See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254116622

The Fundamental Role of Workplace Fun in Applicant Attraction

Article  in  Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies · January 2012

DOI: 10.1177/1548051811431828

CITATIONS READS

45 1,411

3 authors:

Michael Tews John W. Michel

Pennsylvania State University Loyola University Maryland
42 PUBLICATIONS   973 CITATIONS    31 PUBLICATIONS   642 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

A. L. “Bart” Bartlett
Pennsylvania State University
9 PUBLICATIONS   300 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Leader Behavior View project

All content following this page was uploaded by John W. Michel on 09 April 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies http://jlo.sagepub.com/

The Fundamental Role of Workplace Fun in Applicant Attraction

Michael J. Tews, John W. Michel and Albert Bartlett
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 2012 19: 105
DOI: 10.1177/1548051811431828

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jlo.sagepub.com/content/19/1/105

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Midwest Academy of Management

Additional services and information for Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Jan 19, 2012

What is This?

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com by guest on October 11, 2013

431828
al.Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies
© Baker College 2012

Reprints and permission: http://www.

JLOs19110.1177/1548051811431828Tews et

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Journal of Leadership &

The Fundamental Role of Workplace

Organizational Studies
19(1) 105­–114
© Baker College 2012

Fun in Applicant Attraction Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1548051811431828
http://jlos.sagepub.com

Michael J. Tews1, John W. Michel2, and Albert Bartlett1

Abstract
The present study extended previous research on fun in the workplace by examining the influence of workplace fun in
the context of applicant attraction. Specifically, this research examined the impact of workplace fun relative to other key
predictors of applicant attraction. Furthermore, this research examined the impact of different sources of workplace
fun—fun coworker interactions, fun job responsibilities, and formal fun activities. With a sample of collegiate job seekers,
the results demonstrated that workplace fun was a stronger predictor of applicant attraction than compensation and
opportunities for advancement. Moreover, the results demonstrated that fun coworker interactions and fun job
responsibilities were stronger predictors of applicant attraction than formal fun activities.

