Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
Read online:
Scan this QR
code with your
smart phone or
mobile device
to read online.
South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences
ISSN: (Online) 2222-3436, (Print) 1015-8812
Page 1 of 11 Original Research
hp://www.sajems.org Open Access
Authors:
Liana Fourie1
Crizelle Els1
Leon T. de Beer1
Aliaons:
1Work Well Research Unit,
North-West University,
Potchefstroom, South Africa
Corresponding author:
Crizelle Els,
crizelle.els@nwu.ac.za
Dates:
Received: 17 Sept. 2018
Accepted: 12 Feb. 2020
Published: 27 May 2020
How to cite this arcle:
Fourie, L., Els, C. &
De Beer, L.T., 2020,
‘A play-at-work intervenon:
What are the benets?’,
South African Journal of
Economic and Management
Sciences 23(1), a2815.
hps://doi.org/10.4102/
sajems.v23i1.2815
Copyright:
© 2020. The Authors.
Licensee: AOSIS. This work
is licensed under the
Creave Commons
Aribuon License.
Introducon
Traditionally, play and work were seen as opposites, but in the modern workplace, play seems to
be intertwined with work (Butler et al. 2011; West 2015). Many organisations have reformed to a
fun and playful work environment. West (2015) describes play as a behavioural approach that is
characterised by play being voluntary, fun, frivolous, imaginative, and bound by structure or
rules in some way. A playful work environment does not directly meet any organisational
outcomes, but it can be a pleasurable mood booster as joy is emotionally contagious, resulting in
employees learning from one other, improved team cohesion, social relationships, creativity, trust,
commitment and productivity (Han, Kim & Jeong 2016; Sukovic, Litting & England 2011; Tews,
Michel & Noe 2017; Verenikina & Hasan 2010; West 2015). Literature has indicated that younger
employees may welcome play at work, while the majority of the senior workforce may not enjoy
it (Belkin 2007). Research has also proved that fun working environments are more customary in
less formal organisations (Bolton & Plester 2009).
Although the benefits of a playful work environment are confirmed in the literature above, the
majority of studies found in the literature study the gamification of work, rather than playing at
work. Gamification refers to the application of characteristics from games into non-gaming
contexts (Perryer et al. 2016); in other words, gamification suggests that you modify the employees’
work into the form of a game. Although this type of work design has proven to have a positive
impact on the workplace (Kapp 2012; Perryer et al. 2016), others have revealed that employees do
not enjoy being forced by management to play as fun and laughter are spontaneous and not a
package with the promise of results (Bolton & Houlihan 2009). Similarly, West (2015) suggests that
play should be done just for fun and for no other reason. Play at work, rather than the gamification
Background: Organisations are investing time and resources in implementing play at work.
However, the possible effect of play at work as an organisational intervention is largely
unknown.
Aim: This study aimed to determine the effect of a play-at-work intervention on psychological
detachment, work enjoyment, employee performance, and workplace boredom of work teams.
Setting: The sample consisted of 26 telemarketing employees in the Northwest Province,
South Africa.
Methods: A longitudinal, three-wave intervention study design was followed. The sample
consisted of two work teams from a telesales company divided into the experimental
group (n = 9) and the control group (n = 17). A play-atwork intervention consisting of different
single-player and multi-player games was developed. Surveys were used to collect data prior
to introducing the intervention, after one week of play, and again after the second week of the
intervention.
Results: The results indicated that the play-at-work intervention positively influenced
employees’ psychological detachment during their lunch break. Team performance also
increased when the play-at-work intervention was introduced.
Conclusion: Employees who participates in play during their breaks will be more likely to
psychologically detach compared to other employees. Also, organisations who implement
play will have higher team performance compared to others.
Keywords: play-at-work intervention; psychological detachment; work enjoyment; team
performance; workplace boredom.
A play-at-work intervenon: What are the benets?
Read online:
Scan this QR
code with your
smart phone or
mobile device
to read online.
Note This arcle is parally based on the rst author ’s mini-dissertaon submied in paral fullment of the requirements for the
degree Master’s of Commerce in Industrial Psychology at North-West University, South Africa, with supervisor Dr C.E. and co-supervisor,
Prof. L.T.d.B., received May 2018, available from: hps://repository.nwu.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10394/30974/Fourie_L.pdf?is
Allowed=y&sequence=1.
Page 2 of 11 Original Research
hp://www.sajems.org Open Access
of work, refers to employees playing games just for fun, to
enable them to psychologically detach from work and
replenish their resources (Hülsheger 2016), before they
commence working again. Therefore, for the purpose of this
study, play at work was used as a term to describe fun
activities or games in the workplace separate from work.
Research has shown that playing while at work creates a
break in the workday, which may benefit employees’
motivation, involvement, relationships and physical and
mental fitness (Sørensen & Spoelstra 2012).
Despite fascinating findings regarding play, empirical
research regarding the relationship between play and work is
scarce, and consequently the effects of play on organisational
outcomes are still relatively unknown (Perryer et al. 2016;
Sørensen & Spoelstra 2012). Therefore, it is against this
background that the current study aims to investigate the
effect of play as organisational intervention on different
workplace constructs.
Review of literature
Play at work and psychological detachment
One of the main recovery experiences is psychological
detachment which refers to employees refraining from work-
related thoughts and activities during non-work time,
thereby disengaging psychologically from work (Sonnentag
& Fritz 2015). It forms part of the conservation of resources
(COR) theory and the effort-recovery (E-R) model that
emphasise that employees need to recover to restore lost
resources (Hülsheger 2016; Sonnentag & Fritz 2007). Previous
studies have been in agreement that it is important for
employees’ well-being to psychologically detach from work
during non-work time as it helps employees to restore
energetic and affective resources (Sonnentag & Fritz 2015;
Sonnentag & Kühnel 2016; Zijlstra, Cropley & Rydstedt 2014).
Play promotes openness and humour, and helps employees
to temporarily relax and forget about objectives (West 2015).
A study conducted by Oerlemans, Bakker and Demerouti
(2014) revealed that happiness during physical and social
activities enhances recovery among employees. Similarly,
Trougakos and Hideg (2009) affirm that enjoyable activities
help employees to restore their affective resources. However,
previous research shows that employees who experience
workplace fun had lower levels of emotional exhaustion and
emotional conflict (Karl, Peluchette & Harland 2007).
Additionally, employees psychologically detach more when
they are fully engaged or absorbed by the off-job activities
(Feuerhahn, Sonnentag & Woll 2014; Hahn, Binnewies &
Haun 2012). Therefore, the assumption could be made that
play at work may help employees to psychologically detach
from work as it can be an enjoyable activity that is not
completely undemanding. Against this background this
hypothesis is formulated:
H1: A play-at-work intervention will be effective in increasing
the psychological detachment of an experimental group,
compared to the psychological detachment of a control group.
