Journals / Research Journal of Business and Management / 2021 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 1

ADAPTATION AND VALIDATION OF THE SCALES FOR ASSESSING WORKPLACE FUN IN TURKEY

Pages
15–26
Publication Date
2021-03-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Additionally, managers can utilize the validated indicators of workplace fun as a basis for creating a fun workplace.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose - Fun in the workplace has frequently been highlighted in the popular media and increasingly attracted research attention.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Subsequently, the measures were tested on a sample of 254 employees working in startups in Turkey.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Additionally, managers can utilize the validated indicators of workplace fun as a basis for creating a fun workplace.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Workplace fun · fun activities · fun job responsibilities

Abstract

Purpose - Fun in the workplace has frequently been highlighted in the popular media and increasingly attracted research attention. Its various positive outcomes have also been pointed out in the literature. Despite the growing relevance of workplace fun, its measurement has not been extensively tested, particularly in emerging markets. Accordingly, this study was intended to adapt and validate existing scales measuring different aspects of workplace fun in Turkey. Methodology - Four measures of workplace fun, namely “fun activities”, “fun job responsibilities”, “coworker socializing” and “manager support for fun”, were identified from the literature. These measures were translated and adapted for a Turkish sample. Their face validity and content validity were checked by experts in the field. Subsequently, the measures were tested on a sample of 254 employees working in startups in Turkey. The sample was randomly split into two groups for exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Findings - 24 items were derived from the literature. As expected, four factors were revealed in the exploratory factor analysis. One item was removed due to the insufficient factor loading on any factor. The reliability values of all factors were satisfactory. These results were confirmed in the confirmatory factor analysis, which showed that the measurement model had an acceptable fit to the sample data. In addition, the discriminant validity and the convergent validity were established. Conclusion - The findings of this study suggested that the adapted version of the scales for measuring “fun job responsibilities”, “fun activities”, “manager support for fun”, and “coworker socializing” can be used in Turkey. Researchers can employ these scales to examine the four dimensions of workplace fun as distinct constructs. Additionally, managers can utilize the validated indicators of workplace fun as a basis for creating a fun workplace.

🔖

Cite This Article

SEKARAWİSUT, W., YURTKORU, E. S. (2021). ADAPTATION AND VALIDATION OF THE SCALES FOR ASSESSING WORKPLACE FUN IN TURKEY. Research Journal of Business and Management, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 1, 15–26. https://ajindex.com/articles/238863

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Andreassen, C. C., Hetland, J., & Pallesen, S. (2010). The relationship between ‘workaholism’, basic needs satisfaction at work and personality. European Journal of Personality, 24(1), 3-17.
  2. Andreassen, C. C., Hetland, J., & Pallesen, S. (2014). Psychometric assessment of workaholism measures. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(1), 7-24.
  3. Bagozzi, R., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structure equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
  4. Bolton, S. C., & Houlihan, M. (2009). Are we having fun yet? A consideration of workplace fun and engagement. Employee Relations, 31(6), 556-568.
  5. Chan, S. C. H. (2010). Does workplace fun matter? Developing a useable typology of workplace fun in a qualitative study. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(4), 720-728.
  6. Cooper, P. (2005). A study of innovators’ experience of new product innovation in organizations. R&D Management, 35(5), 525-533.
  7. Ersoy-Kart, M. (2005). Reliability and validity of the workaholism battery (work-bat): Turkish Form. Social Behavior and Personality, 33(6), 609-618.
  8. Fluegge, E. R. (2008). Who put the fun in functional? Fun at work and its effects on job performance (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021955/00001
  9. Fluegge-Woolf, E. R. (2014). Play hard, work hard: Fun at work and job performance. Management Research Review, 37(8), 682-705.
  10. Ford, R. C., McLaughlin, F. S., & Newstrom, J. W. (2003). Questions and answers about fun at work. Human Resource Planning, 26(4), 18-33.
  11. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Essex, England: Pearson Education. Karamfilov, K. (2018). Leader's endorsement of idiosyncratic workplace fun, organizational playfulness, climate, and organizational creativity (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. Karl, K., & Peluchette, J. (2006). How does workplace fun impact employee perceptions of customer service quality? Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13(2), 2-13.
  12. Karl, K., 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(1), 71-96.
  13. Karl, K., Peluchette, J., Hall, L., & Harland, L. (2005). Attitudes toward workplace fun: A three sector comparison. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 12(2), 1-17.
  14. Karl, K., Peluchette, J. V., & Harland, L. (2007). Is fun for e