Keywords
workplace fun, applicant attraction, recruiting

In today’s competitive business environment, organizations
continue to emphasize the deployment of human capital
as a key source of competitive advantage (Ployhart &
Moliterno, 2011). As a fundamental first step toward ensur-
ing a productive workforce, attracting high-quality applicants
is important. In the absence of a highly qualified applicant
pool from which to select potential employees, job vacan-
cies may be left unfilled, selection standards may be com-
promised, more time and resources may need to be allocated
toward training, and job and organizational performance
may ultimately suffer. Conversely, drawing from a highly
qualified applicant pool provides the foundation for an
effective human resource management system and effective
organizational performance. As such, it is important for
organizations to find ways to attract the best and the bright-
est applicants in hopes of winning the war for talent.
Previous research has demonstrated that individuals
largely make job choice decisions based on their percep-
tions of job and vacancy characteristics (Behling, Labovitz,
& Gainer, 1968; Chapman, Uggerslev, Carroll, Piasentin, &
Jones, 2005). These perceptions may relate to the specific
job or the organization as a whole (Chapman et al., 2005).
In particular, Chapman et al. (2005) demonstrated that
compensation, opportunities for advancement, the type of
work, the work environment, and organizational image
were among the strongest predictors in their meta-analysis
on the antecedents of applicant attraction to jobs and
organizations.
One underresearched job and organizational characteris-
tic that may have a significant impact on applicant attraction
is workplace fun. Workplace fun generally refers to “any
social, interpersonal, or task activities at work of a play-
ful or humorous nature which provide an individual with
amusement, enjoyment, or pleasure” (Fluegge, 2008, p. 5).
A growing body of empirical research has demonstrated
that workplace fun may have positive outcomes for organi-
zations, yet research on workplace fun in a recruiting con-
text has been limited. Perceptions of workplace fun may be
particularly important with respect to applicant attraction as
individuals may not want “all work and no play” and seek
intrinsic satisfaction in addition to tangible rewards through
their work. As such, individuals’ perceptions of workplace
fun represent a potentially strong predictor of applicant
attraction.
The goals of the present study are twofold. The first goal
is to examine the impact of workplace fun relative to other
key predictors of applicant attraction. The second goal is to
examine the impact of different sources of workplace fun
on applicant attraction. Workplace fun is a multifaceted
construct, and some aspects of fun may have a stronger
impact on applicant attraction than others. Specifically,
this research will assess the impact of fun coworker
interactions, fun job responsibilities, and formal fun
1
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
2
Towson University, Towson, MD, USA
Corresponding Author:
Michael J. Tews, School of Hospitality Management, 121 Mateer Building,
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
Email: mjt17@psu.edu
106 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 19(1)
activities. These issues will be examined with a sample of
collegiate job seekers, mostly Millennials, who may partic-
ularly value fun when making job choice decisions. The
results from this study will help validate the importance of
fun in the workplace in a recruiting context and provide guid-
ance for marketing job vacancies to prospective employees.
Research on Workplace Fun
Fun in the workplace has long been promoted as a key
mechanism for enhancing organizational effectiveness. The
roots of the modern workplace fun movement can be found
in the writings of Peters and Waterman (1982) and Deal
and Kennedy (1982), who encouraged managers to develop
corporate cultures that promoted play, humor, and fun.
More recently, in popular press publications the philosophy
of fun at work has been promoted widely as a key ingredi-
ent for energized and productive work environments
(Lundin, Paul, & Christensen, 2000). In fact, a number of
organizations, such as Pike Place Fish Market, Google,
IBM, and Southwest Airlines, have incorporated fun into
their corporate cultures (Collinson, 2002; Karl, Peluchette,
Hall, & Harland, 2005; Sunoo, 1995). It has been argued
that fun may affect a host of favorable organizational out-
comes, such as higher job satisfaction, employee morale,
pride in work, creativity, customer service, and retention, as
well as reduced tardiness, absenteeism, anxiety, and burn-
out (Abner, 1997; Abramis, 1989; Lundin et al., 2000).
A small but growing body of empirical research provides
support for the popular claim that fun has positive outcomes
for organizations. For example, McDowell (2004) provided
evidence that fun is positively related to job satisfaction and
affective organizational commitment and negatively related
to turnover intentions. Karl and Peluchette (2006a) found
that fun was positively related to job satisfaction and neg-
atively related to emotional exhaustion. Similarly, Karl,
Peluchette, and Harland (2007) demonstrated that fun was
positively related to job satisfaction, as well as negatively
related to emotional exhaustion and emotional dissonance.
Karl and Peluchette (2006b) found that fun was positively
related to job satisfaction and employees’ perceptions of
customer service quality, and Karl, Peluchette, and Hall
(2008) demonstrated that fun was positively related to job
satisfaction and negatively related to turnover intentions.
Finally, Fluegge (2008) found that fun was positively
related to work engagement, positive affect, task perfor-
mance, creative performance, and organizational citizen-
ship behavior.
Karl et al.’s (2008) research represents the one extant
study that discussed workplace fun in a recruiting context.
Karl et al. had the volunteers in their study rank order the
importance of various job and organizational characteris-
tics. The authors argued that the resulting rankings could
be used to determine how best to market volunteer
opportunities to individuals. Of the 10 items that were
ranked, “interesting work” and “helping others” were the
two most highly rated items. However, “a fun workplace”
was the second to last lowest rated item. Furthermore, “the
opportunity to socialize,” which can be subsumed within
the workplace fun construct, was the lowest rated item.
Despite the low ranking for fun, Karl et al. argued that fun
could still be used to attract individuals to volunteer oppor-
tunities. One possible reason noted by the authors is that
self-report ratings are susceptible to social desirability
bias. As such, the volunteers may have underestimated the
importance of fun in volunteer activities. Furthermore, fun
may be more important in less altruistic organizational con-
texts as compared with a volunteer environment.
The Present Study
Given that fun has been demonstrated to affect other favor-
able workplace outcomes, fun likely has a positive impact
on applicant attraction to jobs and organizations. That said,
research is necessary to empirically assess the impact of
perceptions of workplace fun in an applicant attraction
context. Research is also necessary to determine what
aspects of fun most strongly affect applicant attraction.
Thus, in addition to examining the impact of fun in general,
the present study will examine the relative impact of three
aspects of workplace fun—fun coworker interactions, fun
job responsibilities, and formal fun activities.
The environment processing and interactionalist models
are two dominant metatheories of applicant attraction
(Ehrhart & Ziegert, 2005) that can be used to explain the
potential influence of workplace fun on applicant attrac-
tion. According to the environment processing perspective,
applicants search for information about various characteris-
tics about the work environment (e.g., organizational poli-
cies, coworker characteristics, and benefits) throughout the
recruiting process. They then use such perceptions of the
work environment as signals to determine how well they
believe they will fit with the organization and make job
choice decisions accordingly (Turban, 2001). Similarly,
the interactionist perspective suggests that applicants are
attracted to organizations when they perceive a fit between
their needs and values and those espoused by the organiza-
tion (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). The
interactionist perspective is founded in the similarity-attraction
paradigm, which suggests that applicants are more attracted
to organizations when specific organizational characteris-
tics match their own (Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995).