Psychological detachment was at first only measured away
from work, but Sonnentag and Fritz (2015) argue that
employees can psychologically detach from work during
their breaks; however, research regarding this is lacking.
Therefore, there is a gap in the literature regarding
psychological detachment during break times at work, which
this study aimed to investigate. Furthermore, another study
also identified that employees felt most fatigued before their
lunch break than any other part of the day (Hülsheger 2016).
Play at work and work enjoyment
The workforce of today has changed from the previous years:
employees now expect their work to be fun and enjoyable
(Romero & Pescosolido 2008; West 2015). Research has
proved that the workplace can have a large impact on
employees’ happiness and well-being (Rodríguez-Muñoz &
Sanz-Vergel 2013) thereby highlighting the importance to
investigate employee’s work enjoyment. Work enjoyment
refers to the extent that employees perceive their work as
pleasurable or enjoyable (Graves et al. 2012).
Peters et al. (2014) explain that work enjoyment is how
employees evaluate the quality of their lives at work.
The antecedents of work enjoyment include employee
characteristics, the employees’ work itself and the work
environment (Bakker 2008), and therefore this study argues
that a play-at-work intervention will influence the work
environment, thereby influencing work enjoyment levels:
H2: A play-at-work intervention will be effective in increasing
the work enjoyment of an experimental group, compared to the
work enjoyment of a control group.
For employees to be happy at work, they need to experience
more pleasure (Bakker & Daniels 2013; Xanthopoulou,
Bakker & Ilies 2012). Positive events such as the play-at-work
intervention can lead to employees experiencing positive
emotions (Trougakos & Hideg 2009). According to the
broaden-and-build theory, when employees experience
positive emotions, it can increase a variety of personal
resources (Fredrickson et al. 2008). Consequently, a study by
Demerouti et al. (2012) identified that work enjoyment results
in lower exhaustion levels and higher vigour levels.
The authors also identified that employees who psychologically
detach during off time and who had high levels of work
enjoyment also showed higher levels of vigour. Therefore, it is
no surprise that research has proved that happy employees
can lead to an organisation’s competitive advantage (Kasper-
Brauer & Leischnig 2016). This is supported by other studies
that proved that work enjoyment can lead to improved work
performance (Engeser & Rheinberg 2008; Graves et al. 2012;
Hsiao et al. 2015).
Play at work and performance
If an organisation wants to have the competitive edge, it
need to ensure that it employs the best persons for the job;
however, it seems that the new career enterers value fun at
Page 3 of 11 Original Research
hp://www.sajems.org Open Access
work. Thus it is understandable that many organisations are
creating a fun work environment since it has an influence on
not only the well-being of their employees, but also the
reputation of the company, as well as employee performance
(Karl et al. 2007). Performance is important for any
organisation as it directly influences the profitability of an
organisation (Maiga, Nilsson & Ax 2015). Performance is
defined as ‘those actions and behaviours that are under the
control of the individual and contribute to the goals of the
organisation’ (Rotundo & Sackett 2002:66).
Tews, Michel and Stafford (2013) argue that fun at work may
allow employees to take a break from work, resulting in
employees being more engaged when they start working again,
thereby improving performance. Karl et al. (2007) identified
that fun at work can increase employee satisfaction and
performance. Similarly, Fluegge-Woolf (2014) found that fun at
work is directly and positively related to citizenship behaviour
and indirectly and positively related to employee performance.
Butler et al. (2011) add that the less the office is perceived as dull
and dreary, the more value will be added to the bottom line.
Therefore, the assumption could be made that the play-at-work
intervention will increase employee performance:
H3: A play-at-work intervention will be effective in increasing
the team performance of an experimental group, compared to
the team performance of a control group.
Play at work and workplace boredom
Workplace boredom refers to the experience of boredom
within the domain of work (Van Wyk et al. 2016). Workplace
boredom is described by Schaufeli and Salanova (2014) as ‘an
unpleasant state of relatively low arousal and dissatisfaction,
which is attributed to an inadequately stimulating work
situation’ (p. 298). When an employee’s ability exceeds task
complexity, workplace boredom is more likely to be
experienced (Schaufeli & Salanova 2014; Van Wyk et al. 2016).
Cummings, Gao and Thornburg (2016) also mentioned that
workplace boredom is experienced when employees feel
their work is too simple and easy or when they have too little
to do. Therefore, workplace boredom has also been linked to
employees doing short repetitive work (Schaufeli & Salanova
2014). Consequently, it is clear that the work environment
and job characteristics are seen as main sources of workplace
boredom (Loukidou, Loan-Clarke & Daniels 2009).
According to the mood management theory, employees seek
entertainment when they experience workplace boredom
(Perryer et al. 2016). The authors further explain that,
according to the mood management theory, play at work can
satisfy hedonic needs of employees and assist in regulating
arousal by reducing the experience of boredom. Jackson and
Carter (2011) also argue that employees use boredom to
generate the need to do something pleasurable, for instance
play at work. Butler et al. (2011) explain that work has an
intrinsic relation to the experience of workplace boredom
and play represents the employees’ desire to escape from it.
Therefore, according to the authors, it is understandable that
employees implement play in the workplace to cover up the
boredom experienced by employees:
H4: A play-at-work intervention will be effective in reducing the
workplace boredom of an experimental group, compared to the
workplace boredom of a control group.
Although theory suggests that play can reduce workplace
boredom, more research is needed to identify the direct
influence of play on workplace boredom (Spraggon &
Bodolica 2014).
Method
Research design
A longitudinal, three-wave, pre-test–post-test randomised
experimental design was followed. In longitudinal studies,
researchers collect data from the same subjects at more than
one point in time. A pre-test was administered to the
experimental and the control group before a play-at-work
intervention was introduced. One post-test was done after
one week of implementing the intervention and again after
the second week of implementing the intervention. Paper-
based questionnaires were used to collect the data.
Research parcipants
The sample consisted of employees working at a telesales
company in the North West province of South Africa. A non-
probability purposive sampling strategy was followed. The
telesales environment may tend to be repetitive, creating an
ideal environment for evaluating the intervention developed
in this study. The telesales department of the organisation
consisted mainly of two work teams and these two teams were
randomly assigned to the experimental and the control group.
Therefore, both of the teams had an equal chance of being the
experimental or the control group (Boot et al. 2013; Reid 2013).
The biographical characteristics of the participants are
presented in Table 1.
The sample consisted of two very small groups of employees;
all the employees in the department were invited to partic ipate
in the study and 26 participants (N = 26) completed all three
waves of data. The experimental group consisted of 9
participants (n = 9) and the control group consisted of 17
participants (n = 17). The majority of the experimental group
sample were female (n = 6; 66.67%) and 88.89% (n = 8) of the
participants were between the ages of 20 and 29. The control
group consisted mostly of men (n = 11; 64.71%) and 88.24%
(n = 15) of the sample were between the ages of 20 and 29.
TABLE 1: Biographical characteriscs of parcipants.
