate is from Arizona State University. He isthe co-author of several books on subjects thatinclude principles of management, organizationaltheory, and hospitality management. His researchhas appeared in the Journal of AppliedPsychology, The Academy of ManagementJournal, Journal of Management, CaliforniaManagement Review. Cornell Quarterly. BusinessHorizons, Academy of Management Executive,and other journals.
Frank S. MelMughlin, PhD. is a professor ofmanagement at the University of North Florida.His PhD is from the University of Florida. He isa co-author of a textbook on quantitative methodsfor management. His research has appeared inThe Academy of Management Journal. Journalof Business Research. California ManagementReview, Industrial Management, IndustrialRelations: A Journal of Economy and Society.IEEE Transactions in Management. PublicPersonnel Management, and other journals.
John W, Newstrom, PhD, is a professor of man-agement at the University of Minnesota-Duluth.His doctorate is from the University ofMinnesota. He is the co-author of the popularGames Trainers Play series of hooks for trainersand Transfer of Training. His research hasappeared in The Academy of ManagementJournal. Business Horizons. CaliforniaManagement Review. Workforce, Supervision.Training, and other journals.
ReferencesBcKViiny. W. J. (1985. Aprill. "PrixJuLliviiy Improvement: MakingWork Fun," Journal of Syslenu Managemeni, 45:20-21.
Brinker. N. Phillips. D.T, (1996). On the Brink: The Ufe andLeadership of Norman Brinker. Arlington: Summit Publishing.
Casison. J. (2000). -Service wiih a Smile," hueniivi: I74f III: 79-80.
Deiil. T.E. & Key. M.K- (1998). Corporate Celebration. SanFrancisto: Berretl-Koehler.
Diener. E, (1999). "Subjeclivc Well Being: Three Decade,* ofProgresf.." Psychologiail Bulletin, 125(4): 276002.
Duncan, W.J.Smeltzer. L.R. & Leap. TL. (1990], "Humor and Work:Applii:aUi)ns of .kiking Behuvlor to Management." Jounml ofMananemenl. 16(2): 255-27X,
Ford. R.C. & Heaton, C.P. l2(XX)l. Maiuifiinii ihc Cniesl Kywrienie inHospitality. Albany, NY; Delmar.
Freiberg, K. & Freiberg. J. (1996). Nuts! Arlington. TX: Bard Press.
Gordon. J. (19921, "Structured Fun." Training. 29(9): 23-30.
Hale, S. (2(K)2). "Don'! Forgel ihe Fun Faclor." C(.-nirdl FloridaBusiness, Orlando Seniinel. June 24:24.
Hemsath, D, (1997). "Are We Having Fun Yet.'" The Journal ofQuality ami Particijmtion. 20{ I }:52-4,
Hemsath, D. & Yerkes. L. (1997). 301 Ways u< Have Fun at Work. SiinFranciseo: Berretl-Koehler.
Hudson. K. M. (2U()1). '"Translorming a Ciinservative Company - OneLaugh ai a Time." Harvard Business Review, 79(4): 5-11.
Kilchcl.K, I I9%i. "Yearlong Worijplace Fun."/ntrw/i'^. 170( 10): 59-61.
Kouzes. J.M- & Posner, B.Z. 119951. The U-adership Challenge. SanFraneisco: Jossey Bass.
Lawler. E.E. (1992), The Uliimaie Advmuage: Creating the High-Involvement Organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lucas, J, (2(XX)), "Halloween Parlies: .\ Trieky Treat." HR Magazine.45110): 94-100.
Luthans. F (2(X)2). "Po.sitive Organization Behavior: Developing andManaging Psyehologieal Strengths " The Academy of ManagementExecutive. 16(1): 57-75.
Mariotii. J. (1999). "A Company that Plays Together. Slays Together."hiilu.\iry Week. 248(6): 63-70.
McGhee, P. (2000) "The Key to Stress Management. Retention, andProfitability? More Workplaee Fun." HR Focus. 77(9): 5-6.
Meyer, H. (1999). "Fun for Everyone." The Journal oj Business.Strategy. 21(4):I3-I7.
Miltisj. M. (1999). "Don't Underestimate the Power ol Celebration,"Credit Union Magazine. 65(8): 15-16.
National Underwriter (1999). "Employers Stress Workplace Fun."National Undemriter. 103(20): 25-27.