As such, the applicants are more attracted to an organiza-
tion when it provides something important that the appli-
cant wants or needs (Ehrhart & Ziegert, 2005). The
common element between these two perspectives is that
individuals seek out work environments where they per-
ceive the best fit.
Tews et al. 107
Workplace fun may meet individuals’ needs and values
in several respects, and therefore, perceptions of workplace
fun may have a significant impact on applicant attraction.
Certainly one of the primary reasons why individuals work
is for the compensation and benefits that a paycheck pro-
vides (Williams, McDaniel, & Nguyen, 2006). That said,
individuals work for more than just a paycheck and seek
intrinsic satisfaction, enjoyment in their work, and qual-
ity relationships with others (Grant & Parker, 2009).
Accordingly, perceptions of workplace fun may affect appli-
cant attraction given the large portion of time individuals
spend on the job. Given the vast amount of time spent on the
job, clearly individuals would prefer the experience to be
enjoyable and to “have fun.” Fun may be particularly rele-
vant during difficult economic times such as these, where
employees are being asked to do more for less (White,
2008). Similarly, given the significant amount of stress often
experienced by individuals in today’s workplace (Podsakoff,
LePine, & LePine, 2007), perceptions of workplace fun may
signal a higher quality of work life and thus enhance appli-
cant attraction during the recruiting process.
Workplace fun may be particularly important for
younger job seekers, the job seekers that are the focus of
the present study. In one respect, workplace fun may be
important for younger job seekers in general. Erikson’s
(1968) lifespan theory suggests that young adults particu-
larly value the development of friendships and socializa-
tion as they establish their adult identities. The workplace
may provide younger individuals with sources of friend-
ship and socialization. Thus, to the extent that friend-
ships and socialization can be construed as workplace
fun, fun may be particularly important for younger job
seekers. Moreover, workplace fun may be particularly
important for younger workers today, namely, the
Millennials, the generational cohort of those individuals
born in 1980 onwards (Parker & Chusmir, 1990; Wey
Smola & Sutton, 2002). Such individuals grew up in a
period of relative prosperity, have experienced rela-
tively comfortable lifestyles, and were raised by highly
involved parents (Raines, 2003). In the workplace, the
Millennials desire a work–life balance that will allow
them to balance play with work (Carless & Wintle, 2007;
Cennamo & Gardner, 2008; Loughlin & Barling, 2001;
Wey Smola & Sutton, 2002; Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak.,
1999), and they value close personal relationships over a
career per se (Raines, 2003). It has been argued that the
Millennials prefer work environments that emphasize
freedom, status, and social involvement, and they may be
prepared to leave the organization if these needs are not
met (Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007; Dries, Pepermans,
& De Kerpel, 2008; Loughlin & Barling, 2001; Wey Smola
& Sutton, 2002). As such, workplace fun may be particu-
larly important to younger job seekers with respect to
attraction to jobs and organizations.
Based on the arguments above, two hypotheses are pro-
posed. First, workplace fun will have a positive impact on
applicant attraction. Second, workplace fun will have a
stronger impact on applicant attraction than other key pre-
dictors of applicant attraction, namely, compensation and
opportunities for advancement (Chapman et al., 2005).
Although compensation and opportunities for advancement
likely influence applicant attraction, workplace fun is argued
to have a stronger impact given the high priority placed on
fun among Millennials.
Hypothesis 1: Workplace fun will have a positive
impact on applicant attraction.
Hypothesis 2: Workplace fun will have a stronger
positive impact on applicant attraction than com-
pensation and opportunities for advancement.
Heretofore, fun has been discussed in general terms. It
should be emphasized, however, that fun is a multidimen-
sional construct that has been operationalized differently
across studies. Ford, McLaughlin, and Newstrom (2003),
Karl et al. (2005), Karl et al. (2008), and Peluchette and Karl
(2005) focused on formal fun activities, such as contests,
gift exchanges, games, awards, sharing food and refresh-
ments, and company-wide outings. Karl and Peluchette
(2006a), Karl and Peluchette (2006b), Karl et al. (2007),
and Peluchette and Karl (2005) focused on experienced fun,
which reflects whether individuals actually experience fun
on the job. Sample items from the scale used in these stud-
ies include “This is a fun place to work” and “We laugh
a lot at my workplace.” Finally, Fluegge (2008) and
McDowell (2004) conceptualized fun as a multidimen-
sional construct, encompassing socializing, celebrating,
personal freedoms, and global fun. Socializing reflects fun
interactions with others at work, celebrating includes for-
mal fun activities, personal freedoms represent freedom to
have fun on the job, and global fun reflects whether the
workplace in general is a fun place to work. It should be
noted that while Fluegge (2008) and McDowell (2004)
conceptualized fun as encompassing different dimensions,
the dimensions were aggregated into an overall construct in
their studies.
Notwithstanding the validity of previous research and
focusing on fun as an aggregate construct, we contend it is
necessary to examine the impact of different aspects of fun
on applicant attraction. Focusing on different aspects of fun
will help delineate what matters most for applicants. Three
aspects of workplace fun will serve as the focus of the pres-
ent study—formal fun activities, fun coworker interactions,
and fun–job responsibilities. Formal fun activities include
parties and picnics, theme days at work, and company out-
ings. Such activities have been a common focus of popu-
larized accounts of fun at work and several empirical
investigations. Because coworkers are central to most
108 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 19(1)
employees’ experiences on the job (Chiaburu & Harrison,
2008), fun coworker interactions are examined herein. Fun
coworker interactions are characterized as being friendly,
outgoing, and socializing with each other. Finally, fun job
responsibilities are included in the current framework as the
job reflects the core of the applicants’ potential work. These
are characterized as those that are personally enjoyable,
meaningful, and a solid fit with one’s personal interests.
While all three dimensions may have a significant posi-
tive impact on applicant attraction, some dimensions of fun
may have a stronger influence than others. Specifically, we
argue that fun formal activities will be less important than
fun coworker interactions and fun job responsibilities. As
noted above, formal fun activities have been the focus of
much of the popular fun literature and several empirical
investigations. The popular press has advocated implement-
ing a variety of ways to create a fun work climate, and the
empirical investigations in this area have largely focused on
which activities are actually considered fun and which are
not. With respect to applicant attraction, formal fun activi-
ties may not necessarily have the strongest impact because
they are by definition “formal activities.” While they may
be perceived as enjoyable, formal activities do not necessar-
ily permeate the day-to-day experiences for employees. As
such, formal fun activities may have less of an influence on
applicant attraction than other aspects of workplace fun. In
contrast, fun coworker interactions and fun job responsibili-
ties are believed to have a stronger impact. Simply put,
because coworker interactions and one’s job responsibili-
ties are constant and regular features of one’s experiences,
they likely have a greater opportunity to affect one’s expe-
rienced fun at work. Accordingly, fun coworker interac-
tions and fun job responsibilities are argued to have a
stronger impact on applicant attraction than formal fun
activities.
Hypothesis 3: Fun coworker interactions will have
a stronger positive impact on applicant attraction
than will formal fun activities.
Hypothesis 4: Fun job responsibilities will have a
stronger positive impact on applicant attraction than
will formal fun activities.
Method
Sample and Procedure
The sample for this research included 374 undergraduate
students from two large universities who were in their final
semester of school and actively seeking full-time employ-
ment upon graduation. The sample was 56% female and 77%
Caucasian. The average age was 22 years. The job seekers were