Variable Category Experimental group Control group
Frequency %Frequency %
Gender Female 666.67 635.29
Male 3 33.33 11 64.71
Age 20–29 8 88.89 15 88.24
30–39 0 0.00 15.88
40–49 111.11 15.88
Page 4 of 11 Original Research
hp://www.sajems.org Open Access
Measuring instruments
Psychological detachment
Psychological detachment was measured by adapting the
psychological detachment dimension of the Recovery
Experience Questionnaire (REQ) of Sonnentag and Fritz
(2007). The four psychological detachment items were
adjusted to measure psychological detachment during the
employees’ lunch break when they participated in the play-
at-work intervention (e.g. ‘During my break time I do not
think about work at all’).
Work enjoyment
Work enjoyment was measured with the work pleasure scale,
a section of the Dutch Questionnaire on the Experiences and
Evaluation of Work (Van Veldhoven et al. 1997). This scale
has nine items (e.g. ‘I enjoy my work’) and has been proven
to be reliable with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.80
(Kompier, Taris & Van Veldhoven 2012).
Team performance
Team performance was measured with objective performance
data provided by the participating organisation. The team
performance was calculated with the added total of all
team members’ number of sales and number of upgrades.
The team performance during the two weeks of the
intervention (first two weeks of July 2017) was compared
to: (1) the team performance in the month preceding the
intervention (i.e. first two weeks of June 2017) and (2) team
performance by the teams at the same time during the
previous year (i.e. first two weeks of July 2016). The
experimental group’s team performance was also compared
to that of the control group.
Workplace boredom
Workplace boredom was measured with the one-dimensional
Dutch Boredom Scale (DUBS) developed by Reijseger et al.
(2013). This scale has six items (e.g. ‘I tend to do other things
during my work’) and has reported a Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient of 0.78 within the South African context (Van Wyk
et al. 2016).
All the items were measured on a six-point Likert scale:
1 (Strongly disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3 (Slightly disagree),
4 (Slightly agree), 5 (Agree), 6 (Strongly agree).
Feedback on the experiences and choices of games for the
intervention was also included in the survey. Specifically, the
open-ended questions that were asked included: ‘Please
indicate the dates on which you have played this week. Also
indicate the length of time you played each day’, ‘Please
indicate which games you have played in this week. Also
indicate the approximate time spent on each game’, and
‘What was your overall experience of this opportunity to
play during your lunch break?’
Play-at-work intervenon
For the purpose of this study a play-at-work intervention was
developed. As employees might not share the same interest in
games, the intervention consisted of different single-player
and multi-player games and the games catered for individuals
who enjoy sport-like, creative, thinking, board-based and
puzzle games. Employees were free to choose which games
they wanted to play during the intervention (Perryer et al.
2016). The 13 games that were implemented were chosen
after consulting with experts in the field of industrial
psychology. Table 2 provides a brief description of the games
that were included in the intervention.
Research procedure
The first survey (pre-test) was administered to both the
experimental and the control group prior to introducing
the intervention. During the first week of introducing the
intervention, only the experimental group had the
opportunity to play during their lunch break for one hour.
TABLE 2: Intervenon games.
Game Descripon
Foosball This is a table game that resembles soccer in which a ball is moved by turning rods to which small gures of players are aached. This game is typically
played by more than one player.
Darts Darts is a throwing sport in which individuals throw small missiles at a targeted dartboard. Points are earned according to allocated spots on the dart
board. This game can be played by one or more players.
Adult colouring Adult colouring refers to line art to which people need to add colour with crayons, coloured pencils or marker pens.
Neon-paint doodling This refers to painng images with paint that glows when exposed to uorescent light.
30 Seconds 30 Seconds is a fast-paced game that is based on an individual’s general knowledge. One player must guess as many words correct in 30 seconds from
their teammate’s explanaon. Two or more individuals can play this game.
Heads Up An electronic device (phone or tablet) is held against the forehead of one player, containing a word. The player should guess the word by following the
clues given by team members. It can be played with two or more players.
Scrabble This is a board game that is based on forming words and earning points accordingly. This can be played with two to four players.
Fingerboard This game is played on a square wooden board and the goal is to shoot disks into side pockets of the board, using your ngers. One to four players can
play this game.
Jenga This game is represented by a stack of wooden blocks. Two or more players take turns to remove a wooden block and replace it on top of the stack with
one hand, unl the tower falls.
Crossword puzzles A crossword is a word puzzle consisng of a grid of squares, usually containing clues. The goal is to correctly guess the words or phrases to complete
the grid.
Sudoku The goal of Sudoku is to ll a 9×9 grid with numbers so that each row, column and 3×3 secon contain all of the numbers between 1 and 9.
Playing cards Normal cards (Bicycle cards) that are used in games such as snap and poker.
Dominoes There are many games that can be played with dominoes, but the simplest and most played is known as ‘block dominoes’. Two to four players take turns
to place one of their dominoes onto the table, so all dominoes are linked based on the number of dots on each domino.
Page 5 of 11 Original Research
hp://www.sajems.org Open Access
After the first week of introducing the play-at-work
intervention, both the experimental and the control groups
completed the first post-test. To also allow the control group
to have the opportunity to play, both the experimental and
control group had the opportunity to play during the second
week of the intervention. After the second week of play, both
the experimental and the control group completed the second
post-test. Figure 1 illustrates the implementation of the play-
at-work intervention and the research procedure followed to
collect the data.
All the questionnaires were distributed by hand and
participants anonymously deposited their completed surveys
in a sealed box provided. A unique code was generated by
each of the participants that consisted of the first three letters
of the employee’s mother’s name, followed by the first three
letters of their father’s name. The unique code protected the
identity of the participants and also assisted in identifying the
employees who completed surveys on more than one
occasion.
Stascal analysis
The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version
24 (IBM Corp. 2017) was used to perform statistical analyses.
Descriptive statistics provided a summary of the data:
measures of central tendency were calculated with the mean
and median scores; measures of dispersion were calculated
with variance, standard deviation, range, and skewness and
kurtosis scores (Struwig & Stead 2013). Statistical significance
was set at the 0.05 level (i.e. p < 0.05). The independent sample
t-test was used to test for statistical differences between mean
scores of the two groups (Elliott & Woodward 2007). The SPSS
program includes Levene’s test to investigate for the
homogeneity of variances.
The mean scores of psychological detachment, work
enjoyment and workplace boredom were compared within
and between the groups to ascertain if there were any
significant differences between the scores on the variables
over time. The three different waves of data from the
experimental group were compared (within groups) and the
three different waves of data from the control group were
also compared (within groups). The mean scores of the
experimental group were also compared to the mean scores
of the control group (between groups). To determine whether
the intervention had the same impact on both groups during
their first week of play, the mean scores of the second wave of
data of the experimental group were also compared to the
mean scores of the third wave of data from the control group.