Perrin. S. (1998, February).'"A Serious Busmes>i." Accountancy. 53:2.40.
Peters, T (1994). The Pursuit of Wow! New York: Vintage.
Schein. E. (1985). Organization Culture and l^eudership: A DynamicWcM. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, B. & Bowen. D.E. (1995). Winnini; the Service Came.Boston: Hitrvurd Business School Press.
Strand. P, (2(X)0), "Anglitig lor Workplace Fun," e. 174/(174):
Walt Disney: Famimy Quotes (1994). Anaheim. C.^: Prmted hy WaltDisney Theme Park.s and Resorts.
Weinstein. M. (1996). Managing to Have Fun. New York: Fireside.
Worirforce. (2000). -Are You Having Any FunT Workfone. 79(5):25-26.
Yerkes. L, (2001). Fun Works. San Francisco: BeiTett-Koehler.
Zbar. ]. (1999). "Are We Having FunT" Computer World. 33(38): 70-71.
30 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING
APPENDIX
Condensed Survey Questionnaire
SECTION A: POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCESListed below are several statements regarding the possible effects or results of a fun work environ-
[Ticnt. Please indicate, to the best of your ability, the degree to which you believe that a fun workenvironment produces each of the listed outcomes. (Indicate the degree to which you believe that a funwork environment increases or decreases the following outcomes by clicking on one of the responsesin the 5-point scale shown. Click No Opinion if you are totally unsure as to its probable effects.)
Organizations that endorse and promote a fun work environment are likely to experience how muchchange in their:
1.
2.
3.
SubstantialDecrease
Accident rates (frequency) 1 0
Ability to attract new employees 1 0
Absenteeism rates 1 0
ModerateDecrease
2 0
2 0
2 0
No Effect
3 0
3 0
3 0
ModerateIncrease
4 0
4 0
4 0
SubstantialIncrease
5 0
5 0
5 0
NO (NoOpinion)
NOO
NOO
NOO
Other items measiircd on ihc scale are communicaikms among employees, customer satisfaction, cost uf operutions. employee anxieiy und.Nlresh, employee complajnis of boredom, employee crealivily. employee enthusiasm, employee satisfaction, employee friendships ai work,employee lumover rales, equipment damage caused by playfulness, frequency of employee errors made, group cohesiveness. interpersonal con-Ilicls. level iil' employee commitment to the organuaiion. mutual tnisi among employees, organizaiional citizenship (voluntary acts of helpingbehaviorsi by employees, professionalism al work, qualiiy of employee producdviiy, reports of sexual harassment, respeci among coworkers,respect from higher-ups, speed with which new tasks are learned by employees during training programs, strength of the corporaie culture(shared values and norms), understanding of the organization's mission and priorities, work taken seriously by oiher departments.
SECTION B: FREQUENCY OF PRACTICESListed below ure several statements regarding activities potentially leading to a fun work environ-
ment. Please indicate your personal assessment of ihe frequency with which your organization actuallyuses the following items.
Not at Alt Moderately Extensively NO (NoOpinion)
Humor (e.g., cartoons, jokesin corporate newsletters,e-mails, and managerialmessages).
I O 2 0 3 0 4 0 SO NOO
Opportunities for personaldevelopment growth throtighopportunities for non-job-relatedleaming (e.g.., quilting classes,book clubs, aerobics).
1 O 2 O 3 0 4 0 5 0 NOO
3. Public celebrations of professional 1 Oachievements (e.g., award banquets,recognition for outstanding results,naming an "employee of the month")-
2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 NOO
Oiher iiems measured on (he same scale are entertainment, g^mes. fun sotial evenu, recognition of personal milestones, opportunities toengage in community volunteerisiii, stress release activities, friendly competitions among employees
HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 3 I
SECTION C: UTiLiTY (CONTRiBUTiONS) OF FUN PRACTiCESHRM professionals are in a good position to assess the utility of various activities designed to
produce a fun work environment. In this section, we are soliciting your insights into the potentialeffectiveness of each type of fun activity. The responses below relate directly to your beliefs regardlessof the extent they are actually used in your organization.
Listed below are several statements regarding activities potentially leading to a fun work environ-ment. Please indicate, to the best of your ability and using the response scale shown, the degree towhich you feel each practice below contributes to creating a fun work environment.
The 10 items used in this section are identical to Section B. Section B asks for frequency of use.Section C asks for contributions to a fun work assignment.