presented with two different written recruiting scenarios to
assess the impact of fun and the other variables on attraction. The
participants read each scenario and then answered a series
of questions related to applicant attraction.
Scenario 1—Fun, Compensation,
and Opportunities for Advancement
The participants were presented with a recruiting advertise-
ment for a management trainee position for a fictitious
organization to assess the overall impact of fun on applicant
attraction and its impact relative to compensation and
opportunities for advancement. The participants were ran-
domly assigned to read and evaluate one of eight different
advertisements. The eight advertisements were created fol-
lowing a 2 × 2 × 2 experimental design in which a fun–work
environment was present or not, competitive compensation
was present or not, and extensive opportunities for advance-
ment was present or not. The advertisements included a
favorable description or the absence of a favorable descrip-
tion of the three variables, rather than presenting either a
favorable or unfavorable description, because organizations
likely omit an unfavorable description in their formal
recruiting materials. After reading the advertisement, the
participants responded to a series of questions regard-
ing their attraction to the job and the organization.
Approximately 47 individuals were assigned to each sce-
nario. The descriptions of the three variables are presented
in Appendix A.
Manipulation check. The goal of the first scenario was to
determine the relative impact of high levels of fun, compen-
sation, and opportunities for advancement on applicant
attraction. Thus, prior to presenting the scenarios to the par-
ticipants, a manipulation check was conducted to verify that
the descriptions of the variables were perceived as rela-
tively high and that the perceptions of the descriptions were
approximately equivalent. Thirty-two industrial and organi-
zational psychology graduate students rated the extent to
which they agreed that each description was favorable with
a 5-point scale with anchors ranging from 1 = strongly dis-
agree to 5 = strongly agree. The mean ratings for the fun,
compensation, and opportunities for advancement were 4.44,
4.53, and 4.34, respectively. These ratings were relatively
high, as they were all more than 4.00. There were no signifi-
cant differences in the ratings for the three descriptions.
Dependent variables. Three variables were used to assess
applicant attraction—perceived fun, perceived person–
organization fit, and job pursuit intentions. Three items,
developed specifically for this study, were used to assess
perceived fun. A sample item includes “This would be a fun
place to work.” The participants responded using a 5-point
scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly
agree. Three items from Cable and Judge (1996) were used
to assess perceived person–organization fit. A sample item
includes “To what extent do you feel your values fit this
organization?” The participants responded using a 5-point
Tews et al. 109
scale ranging from 1 = not at all to 5 = completely. Saks,
Leck, and Saunders’s (1995) two-item scale was used to
measure job pursuit intentions. A sample item includes “If
this organization invited me for an on-site interview, I
would definitely go.” The participants responded using a
5-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
strongly agree. The internal consistency reliability esti-
mates for the perceived fun, perceived person–organiza-
tion fit, and job pursuit intentions scales were .86, .87, and
.94, respectively.
Scenario 2—Dimensions of Workplace Fun
To examine the impact of different aspects of workplace
fun (i.e., fun coworker interactions, fun job responsibilities,
and formal fun activities), the participants evaluated sce-
narios that described various events that transpired during
an on-site job interview for a desirable management trainee
position. The participants were randomly assigned to read
and evaluate one of eight different scenarios. The eight
scenarios were created following a 2 × 2 × 2 experimental
design in which coworker interactions were presented as
fun or not fun, job responsibilities were presented as fun or
not fun, and formal fun activities were presented or were
absent. Formal fun activities were presented or not pre-
sented, as opposed to presenting them either as fun or not,
because it was deemed that organizations either generally
institute such activities or not. After reading the scenario,
the participants responded to a series of questions regard-
ing their attraction to the job and the organization.
Approximately 47 individuals were assigned to each sce-
nario. The descriptions of the three variables are presented
in Appendix B.
Manipulation check. A manipulation check was conducted
with the same individuals as the first scenario. The manipu-
lation check for the second scenario focused on validating
high and low differences in perceptions of fun for each vari-
able. The respondents were presented with the descriptions
for the high and low fun conditions for each variable and
were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed that
each condition reflected a fun work environment with a
5-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
strongly agree. The mean differences in the high and low
conditions for each variable were statistically significant.
Dependent variables. Three variables were used to assess
applicant attraction: perceived fun, perceived person–orga-
nization fit, and offer acceptance intentions. The items
described before were used to assess perceived fun and per-
ceived person–organization fit. Two items from Saks et al.
(1995) were used to assess offer acceptance intentions. A
sample item includes “If I were offered a job at this organi-
zation, I would accept it.” The participants indicated the
extent to which they agreed with each statement on a 5-point
scale with anchors ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to
5 = strongly agree. The internal consistency reliability esti-
mates for the perceived fun, perceived person–organization
fit, and offer acceptance intentions scales were .91, .91, and
.72, respectively.
Analytic Strategy
Multiple regression was used to test the impact of the inde-
pendent variables on the dependent variables. For Scenario
1, each of the dependent variables was regressed on the
recruiting advertisement descriptions. The presence of
descriptions of fun, compensation, or opportunities for
advancement was coded 1, and the absence of such a
description was coded 0. For Scenario 2, each of the depen-
dent variables was regressed on the three dimensions of
workplace fun. The presence of a high fun description of job
responsibilities, coworker interactions, or formal fun activi-
ties was coded 1, and the presence of a low fun description
was coded 0. Paternoster, Brame, Mazerolle, and Piquero’s
(1998) formula for testing the equality of regression coeffi-
cients was used to assess which of the resulting regression
coefficients was larger than the other. In the case where one
regression coefficient was significant and one was not, the
significant coefficient was deemed to be larger.
Results
Tables 1 and 2 provide the descriptive statistics and correla-
tions among the study variables for the first and second
scenarios, respectively. Tables 3 and 4 provide the regres-
sion results for the first and second scenarios, respectively,
that serve as the basis for examining support for the hypoth-
eses. The results in Table 3 relate to Hypotheses 1 and 2,
and the results in Table 4 relate to Hypotheses 3 and 4. For
the first scenario, the R2 statistics were .26 for perceived
fun, .09 for perceived person–organization fit, and .09 for
job pursuit intentions. For the second scenario, the R2 sta-
tistics were .36 for perceived fun, .33 for perceived person–
organization fit, and .19 for offer acceptance intentions.
Hypothesis 1, which proposed that workplace fun would
have a positive impact on applicant attraction, was sup-
ported for all three dependent outcomes. Workplace fun
was significantly related to job perceived fun (β = .48, p <
.01), perceived person–organization fit (β = .25, p < .01),
and job pursuit intentions (β = .11, p < .05).
Hypothesis 2 was supported. Workplace fun had a stron-
ger impact on perceived fun than did compensation (t =
5.77, p < .01) and opportunities for advancement (t = 5.83,
p < .01). Furthermore, workplace fun had a stronger impact
on perceived person–organization fit than did compensation
(t = 3.14, p < .01) and opportunities for advancement (t =
1.38, p < .10). Finally, workplace fun was also demon-
strated to be a stronger predictor of job pursuit intentions
than compensation and opportunities for advancement
110 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 19(1)