When the independent sample t-test indicated statistically
significant differences in mean scores, an effect size was
calculated (i.e. Cohen’s d value). Cohen’s d value represented
the standardised mean differences between groups with
small effects (d = 0.20), medium effects (d = 0.50) and large
effects (d = 0.80) (Ellis 2010).
Ethical consideraon
Ethical clearance has been obtained from the Economic and
Management Sciences Research Ethics Committee (EMS-
REC), North-West University (ethics no. NWU-00439-17-A4)
prior to conducting the study.
Results
The distribution of scores is presented in Table 3.
The data set was normally distributed since the skewness
and kurtosis scores were between 1 and -1, as can be seen in
Table 3 (Reid 2013). All the requirements for an independent
sample t-test were met as Levene’s test supported
homogeneity of variances. This analysis indicated that all the
results had equal variances assumed, as none of Levene’s
tests for equality of variances’ results proved to be statistically
significant (p < 0.05).
TABLE 3: Data distribuon.
Variable Mean Median Variance Standard deviaon Range Skewness Kurtosis
Psychological detachment 15.37 15.50 23.22 4.82 19.00 -0.03 -0.70
Work enjoyment 29.00 28.00 22.18 4.71 25.00 0.50 0.43
Workplace boredom 16.62 15.50 41.64 6.45 25.00 0.20 -0.79
TABLE 4: Group mean scores and standard deviaons.
Variable Experimental group Control group
Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 3 Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 3
M S.D. M S.D. M S.D. M S.D. M S.D. M S.D.
Psychological detachment 10.67 3.28 17.33 2.74 18.89 2.62 12.53 3.86 13.59 4.21 19.59 3.76
Work enjoyment 31.11 5.09 28.89 4.08 29.89 4.08 28.82 3.89 28.94 5.32 27.71 5.38
Workplace boredom 19.22 4.52 18.67 5.29 17.56 5.39 16.00 7.01 15.71 7.82 15.18 6.43
M, mean value; S.D., standard deviaon.
Experimental
Group
Control group
Survey
1Play
= 1 week intervenon
Play
Play
Survey
2
Survey
3
Survey
1
Survey
2
Survey
3
FIGURE 1: Research procedure.
Page 6 of 11 Original Research
hp://www.sajems.org Open Access
When comparing the mean scores, as seen in Table 4, the
mean score for psychological detachment is noticeably lower
at survey 1 for the experimental group when compared to the
other surveys and the control group, with a standard
deviation of 3.28. Furthermore, it can be seen that the mean
score for psychological detachment of the control group
increased considerably from survey 2 to survey 3 after the
introduction of play. The results showed that the mean scores
for work enjoyment and workplace boredom stayed relatively
unchanged across the three surveys.
As seen in Table 5, when comparing the pre-test (survey 1)
and the post-test (survey 2) of the experimental group,
statistically significant differences were indicated for
psychological detachment (p < 0.001). Cohen’s d value
(d = 2.207) indicated a large practical effect between these
mean scores. There were no statistical differences for work
enjoyment and workplace boredom.
The mean scores of the pre-test (survey 1) were compared
with the second post-test (survey 3) of the experimental
group and the results indicate statistically significant
differences (p < 0.001) for psychological detachment with
Cohen’s d value indicating a large practical effect size
difference (d = 2.771). However, no statistical differences were
indicated for work enjoyment and workplace boredom. Also,
no statistical differences were found when comparing the
first (survey 2) and the second post-test (survey 3) of the
experimental group.
As seen in Table 5 no statistically significant differences were
indicated when comparing the pre-test of the experimental
group to the pre-test of the control group. When comparing
the results of the second survey of the experimental group to
those of the control group, statistically significant results
were found at psychological detachment (p = 0.025), with
Cohen’s d value indicating a large practical effect (d = 1.054).
Again, no statistical differences were indicated for work
enjoyment and workplace boredom.
Finally, Table 5 indicates that no statistically significant
differences were indicated when comparing the third survey of
the experimental group to that of the control group. When
comparing the results of the first week of play of both groups
(survey 2 of the experimental group and survey 3 of the control
group), no statistically significant differences were indicated.
No statistically significant differences were identified when
comparing the control group’s mean scores of the pre-test
(survey 1) to the first post-test (survey 2). There were statistical
differences (p < 0.001) indicated at psychological detachment
when comparing the pre-test (survey 1) to the second post-test
(survey 3) of the control group, and Cohen’s d value indicated a
large practical effect (d = 1.853). When comparing survey 1 and
survey 3 of the control group, again no statistical differences
were found for work enjoyment and workplace boredom.
To assess team performance, the number of sales and
upgrades made per team were calculated during the
intervention (i.e. first two weeks of July 2017), one month
prior to the intervention (i.e. first two weeks of June 2016)
and one year prior to the intervention (i.e. first two weeks of
July 2016). Firstly, the team performance of the experimental
group for July 2017 was compared to the same team’s
performance for July 2016. The results indicate that the team’s
performance was higher during the intervention in July 2017
when compared to July 2016. When comparing the control
group’s performance for July 2017 with the previous year,
July 2016, the results indicate that the control group also
performed better when participating in the intervention.
Furthermore, the results suggest that the experimental
group’s performance during the intervention was higher
than their performance the previous month, June 2017, as
seen in Figure 2. The experimental group’s team performance
TABLE 5: Independent sample t-test results.
Variable pMean dierence Cohen’s d
Independent sample t-test survey 1 and survey 2 of the experimental group
Psychological detachment 0.001*-6.667 2.207
Work enjoyment 0.322 2.222 -
Workplace boredom 0.814 0.556 -
Independent sample t-test survey 1 and survey 3 of the experimental group
Psychological detachment 0.001*-8.222 2.771
Work enjoyment 0.581 1.222 -
Workplace boredom 0.487 1.667 -
Independent sample t-test survey 2 of the experimental and the control group
Psychological detachment 0.025*3.745 1.054
Work enjoyment 0.980 -0.052 -
Workplace boredom 0.320 2.961 -
Independent sample t-test survey 1 and survey 3 of the control group
Psychological detachment 0.001*-7.059 1.853
Work enjoyment 0.493 1.118 -
Workplace boredom 0.723 0.824 -
*, signicant; d, eect size.
0
100
200
300
400
500
Experimental group Control group
Performance
Group
0
100
200
300
400
500
Experimental group Control group
Performance
Group
July 2016 July 2017
a
June 2017 July 2017
b
FIGURE 2: Comparison of team performance in the experimental and control
groups: (a) July 2016 and July 2017; (b) June 2017 and July 2017.
Page 7 of 11 Original Research
hp://www.sajems.org Open Access
during the first week of the intervention was also compared
to their performance during the second week of the
intervention. The results revealed that more sales were
made during the second week of introducing the intervention
than the first week of the intervention. Comparison of the
control group’s results to that of the month before the
intervention was implemented (June 2017) indicated that
the control group performed better while participating in
the intervention, as seen in Figure 2.