SECTiON D: iMPORTANCE OFVARiOUS EMPLOYEE NEEDSHRM professionals are also in a good position to assess the relative importance of a fun work
environment in comparison to other typical needs of employees. In this section, we are solicitingyour insights into the relative importance of a wide range of things that employees may desire.
Listed below are several statements regarding factors thai employees may seek at work. Pleaseindicate, on the five-point response scale shown, the degree to which you feel each is important totypical employees in your firm today.
!.
2.
3.
Being able to relax., have fun,and enjoy oneself at work.
Being free to express oneselfopenly at work.
Having control over one's owndecisions at work.
Not at AllImportant
1 0
1 0
1 0
2 0
2 0
2 0
ModeratelyImportant
3 0
3 0
3 0
4 0
4 0
4 0
ExtremelyImportant
5 0
5 0
5 0
NO (NoOpinion)
NOO
NOO
NOO
Other items mea.suretl on the same scale includt- having control over resources, feeling listened to. freedom to engage in laughler, autonomyand independence, opportunity lo play at work, building interpersonal friendships, satisfying job security needs, opporlunily to belong to agroup, opponunity to express and receiving caring ai work, satisfying physiological needs, satisfying psychological well-being needs, receivingpersiinul recognition at work.
SECTION E: COMPREHENSiVE ASSESSMENTSOn the following questions, please use the response scales or space provided to indicate your
reactions and assessments.
I.Compared to what you think there ought to be (optimum level of fun at work), what is yourperception of the actual level of fun in your organization? (Check only one.)O a. Much less than there .should beO b. Moderately less than there should beO c. A little bit less than there should heO d. About the right amountO e. A little bit more than there should beO f, A moderate amount more than there should beO g. Much more than there should be
2. Overall, how often do you believe employees should have the opportunity to experience fun in yourorganization? (Check only one.)
Never
1 0
Infrequently
2 0
Occasionally
3 0
Frequently
4 0
Very Often
5 0
No Opinion
N O O
32 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING
3. Other things being equal, at what level do you agree or disagree with this statement:''Companies that promote fun at work arc more effective than companies that don't."
Very StronglyDisagree
1 0
StronglyDisagree
2 0
Disagree
3 0
Neither Disagreenor Agree
4 0
Agree
5 0
StronglyAgree
6 0
Very StronglyAgree
7 0
4. On occasion, some managers and supervisors resist employee desires to create a fun environment atwork. In your opinion, using the 7-point scale below, how likely is it that each of the rationales shownbelow underlie managerial resistance to creating a fun work environment in your organization?
a.
b.
c.
Time constraints(e.g.. 1 can't afford the time).
Financial costs(e.g., ll will cost too much).
Fears of feeling silly(e.g., I don't want to look stupid).
VeryLikely
1 0
1 0
1 0
2 0
2 0
2 0
3
3
3
0
0
0
Neutral
4 0
4 0
4 0
5
5
5
O
0
o
6
6
6
0
0
0
VeryUnlikely
7 0
7 0
7 0
NO (NoOpinion
NOO
NOO
NOO
Other ittms measured on the same scale include lack of personal creativity, unproven impact, perceived employee apathy, fear of non-supportfrom above, belief of non-responsibilily. fear of losing control, inconsisiency with the organizaiion's productivity cullure, fear of offensivere.sponse.s, some employee.^ will be disiracied. fear ihai departmenl work won't be taken seriously
5. Overall, how would you rate your organization with regard to its fun work environment(I = poor. 10 = excellent)
Poor
i 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0
Excellent
lOO
1. Approximately what is the number of employees in your total organization? Please check the mostappropriate response.
2. Approximately what percentage of employees at this location are unionized (under a collectivebargaining agreement}?
3. Approximately what is the total number of employees (full and part-time regular) in the unit forwhich you are reporting?
4. Is your organization For profit or Not for profit?
O For profit
O Not for profit
5. How would you describe the average age of your production and service workers (non-exempt)?
6. Approximately what is the average age of your supervisors and managers (exempt) at this locationfor which you are reporting?
7. Please indicate the level of education which would best describe your organization's exempt workforce:
S. Please indicate the level of education which would best describe your organization's non-exemptworkforce:
9. In compiirison to other organizations, the task of attracting new employees to join your organization is:
The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) is a sponsor of this research.
HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 33