Table 1. Intercorrelations Among Study Variables for Recruiting Advertisement Scenario

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Age 22.44 2.93 —  
2. Ethnicitya 0.77 0.42 −.07 —  
3. Genderb 0.56 0.50 −.15** .02 —  
4. Fun message 0.50 0.50 −.05 −.02 .03 —  
5. Compensation message 0.49 0.50 −.07 .01 .03 −.02 —  
6. Opportunities for advancement 0.49 0.50 .05 .02 .11* .01 .03 —  
message
7. Perceived fun 3.64 0.75 −.04 −.04 .07 .48** .11* .12* —  
8. Perceived person–organization fit 3.78 0.68 −.02 −.08 .00 .25** .03 .15** .57** —  
9. Job pursuit intentions 4.08 0.81 .04 −.01 .00 .11* .02 .02 .47** .46** —

NOTE: N = 374.
a. 1 = White, 0 = other.
b. 1 = Female, 0 = male.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 2. Intercorrelations Among Study Variables for On-Site Job Interview Scenario

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Age 22.44 2.93 —  
2. Ethnicitya 0.77 0.42 −.07 —  
3. Genderb 0.56 0.50 −.15** .02 —  
4. Fun coworker interactions 0.51 0.50 .05 .03 −.01 —  
5. Fun job responsibilities 0.51 0.50 −.04 −.03 .11* .03 —  
6. Formal fun activities 0.51 0.50 .12* −.05 −.03 .00 .02 —  
7. Perceived fun 3.17 0.93 .08 −.06 −.05 .54** .21** .16** —  
8. Perceived person–organization fit 3.38 0.86 .09* −.03 −.07 .50** .27** .10* .79** —  
9. Offer acceptance intentions 3.46 0.95 −.04 −.07 −.11* .34** .22** .03 .64** .64** —

NOTE: N = 374.
a. 1 = White, 0 = other.
b. 1 = Female, 0 = male.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 3. Regressions of Applicant Attraction Outcomes on Fun, Compensation, and Opportunities for Advancement

Predictor Perceived Fun Perceived Person–Organization Fit Job Pursuit Intentions

Age −.02 −.02 .05
Ethnicitya −.03 −.08 .00
Genderb .04 −.03 .00
Fun description .48** .25** .11*
Compensation description .11* .03 .03
Opportunities for advancement description .11* .15** .02
R2 .26 .09 .02
F 21.43** 6.15** .97

NOTE: N = 374. Standardized regression coefficients are presented.