Additional data was also gathered in the second and third
survey to document the number of participants interested in
each game, the total amount of time spent on each game, as
well as the experiences of the employees playing these games.
Table 6 illustrates the number of participants who played
each of the games per week, and the total time (in minutes)
each team spent playing each game per week. Both the
experimental and control groups seemed to have enjoyed the
foosball, darts, neon-paint doodling, 30 Seconds, fingerboard
and playing cards. Less play time was spent on adult
colouring, Heads Up, Scrabble, Jenga, crossword puzzles,
Sudoku and dominoes.
Discussion
This study aimed to determine the effect of a play-at-work
intervention on organisational outcomes of work teams by
specifically investigating psychological detachment, work
enjoyment, team performance and workplace boredom. This
study sought to address the gap in the literature, as previous
research regarding the application of play to the workplace
context is sparse and as psychological detachment during
employees’ lunch break has not been fully investigated
(Perryer et al. 2016; Sonnentag & Fritz 2015; West 2015). To
this end, a play-at-work intervention was implemented in a
telesales organisation in South Africa for two weeks.
Hypothesis 1 stated that a play-at-work intervention will be
effective in increasing the psychological detachment of an
experimental group, compared to the psychological detachment
of a control group. The results support this hypothesis as
the second survey indicated that the experimental group
experienced higher levels of psychological detachment during
their lunch break when participating in the play-at-work
intervention compared to the control group who at this stage
did not participate in the intervention. The results of comparing
survey 1 and survey 2 of the experimental group also
confirmed that employees psychologically detached more
while participating in the intervention. This hypothesis was
again supported when comparing survey 1 and survey 3 of
the experimental group and survey 1 and survey 3 of the
control group. These results support the arguments that
employees can psychologically detach during their lunch
break and that leisure activities that are enjoyable, positive
and not completely undemanding help employees to
psychologically detach (Sonnentag & Fritz 2015; Trougakos &
Hideg 2009; Tucker et al. 2008).
These findings suggest that a play-at-work intervention has the
potential to allow employees to psychologically detach from
their work. This finding is important, as the benefits of
psychological detachment for both the individual and the
organisation has been noted in previous research, indicating its
impact. For example, a study by Moreno-Jiménez et al. (2009)
found that psychological detachment moderates the relationship
between workplace bullying and psychological strain. Previous
research also suggests that psychological detachment from
work alleviated the negative relationship between relationship
conflicts at work and well-being (Sonnentag, Unger & Nägel
2013). It was also found that psychological detachment
moderated the relationship between role conflict and anxiety
(Moreno-Jiménez et al. 2012). Sonnentag, Binnewies and Mojza
(2010) identified in a longitudinal study that psychological
detachment from work has an impact on emotional exhaustion
and buffers the relationship between job demands and
psychosomatic complaints. The authors also identified that
psychological detachment moderates the relationship between
job demands and work engagement.
Hypothesis 2 of this study stated that a play-at-work
intervention will be effective in increasing the work
enjoyment of an experimental group, compared to the work
enjoyment of the control group. This hypothesis was rejected
as the results suggested that both the experimental group
TABLE 6: Collecve minutes played per team, per week.
Variable Experimental group Experimental group Control group
Number of parcipants Total minutes week 1 Number of parcipants Total minutes week 2 Number of parcipants Total minutes week 2
Neon-paint doodling 4 360 2 105 7 655
Darts 7 290 7 370 10 435
30 Seconds 7 320 5 225 12 405
Foosball 6160 4 175 8 295
Playing cards 7 265 5 180 7 260
Fingerboard 2 35 4 125 12 1050
Adult colouring 130 0 0 2 75
Heads Up 160 0 0 110
Scrabble 0 0 0 0 5 105
Dominoes 115 0 0 115
Jenga 0 0 0 0 2 30
Crossword puzzles 130 0 0 0 0
Sudoku 0 0 115 112
Page 8 of 11 Original Research
hp://www.sajems.org Open Access
and control group’s work enjoyment levels were relatively
unaffected by the intervention. A possible reason for the lack
of significant increase in work enjoyment may be because the
play-at-work intervention took place during the employees’
lunch break and therefore did not have anything to do with
the employees’ work itself. Sanz-Vergel and Muñoz (2013)
also explained that work enjoyment refers to employees
feeling happy while working. Research regarding the
gamification of work may possibly yield more significant
results when trying to establish a relationship between play
and the work itself, since gamification entails the application
of game characteristics into non-gaming contexts (Perryer
et al. 2016), meaning that you transform the employees’ work
into the form of a game.
Hypothesis 3 stated that a play-at-work intervention will be
effective in increasing the team performance of an experimental
group, compared to the team performance of the control group.
The results from this study did indeed indicate that a play-at-
work intervention has the potential to increase employee
performance. It was found that the performance of the
experimental group slightly increased during the duration of
the intervention compared to the team’s performance one
month prior to the intervention, and also during the same time
of the previous year. However, the control group’s results also
indicated that the team performance improved when
participating in the play-at-work intervention. Therefore,
according to the results, the play-at-work intervention seemed
to improve the team performance of the experimental and the
control group, thereby supporting hypothesis 3. These results
are in line with Sørensen and Spoelstra (2012) who stated that
play in an organisation is productive for work. Verenikina and
Hasan (2010) also argued that play at work is an influence on
the emotional climate and performance of an organisation.
Previous research also indicated that recovery among employees
predicts improved performance (Binnewies, Sonnentag &
Mojza 2010; Halbesleben, Wheeler & Paustian-Underdahl 2013;
Volman, Bakker & Xanthopoulou 2013). This may also explain
the increase in the team performance in this study.
Hypothesis 4 suggested that a play-at-work intervention will
be effective in reducing the workplace boredom of an
experimental group, compared to the workplace boredom of
a control group, which was not confirmed by the results.
There were no statistically significant differences indicated in
workplace boredom when the groups were compared,
thereby indicating that the levels of workplace boredom
experienced by the employees did not change during the
play-at-work intervention. Therefore, the hypothesis is
rejected. These results are in contrast to the suggestion made
by Butler et al. (2011) that work and play have a relationship
with boredom experienced by employees. These results also
do not support that games in the workplace can help to
restore a deficit such as boredom, as explained by the mood
management theory (Perryer et al. 2016). Research has
proved that when employees’ abilities exceed their task
complexity, and when they have too little to do, they are
more prone to experiencing workplace boredom (Cummings
et al. 2016; Schaufeli & Salanova 2014; Van Wyk et al. 2016).
The lack of decline in workplace boredom experienced in our
study may be explained by the fact that the play-at-work
intervention may have given employees the opportunity to
do something else when they experience workplace boredom,
but it did not change the employee’s task complexity. Another
reason for the rejection of the hypothesis may be due to the
short duration of the play-at-work intervention.
The question can be raised whether two weeks of intervention
allows sufficient time to recover from boredom at work.
Previous studies identified that employees under the age of
30 are more prone to enjoy fun in the workplace (Belkin 2007;
Tews, Michel & Bartlett 2012). The participants in this study
were all almost younger than 30: 88.89% of the experimental
group were younger than 30, and 88.24% of the control
group were also younger than 30. For this reason, the age of
the majority of the sample could have had an impact on the
results. As employees older than 30 are not inclined to
participate in fun at work, an older workforce may not
have participated in the play-at-work intervention, which
could have resulted in no statistically significant findings.
The results also suggest that the participants showed
interest in different games. This is in line with Perryer et al.
(2016) who stated that all employees will not be interested
in the same games, as well as with Karl et al. (2007) who
identified that fun may be welcomed by some employees
and not by others. Both teams seemed to enjoy the neon-
paint doodling, foosball, darts, 30 Seconds, fingerboard
and playing cards; interestingly, all of these games are
group based, except for the neon-paint doodling.
Employees showed little to no interest in the individual
games, for example adult colouring and crossword puzzles.
Furthermore, the participants’ positive experiences
indicated that the play-at-work intervention was relaxing
for the employees and it helped them to forget about work
for a moment. Participants also reported that they got to
know their colleagues in a new way. Participants reported
that they also felt more focused and positive after playing
in their lunch breaks.
These findings support Trougakos and Hideg (2009) who
identified that the experience of positive events also enhances
the experience of positive emotions. This also builds on the
broaden-and-build theory that conceives when employees
experience positive emotions, it helps them to increase
personal resources (Fredrickson et al. 2008).
Praccal implicaons
In this study, it was found that play at work can increase the
psychological detachment of employees.
Psychological detachment can be greatly beneficial for the
individual and the organisation. Research has shown that
psychological detachment plays a moderating role in the
relationships between some important organisational
variables, including the relationship between workplace
Page 9 of 11 Original Research
hp://www.sajems.org Open Access
relationship conflicts and well-being (Sonnentag et al. 2013);
it also moderates the relationship between anxiety and role
conflict in organisations (Moreno-Jiménez et al. 2012) and
psychological detachment moderates the relation between
job demands and work engagement (Sonnentag et al. 2010).
Therefore, based on this study’s results, it can be recommended
that organisations should invest in implementing play at
work to help employees to psychologically detach from work
as it can benefit an organisation in the long run.
Furthermore, it can be suggested that when organisations
invest time and resources to introduce playing at work, it may
increase their bottom line, as play at work improves team
performance, and performance has been proven to directly
influence the profitability of an organisation (Maiga et al. 2015).
Despite the positive consequences playing at work may
have on employees and their performance, organisations
should remember before implementing play in the
workplace that some employees may welcome play in the
workplace, while others may not (Karl et al. 2007). For
organisations to benefit from playing in the workplace, it is
therefore important to match play with the employees.
Furthermore, all employees differ and as a result they will
not be interested in the same type of games (Perryer et al.
2016), and consequently it is also important to match the
type of games with the employees in the organisation.
Research has shown that younger employees (Belkin 2007)
and more informal organisations (Bolton & Plester 2009) are
more inclined to enjoy fun in the workplace. However, this
does not mean that older employees or employees in more
formal work settings may not benefit from playing at work.
In the case of these employees, the organisation might need
to convince the employees of the possible benefits of playing
at work in order to win their buy-in. It can also be
recommended that these employees are given the
opportunity to express their preferences of the types of
games they are interested in.
Limitaons and recommendaons
This study is not without limitations. Firstly, the duration of
this study was only two weeks. Consequently, the long-term
effect of the intervention is still unknown. One could have
done a final survey one or two months after the intervention
to determine whether the inclines in psychological detachment
and performance were prolonged effects or only short-term
results. Furthermore, it can be argued that two weeks might
not have been enough time to influence levels of work
enjoyment and workplace boredom. It is therefore suggested
that future research should explore the possibility of a
prolonged play-at-work intervention and the influence of
such a longer duration on employee outcomes.
Secondly, the intervention was implemented in a telesales
organisation in the North West province of South Africa. The
participating organisation is described by its management
as informal. Previous research has indicated that informal
types of organisations are more inclined to participate in play
at work (Bolton & Plester 2009), and therefore this type of
intervention may not have the same effect in a more formal
organisation as employees may not participate in the play-at-
work intervention and therefore the intervention may not have
the same results. For this reason, these results cannot be
generalised to all organisations within the South African
context. Furthermore, this sample only had 9 participants in the
experimental group and 17 participants in the control group.
As estimates in small samples can be incorrect (Schönbrodt &
Perugini 2013), no reliability or correlations could be calculated.
It can therefore be suggested that future research should utilise
a larger sample to address this limitation.
Acknowledgements
Compeng interests
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Authors’ contribuons
L.F. fulfilled the role of the primary researcher, and this study
formed part of her master’s research. She was responsible for
the conceptualisation of the article, collecting of the data, the
interpretation of the research results, and the writing of the
article. C.E. acted as supervisor and L.T.d.B. as co-supervisor
to this study, and thus played an advisory role in this study
and assisted in the conceptualisation of the study and the
writing of the research article. L.T.d.B. also conducted the
statistical analyses.
Funding informaon
This study was in part funded by the WorkWell Research
Unit of the North-West University.
Data availability statement
Data sharing will be done in line with the ethics approval
for this study. Access to data can be requested from the
corresponding author.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of
the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or
position of any affiliated agency of the authors.
References
Bakker, A.B., 2008, ‘ The work-related ow inventory: Construcon and inial
validaon of the WOLF’, Journal of Vocaonal Behavior 72(3), 400–414. hps://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.11.007
Bakker, A.B. & Daniels, K., 2013, A day in the life of a happy worker, Psychology Press,
New York.
Belkin, L., 2007, ‘When whippersnappers and geezers collide’, The New York Times,
July 26, viewed 18 May, 2018, from hps://www.nymes.com/2007/07/26/
fashion/26work.html.
Binnewies, C., Sonnentag, S. & Mojza, E.J., 2010, ‘Recovery during the weekend and
uctuaons in weekly job performance: A week-level study examining intra-
individual relaonships’, Journal of Occupaonal & Organizaonal Psychology
83(2), 419–441. hps://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X418049
Page 10 of 11 Original Research
hp://www.sajems.org Open Access
Bolton, S.C. & Plester, B., 2009, ‘Crossing the line: Boundaries of workplace humour
and fun’, Employee Relaons 31(6), 584–599. hps://doi.org/10.1108/014254509
10991749
Boot, W.R., Simons, D.J., Stothart, C. & Stus, C., 2013, ‘The pervasive problem with
placebos in psychology: Why acve control groups are not sucient to rule out
placebo eects’, Perspecves on Psychological Science 8(4), 445–454. hps://doi.
org/10.1177/1745691613491271
Butler, N., Olaison, L., Sliwa, M., Sørensen, B.M. & Spoelstra, S., 2011, ‘Work, play and
boredom’, Ephemera Theory & Polics in Organizaon 11(4), 329–335.