a. 1 = White, 0 = other.
b. 1 = Female, 0 = male.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Tews et al. 111
Table 4. Regressions of Applicant Attraction Outcomes on Dimensions of Workplace Fun
Predictor Perceived Fun
Age .04
Ethnicitya −.06
Genderb −.05
Fun coworker interactions .54**
Fun job responsibilities .19**
Formal fun activities .15**
R2 .36
F 34.58**
NOTE: N = 374. Standardized regression coefficients are presented.
a. 1 = White, 0 = other.
b. 1 = Female, 0 = male.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
because the latter two variables were not significant predic-
tors of job pursuit intentions, whereas workplace fun was.
Hypothesis 3, which proposed that fun coworker interac-
tions would have a stronger positive impact on applicant
attraction than would formal fun activities, was supported.
Fun coworker interactions was a stronger predictor of per-
ceived fun than formal fun activities (t = 6.54, p < .01).
Furthermore, fun coworker interactions was a stronger pre-
dictor of perceived person–organization fit than formal fun
activities (t = 6.68, p < .01). Finally, fun coworker interac-
tions was a stronger predictor of offer acceptance intentions
than formal fun activities as the regression coefficient for
formal fun activities was nonsignificant.
Hypothesis 4, which proposed that fun job responsibili-
ties would have a stronger positive impact on applicant
attraction than would formal fun activities, was partially
supported. There was no significant difference between the
effects of fun job responsibilities and formal fun activities
on perceived fun (t = 0.77, p < .10). However, fun job
responsibilities had a stronger impact on perceived person–
organization fit than did formal fun activities (t =2.91, p <
.01). Furthermore, fun job responsibilities was a stronger
predictor of offer acceptance intentions than was formal fun
activities as the regression coefficient for formal fun activi-
ties was nonsignificant.
Discussion
The present study extended previous research on fun in the
workplace by examining the impact of fun in an applicant
attraction recruiting context. Overall, the findings demon-
strated that fun is fundamental. The results demonstrated
that fun does have a positive impact on applicant attrac-
tion and that fun is more important than compensation and
opportunities for advancement when evaluating recruiting
advertisements during the early stages of the recruiting
process. Furthermore, the results demonstrated that not all
aspects of workplace fun are valued equally. In the later
Perceived Person–Organization Fit Offer Acceptance Intentions
.05 −.08
−.03 −.07
−.08* −.14**
.49** .34**
.26** .21**
.08* .03
.33 .19
30.08** 14.00**
stages of the recruiting process, fun coworker interactions
and fun job responsibilities had a stronger impact on appli-
cant attraction than formal fun activities. Thus, fun should
not necessarily be examined as a unitary construct. Rather,
research should treat workplace fun as a multidimensional
construct in order to more fully understand the workplace
fun phenomenon.
The key practical implication of this study is that work-
place fun should be a central focus of recruiting efforts.
Moreover, to the extent brevity is desired in recruiting
media, a greater emphasis should be placed on fun relative
to other job and organization characteristics. Moreover,
given that fun coworker interactions and fun job responsi-
bilities were demonstrated to be more important than for-
mal fun activities in the context of on-site job interviews,
such aspects of fun should be emphasized by interviewers
during this phase of recruiting. While the results of this
study suggest that fun be a focus of recruiting efforts, such
a focus is not advocated if, in fact, the workplace is not
“fun.” In such instances, management should focus on
means to enhance fun in the workplace and then market job
vacancies accordingly. If applicants’ prehire perceptions of
the workplace are not congruent with their subsequent
experiences on the job, they may become dissatisfied and
ultimately leave the organization (Phillips, 1998).
One limitation of the present study was that the study
participants evaluated hypothetical recruiting advertise-
ments and hypothetical on-site job interview experiences.
While research designs such as that employed in the pres-
ent study have been used in numerous recruiting studies
and other studies of decision making in organizational con-
texts (Karren & Barringer, 2002), it would be useful to
conduct additional research using other methodologies to
validate the generalizability of the results herein. One
approach would be to conduct a field experiment with
actual recruiting advertisements placed in media outlets.
The influence of fun could then be determined by assessing
the quantity and quality of applicants that responded to the
112 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 19(1)
advertisements based on the content. Furthermore, another
approach to assess the impact of fun on job offer acceptance
would be to have individuals with multiple job offers evalu-
ate the offers based on fun and other job and organizational
characteristics.
A second limitation, which may limit the generalizabil-
ity of the results to a degree, was using younger job seekers
to assess the impact of workplace fun on applicant attrac-
tion. It was argued throughout that today’s younger job seek-
ers (i.e., the Millennials) would particularly value workplace
fun. Future research is warranted to examine the degree to
which older workers also value fun. While Millennials may
value workplace fun more than older workers, workplace
fun may nonetheless be important for older individuals.
Research is warranted to substantiate this claim. Research is
also necessary to examine the impact of workplace fun on
applicant attraction for Millennials in their future job pursuit
endeavors. Such work will help determine the degree of
temporal stability of the value placed on fun by Millennials.
Do Millennials particularly value fun because they are rela-
tively younger today, or is the value placed on fun relatively
stable irrespective of their age?
One additional opportunity for future research is exam-
ining the impact of the different sources of workplace fun
on applicant attraction in the context of recruiting advertise-
ments. In the present study, fun coworker interactions, fun
job responsibilities, and formal fun activities were described
together relative to compensation and opportunities for
advancement in the recruiting advertisements. In the on-site
job interview scenario, however, the dimensions of work-
place fun were experimentally manipulated separately, and
the different dimensions were demonstrated to have differ-
ent relationships with applicant attraction. Similarly, the
different dimensions may also have different influences in
recruiting advertisements. Moreover, some of the dimen-
sions may matter more in the context of recruiting adver-
tisements than during the on-site job interview process. For
example, while formal fun activities were not related to
offer acceptance intentions in the context of the on-site job
interview, they may have a stronger impact on initial appli-
cant attraction.
Another opportunity for future research is examining the
impact of workplace fun on applicant attraction for low-
skill/low-pay job vacancies. While the present study dem-
onstrated that fun was important for management vacancies,
fun may be even more important in the context of low-skill/
low-pay work given that the other terms and conditions of
employment such as compensation and benefits and oppor-
tunities for advancement may be quite limited. In low-skill/
low-pay work, workplace fun may serve as a means to
compensate for otherwise relatively unfavorable terms and
conditions of employment and thus be critically important
to attracting individuals to such job vacancies.
A final research opportunity is examining the impact of
workplace fun on employee turnover and retention. This
study examined the role of workplace fun on applicant
attraction, and other research has examined the influence of
fun on a host of other important workplace outcomes. What
remains untested, however, is the impact of fun on employ-
ees’ actual staying and leaving behavior, thus representing
a fruitful area for future inquiry. Specifically, research
should examine the impact of different sources of work-
place fun on turnover and retention for different types of
employees in different organizational contexts. Moreover,
research should examine the impact of fun relative to other
terms and conditions of employment and organizational
characteristics.
Workplace fun has long been argued to have a positive
impact on organizational effectiveness, and empirical
research has begun to validate such claims. The present
study demonstrated that workplace fun has a significant
impact on applicant attraction in a recruiting context and
illustrated that different aspects of fun may be more impor-
tant than others. Additional research is warranted, however,
to obtain a fuller understanding of the extent to which fun in
the workplace has favorable organizational outcomes and
under what specific circumstances fun matters most. Such
work will advance our theoretical knowledge base and
serve as a foundation for providing sound prescriptions for
applied practice.
Appendix A
Descriptions of Recruiting
Advertisement Variables
Fun. One of our core values is having fun at work. Every
effort is made to match your interests and skills with work
you find personally enjoyable. We want the work you do to
be meaningful and rewarding. We have a cohesive work
environment where everyone feels welcome and has fun
throughout the day. Everyone genuinely enjoys working
with one another and has great time on the job. We host a
variety of activities to make the workplace fun, including
company parties, theme days at work, athletic teams, and
outings to music, theater, and sports events. We believe that
having fun makes the work you do great!
Compensation. For your hard work and effort, we offer a
competitive compensation and benefits package, including
above market base compensation, performance-based
bonuses, a generous employer-matching 401(k) retirement
plan, comprehensive medical and dental coverage for you
and your dependents, and short-term and long-term dis-
ability insurance coverage. In addition, employees may take
up to 15 days of paid time-off during their first year of
employment. Other benefits include subsidized fitness
memberships and child day care.
Opportunities for Advancement. The sky is the limit
with your career with us. Once you have mastered the skills
in your job and have proven yourself to be an asset, every
Tews et al. 113
effort will be made to help you advance your career. We
pride ourselves in providing employees with opportunities
to move ahead in their careers more rapidly than at other
firms. We believe in retaining our employees over the long
term and helping our best and brightest realize their full
career potential.
Appendix B
Descriptions of Fun Study Variables
for On-Site Job Interview Scenarios
Coworker Interactions
High fun. Throughout the day, you meet many individu-
als currently employed with the company, including other
newly hired management trainees. Everyone in the organi-
zation seems very friendly and outgoing. They emphasize
that there is a lot of group cohesion at the company. Every-
one gets along with another and seems to joke around. It
appears that people interact regularly with one another
throughout the workday.
Low fun. Throughout the day, you meet many individuals
currently employed with the company, including other
newly hired management trainees. Everyone from the orga-
nization is polite, but somewhat reserved. You get the sense
that everyone is respectful toward one another, but pretty
much keeps to himself or herself. It appears that people
rarely interact with one another throughout the workday.
Job Responsibilities
High fun. During one of your interviews, you find out
more about the type of work you would be doing with the
company. The work seems like it would be personally
enjoyable and meaningful to you. The job responsibilities
seem to be a great fit with your personal interests.
Low fun. During one of your interviews, you find out
more about the type of work you would be doing with the
company. The work does not seem like it would be overly
interesting or enjoyable. The job responsibilities do not
seem to be the best fit with your personal interests.
Formal Fun Activities
High fun. Later in the afternoon, you meet with the
Director of Human Resources (HR). She asks you to
describe your previous experience and explain how your
skills are a good fit for the position. After you describe
your experience and skills, the Director of HR proceeds to
discuss the company’s benefits package, the new associate
training program, and the typical career progression for
new managers. She concludes your discussion by high-
lighting that the company sponsors a wide variety of fun
activities, such as parties and picnics, theme days at work,
athletic teams, and company outings to music, theatre, and
sports events.
Low fun. Later in the afternoon, you meet with the Direc-
tor of Human Resources (HR). She asks you to describe your
previous experience and explain how your skills are a good
fit for the position. After you describe your experience and
skills, the Director of HR proceeds to discuss the company’s
benefits package, the new associate training program, and
the typical career progression for new managers.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Abner, M. (1997). Corporate America takes fun seriously. Women
in Business, 49, 42.
Abramis, S. T. (1989). Finding the fun at work. Psychology Today,
23, 36-38.
Behling, O., Labovitz, G., & Gainer, M. (1968). College recruiting:
A theoretical basis. Personnel Journal, 47, 13-19.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person-organization fit, job
choice decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 294-311.
Carless, S. A., & Wintle, J. (2007). Applicant attraction: The role
of recruiter function, work-life balance policies and career
salience. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
15, 394-404.
Cennamo, L., & Gardner, D. (2008). Generational differences in
work values, outcomes and person-organisation values fit.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 891-906.
Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., Carroll, S. A., Piasentin, K. A., &