Cummings, M.L., Gao, F. & Thornburg, K.M., 2016, ‘Boredom in the workplace: A new
look at an old problem’, Human Factors 58(2), 279–300. hps://doi.org/
10.1177/0018720815609503
Demerou, E., Bakker, A.B., Sonnentag, S. & Fullagar, C.J., 2012, ‘Work-related ow
and energy at work and at home: A study on the role of daily recovery’, Journal of
Organizaonal Behavior 33(2), 276–295. hps://doi.org/10.1002/job.760
Ellio, A.C. & Woodward, W.A., 2007, Stascal analysis quick reference guidebook:
With SPSS examples, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Ellis, P.D., 2010, The essenal guide to eect sizes: Stascal power, meta-analysis,
and the interpretaon of research results, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Engeser, S. & Rheinberg, F., 2008, ‘Flow, performance and moderators of challenge-
skill balance’, Movaon and Emoon 32(3), 158–172. hps://doi.org/10.1007/
s11031-008-9102-4
Feuerhahn, N., Sonnentag, S. & Woll, A., 2014, ‘Exercise aer work, psychological
mediators, and aect: A day-level study’, European Journal of Work & Organizaonal
Psychology 23(1), 62–79. hps://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.709965
Fluegge-Woolf, E., 2014, ‘Play hard, work hard: Fun at work and job performance’,
Management Research Review 37(8), 682–705. hps://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-11-
2012-0252
Fredrickson, B.L., Cohn, M.A., Coey, K.A., Pek, J. & Finkel, S.M., 2008, ‘Open hearts
build lives: Posive emoons, induced through loving-kindness meditaon, build
consequenal personal resources’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
95(5), 1045–1062. hps://doi.org/10.1037/a0013262
Graves, L.M., Ruderman, M.N., Ohlo, P.J. & Weber, T.J., 2012, ‘Driven to work and
enjoyment of work: Eects on managers’ outcomes’, Journal of Management
38(5), 1655–1680. hps://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310363612
Hahn, V.C., Binnewies, C. & Haun, S., 2012, ‘The role of partners for employees’
recovery during the weekend’, Journal of Vocaonal Behavior 80, 288–298.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.12.004
Halbesleben, J.R.B., Wheeler, A.R. & Pausan-Underdahl, S.C., 2013, ‘The impact of
furloughs on emoonal exhauson, self-rated performance, and recovery
experiences’, Journal of Applied Psychology 98(3), 492–503. hps://doi.org/10.1037/
a0032242
Han, H., Kim, W. & Jeong, C., 2016, ‘Workplace fun for beer team performance:
Focus on frontline hotel employees’, Internaonal Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management 28(7), 1391–1416. hps://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-11-
2014-0555
Hsiao, J.P.H., Jaw, C., Huan, T.C. & Woodside, A.G., 2015, ‘Applying complexity theory
to solve hospitality contrarian case conundrums: Illuminang happy-low and
unhappy-high performing frontline service employees’, Internaonal Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management 27(4), 608–647. hps://doi.org/10.1108/
IJCHM-11-2013-0533
Hülsheger, U.R., 2016, ‘From dawn ll dusk: Shedding light on the recovery process by
invesgang daily change paerns in fague’, Journal of Applied Psychology
101(6), 905–914. hps://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000104
IBM Corp., 2017, IBM SPSS stascs for windows, version 24.0, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY.
Jackson, N. & Carter, P., 2011, ‘In praise of boredom’, Ephemera: Theory & Polics in
Organizaon 11(4), 387–405.
Kapp, K.M., 2012, The gamicaon of learning and instrucon, Wiley, San Francisco.
Karl, K.A., Peluchee, J.V. & Harland, L., 2007, ‘Is fun for everyone? Personality
dierences in healthcare providers’ atudes toward fun’, Journal of Health and
Human Services Administraon 29(4), 409–447.
Kasper-Brauer, K. & Leischnig, A., 2016, ‘Yes, we can! A fuzzy-set analysis of challenges,
skills, and enjoyment of work’, Journal of Business Research 69(11), 5286–5291.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.126
Kompier, M.A.J., Taris, T.W. & Van Veldhoven, M., 2012, ‘Tossing and turning –
Insomnia in relaon to occupaonal stress, ruminaon, fague, and well-being’,
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health 38(3), 238–246. hps://doi.
org/10.5271/sjweh.3263
Loukidou, L., Loan-Clarke, J. & Daniels, K., 2009, ‘Boredom in the workplace: More
than monotonous tasks’, Internaonal Journal of Management Reviews 11(4),
381–405. hps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00267.x
Maiga, A.S., Nilsson, A. & Ax, C., 2015, ‘Relaonships between internal and external
informaon systems integraon, cost and quality performance, and rm
protability’, Internaonal Journal of Producon Economics 169, 422–434. hp://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.08.030
Moreno-Jiménez, B., Rodríguez-Muñoz, A ., Pastor, J.C., Sanz-Vergel, A.I. & Garrosa, E.,
2009, ‘The moderang eects of psychological detachment and thoughts of
revenge in workplace bullying’, Personality and Individual Dierences 46(3), 359–
364. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.10.031
Moreno-Jiménez, B., Rodríguez-Muñoz, A., Sanz-Vergel, A.I. & Garrosa, E., 2012,
‘Elucidang the role of recovery experiences in the job demands-resources
model’, The Spanish Journal of Psychology 15(2), 659–669. hp://doi.org/
10.5209/rev_SJOP.2012.v15.n2.38877
Oerlemans, W.G.M., Bakker, A.B. & Demerou, E., 2014, ‘How feeling happy during
o-job acvies helps successful recovery from work: A day reconstrucon study’,
Work & Stress 28(2), 198–216. hps://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2014.901993
Perryer, C., Celesne, N.A., Sco-Ladd, B. & Leighton, C., 2016, ‘Enhancing workplace
movaon through gamicaon: Transferable lessons from pedagogy ’, The
Internaonal Journal of Management Educaon 14(3), 327–335. hps://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijme.2016.07.001
Peters, P., Poutsma, E., Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M., Bakker, A.B. & De Bruijn, T., 2014,
‘Enjoying new ways to work: An HRM-process approach to study ow’, Human
Resource Management 53(2), 271–290. hps://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21588
Reid, H.M., 2013, Introducon to stascs: Fundamental concepts and procedures of
data analysis, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Reijseger, G., Schaufeli, W.B., Peeters, M.C.W., Taris, T.W., Van Beek, I. & Ouweneel, E.,
2013, ‘Watching the paint dry at work: Psychometric examinaon of the Dutch
Boredom Scale’, Anxiety, Stress & Coping 26(5), 508–525. hps://doi.org/10.1080
/10615806.2012.720676
Rodríguez-Muñoz, A. & Sanz-Vergel, A.I., 2013, ‘Happiness and well-being at work: A
special issue introducon’, Revista de Psicología Del Trabajo Y de Las Organizaciones
29(3), 95–97. hps://doi.org/10.5093/tr2013a14
Romero, E. & Pescosolido, A., 2008, ‘Humor and group eecveness’, Human Relaons
61(3), 395–418. hps://doi.org/10.1177/0018726708088999
Rotundo, M. & Sacke, P.R., 2002, ‘The relave importance of task, cizenship, and
counterproducve performance to global rangs of job performance: A policy-
capturing approach’, Journal of Applied Psychology 87(1), 66–80. hps://doi.