Jones, D. A. (2005). Applicant attraction to organizations and
job choice: A meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruit-
ing outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 928-944.
Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (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, 1082-1103.
Collinson, D. L. (2002). Managing humour. Journal of Management
Studies, 39, 269-288.
Crumpacker, M., & Crumpacker, J. M. (2007). Succession planning
and generational stereotypes: Should HR consider age-based
values and attitudes a relevant factor or a passing fad? Public
Personnel Management, 36, 349-369.
Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites
and rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Dries, N., Pepermans, R., & De Kerpel, E. (2008). Exploring four
generations’ beliefs about career: Is “satisfied” the new “suc-
cessful”? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 907-928.
Ehrhart, K. H., & Ziegert, J. C. (2005). Why are individuals attracted
to organizations? Journal of Management, 31, 901-919.
114 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 19(1)
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY:
W. W. Norton.
Fluegge, E. R. (2008). Who put the fun in functional? Fun at work
and its effects on job performance (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Florida, Gainesville.
Ford, R. C., McLaughlin, F. S., & Newstrom, J. W. (2003). Ques-
tions and answers about fun at work. Human Resource Planning,
26, 18-33.
Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design
theories: The rise of relational and proactive perspectives.
Academy of Management Annals, 3, 317-375.
Karl, K. A., & Peluchette, J. (2006a). Does workplace fun buf-
fer the impact of emotional exhaustion on job dissatisfaction?
A study of health care workers. Journal of Behavioral and
Applied Management, 7, 128-141.
Karl, K. A., & Peluchette, J. (2006b). How does workplace fun
impact employee perceptions of customer service quality?
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13, 2-13.
Karl, K. A., Peluchette, J. V., & Hall, L. M. (2008). Give them
something to smile about: A marketing strategy for recruiting
and retaining volunteers. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector
Marketing, 20, 91-96.
Karl, K. A., Peluchette, J., Hall, L., & Harland, L. (2005). Attitudes
toward workplace fun: A three sector comparison. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12, 1-17.
Karl, K. A., Peluchette, J. V., & Harland, L. (2007). Is fun for
everyone? Personality differences in health care providers’ atti-
tudes toward fun. Journal of Human Health Services Adminis-
tration, 29, 409-447.
Karren, R. J., & Barringer, M. W. (2002). A review and analysis of
the policy-capturing methodology in organizational research:
Guidelines for research and practice. Organizational Research
Methods, 5, 337-361.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005).
Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of
person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-
supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281-342.
Loughlin, C., & Barling, J. (2001). Young workers’ work val-
ues, attitudes, and behaviours. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 74, 543-558.
Lundin, S. C., Paul, H., & Christensen, J. (2000). Fish! New York,
NY: Hyperion.
McDowell, T. (2004). Fun at work: Scale development, confir-
matory factor analysis, and links to organizational outcomes
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Alliant International Uni-
versity, San Diego, CA.
Parker, B., & Chusmir, L. H. (1990). A generational and sex-based
view of managerial work values. Psychological Reports, 66,
947-950.
Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1998).
Sing the correct statistical test for the equality of regression
coefficients. Criminology, 6, 859-866.
Peluchette, J., & Karl, K. A. (2005). Attitudes toward incorpo-
rating fun into the health care workplace. The Health Care
Manager, 24, 268-275.
Peters, T., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence.
New York, NY: Harper & Row.
View publication stats
Phillips, J. M. (1998). Effects of realistic job previews on mul-
tiple organizational outcomes: A meta-analysis. Academy of
Management Journal, 41, 673-690.
Ployhart, R. E., & Moliterno, T. P. (2011). Emergence of the
human capital resource: A multilevel model. Academy of
Management Review, 36, 127-150.
Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differ-
ential challenge stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with
job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal
behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
438-454.
Raines, C. (2003). Connecting generations: The sourcebook for a
new workplace. Menlo Park, CA: Crisp.
Saks, A. M., Leck, J. D., & Saunders, D. M. (1995). Effects of
application blanks and employment equity on applicant reac-
tions and job pursuit intentions. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 16, 415-430.
Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA
framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48, 748-773.
Sunoo, B. P. (1995). How fun flies at Southwest Airlines. Personnel
Journal, 74, 62-73.
Turban, D. B. (2001). Organizational attractiveness as an employer
on college campuses: An examination of the applicant popula-
tion. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 293-312.
Smola, K.W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences:
Revisiting generational work values for the new millennium.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 363-382.
White, E. (2008, November 7). How to motivate workers in tough
times. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.
wsj.com/article/SB122531548636981645.html
Williams, M. L., McDaniel, M. A., & Nguyen, N. T. (2006). A
meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of pay level
satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 392-413.
Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (1999). Generations at
work: Managing the clash of veterans, boomers, xers, and
nexters in your workplace. New York, NY: Amacom Books.
Bios
Michael J. Tews, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the School of
Hospitality Management at Penn State University. He received his
PhD in Human Resource Management from the School of Hotel
Administration at Cornell University. His research examines
issues relating to employee recruiting and selection, training and
development, and retention.
John W. Michel, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the College of
Business & Economics at Towson University. He received his PhD
in Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management
from the University at Albany, SUNY. His research examines issues
related to fun and supportive work environments, leadership, proso-
cial behavior, and employee selection and retention.
Albert Bartlett, MBA, PhD, is an Associate Professor and
Associate Director of the School of Hospitality Management at
Penn State University. He received his PhD in Educational Admin-
istration from Penn State. His research focuses on human resource
management and organizational behavior in the hospitality
industry.