org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.1.66
Sanz-Vergel, A.I. & Muñoz, A.R., 2013, ‘The spillover and crossover of daily work
enjoyment and well-being: A diary study among working couples’, Revista de
Psicología Del Trabajo Y de Las Organizaciones 29(3), 179–185. hps://doi.
org/10.5093/tr2013a24
Schaufeli, W.B. & Salanova, M., 2014, ‘Burnout, boredom and engagement in the
workplace’, in M.C.W. Peeters, J. De Jonge & T.W. Taris (eds.), An introducon to
contemporary work psychology, pp. 293–320, Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex.
Schönbrodt, F.D. & Perugini, M., 2013, ‘At what sample size do correlaons stabilize?’,
Journal of Research in Personality 47(5), 609–612. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jrp.2013.05.009
Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C. & Mojza, E.J., 2010, ‘Staying well and engaged when
demands are high: The role of psychological detachment’, Journal of Applied
Psychology 95(5), 965–976. hps://doi.org/10.1037/a0020032
Sonnentag, S. & Fritz, C., 2007, ‘The Recovery Experience Quesonnaire: Development
and validaon of a measure for assessing recuperaon and unwinding from work’,
Journal of Occupaonal Health Psychology 12(3), 204–221. hps://doi.
org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.204
Sonnentag, S. & Fritz, C., 2015, ‘Recovery from job stress: The stressor-detachment
model as an integrave framework’, Journal of Organizaonal Behaviour 36(Suppl.
1), 72–103. hps://doi.org/10.1002/job.1924
Sonnentag, S. & Kühnel, J., 2016, ‘Coming back to work in the morning: Psychological
detachment and reaachment as predictors of work engagement’, Journal of
Occupaonal Health Psychology 21(4), 379–390. hps://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000020
Sonnentag, S., Unger, D. & Nägel, I.J., 2013, ‘Workplace conict and employee well-
being: The moderang role of detachment from work during o-job me’,
Internaonal Journal of Conict Management 24(2), 166–183. hps://doi.
org/10.1108/10444061311316780
Sørensen, B.M. & Spoelstra, S., 2012, ‘Play at work: Connuaon, intervenon and
usurpaon’, Organizaon 19(1), 81–97. hps://doi.org/10.1177/1350508411407369
Spraggon, M. & Bodolica, V., 2014, ‘Social ludic acvies: A polymorphous form of
organizaonal play’, Journal of Managerial Psychology 29(5), 524–540. hps://
doi.org/10.1108/JMP-01-2012-0009
Struwig, F.W. & Stead, G.B., 2013, Planning, designing and reporng research, 9th
edn., Pearson Educaon South Africa, Cape Town.
Sukovic, S., Ling, D. & England, A., 2011, ‘Playing with the future: Library engagement
and change’, Australian Academic & Research Libraries 42(2), 70–87. hps://doi.
org/10.1080/00048623.2011.10722215
Tews, M.J., Michel, J.W. & Bartle, A., 2012, ‘ The fundamental role of workplace fun
in applicant aracon’, Journal of Leadership & Organizaonal Studies 19(1),
105–114. hps://doi.org/10.1177/1548051811431828
Tews, M.J., Michel, J.W. & Noe, R.A., 2017, ‘Does fun promote learning? The
relaonship between fun in the workplace and informal learning’, Journal of
Vocaonal Behavior 98, 46–55. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.09.006
Tews, M.J., Michel, J.W. & Staord, K., 2013, ‘Does fun pay? The impact of workplace
fun on employee turnover and performance’, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 54(4),
370–382. hps://doi.org/10.1177/1938965513505355
Trougakos, J.P. & Hideg, I., 2009, ‘Momentary work recovery: The role of within-day
work breaks’, in P. Perrewé, J. Halbesleben & C. Rose (eds.), Current perspecves on
job-stress recovery, vol. 7, pp. 37–84, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley.
Tucker, P., Dahlgren, A., Akerstedt, T. & Waterhouse, J., 2008, ‘The impact of free-me
acvies on sleep, recovery and well-being’, Applied Ergonomics 39(5), 653–662.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2007.12.002
Van Veldhoven, M., Meijman, T.F., Broersen, J.P.J. & Fortuin, R.J., 1997, Handleiding
VBBA: Onderzoek naar de beleving van psychosociale arbeidsbelasng en
werkstress met behulp van de vragenlijst beleving en beoordeling van de arbeid
[Manual VBBA: Research on the experience of psychosocial workload and job
stress by means of the Quesonnaire on the Experience and Evaluaon of Work],
SKB, Amsterdam.
Page 11 of 11 Original Research
hp://www.sajems.org Open Access
Van Wyk, S.M., De Beer, L.T., Pienaar, J. & Schaufeli, W.B., 2016, ‘ The psychometric
properes of a workplace boredom scale (DUBS) within the South African
context’, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 42(1), 1–10. hps://doi.org/10.4102/
sajip.v42i1.1326
Verenikina, I. & Hasan, H.M., 2010, ‘The importance of play in organisaon’, in H.
Yeatman (eds.), The SInet 2010 eBook, pp. 120–134, SInet UOW, Wollongong.
Volman, F.E., Bakker, A.B. & Xanthopoulou, D., 2013, ‘Recovery at home and
performance at work: A diary study on self–family facilitaon’, European Journal
of Work and Organizaonal Psychology 22(2), 218–234. hps://doi.org/10.1080/
1359432X.2011.648375
West, S., 2015, ‘Playing at work: Organizaonal play as a facilitator of creavity’,
Doctoral thesis, Lund University, Sweden. Available from hp://eds.b.ebscohost.
com.nwulib.nwu.ac.za/.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B. & Ilies, R., 2012, ‘Everyday working life: Explaining
within-person uctuaons in employee well-being’, Human Relaons 65(9),
1051–1069. hps://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712451283
Zijlstra, F.R.H., Cropley, M. & Rydstedt, L.W., 2014, ‘From recovery to regulaon: An
aempt to reconceptualise “recovery from work”’, Stress & Health: Journal of the
Internaonal Society for the Invesgaon of Stress 30(3), 244–252. hps://doi.
org/10.1002/smi.2604