Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - September-Desember, Vol. 26, No.

3, 2024

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business

Vol. 26, No. 1 (September-Desember 2024): 368-399

Work is fun, isn’t it? Bibliometrics of fun work

Mohamad Yusuf Fahrezaa, Theresia Wira Harjanaha

a
Nutrifood Indonesia, Indonesia

Abstract: The attention and interest in fun work have exponentially increased among
practitioners and academic communities. This phenomenon replaced the old-fashioned
view that created a rigid climate in the office. Many employees have adopted a fun work
culture to improve employer branding and employee experiences and retain their talents.
Using bibliometric techniques, this study aimed to capture the trend of research in fun
work and identify research streams in fun work derived from the critical topic distribu-
tions of the fun work academic literature. We performed word co-occurrence analysis,
author network analysis, and publication analysis. This study identified four streams in the
science of fun work: activities to make work fun, a fun work environment system, positive
effects of fun work, and support for fun work. The research trend and research streams
in Fun Work provided insight for researchers to find potential issues to address in future
research. They revealed the interactions as well as connections among researchers in fun
work.

Keywords: fun work, fun at work, bibliometric study

JEL Classification: L20, L22, D23

*Corresponding author’s e-mail: [email protected] 368

ISSN: PRINT 1411-1128 | ONLINE 2338-7238
https://journal.ugm.ac.id/gamaijb
 Fahreza & Harjanah

Introduction
During the industrial era, clear boundaries existed between work and nonwork activities.
Work and leisure time were kept separated, and the idea of mixing the two was discour-
aged (Fleming & Spicer, 2004). Beynon (1980, as cited in Fleming & Spicer, 2004) ex-
pressed this perspective by stating that work and play should be kept distinct, with play
only allowed after work. Work was primarily associated with labor and toil, and the notion
of fun was seen as contradictory to the purpose of work (Plester, Cooper-Thomas, & Win-
quist, 2015).
In contrast, the post-industrial era brought a significant shift in organizational cul-
ture. Companies started embracing a more flexible, adaptive, and empowering approach
to work (Fleming & Spicer, 2004). This transformation led to the blurring of bounda-
ries between work and personal life, also between formal organizational settings and the
home. A vital aspect of this evolving culture was the integration of playfulness and fun
into the work environment. Deal and Kennedy (1982) emphasized the importance of in-
corporating fun, playfulness, and humor into the workplace as employees began to expect
these elements. They suggested that management should actively embrace and foster a
sense of joy within their organizations.
Two notable examples of organizations implementing fun elements in their cul-
ture were J. W. Marriott and Google. J. W. Marriott believed in creating a hard-working
yet enjoyable environment for employees, emphasizing the need to teach, care for, and in-
corporate fun (Collins & Porras, 2005). Conversely, Google focused on building a positive
working environment, meaningful work, and employee freedom. They adopted the belief
that "fun comes from everywhere" (Schmidt & Rosenberg, 2014). Google incorporated
fun into various aspects of work, such as celebrating April Fool's Day, allowing employees
to engage in recreational activities during breaks, incorporating fun into office design, and
encouraging employees to spend 20% of their work week on self-assigned projects (Meek,
2015).
Fleming (2005) described this shift as a fun culture emphasizing the importance
of having fun at work. Ford, McLaughlin, and Newstrom (2003) defined fun work as an
environment intentionally designed to encourage enjoyable and pleasurable activities that
positively impact individuals’ and groups' attitudes and productivity. This fun culture re-
placed the traditional view of work as a strictly serious endeavor, granting freedom for
play and humor in the office (Fleming, 2005).
The concept of fun work gained attention in management literature, particularly
in the context of corporate culture. It has steadily grown as a topic of interest in academic
and practitioner literature over the past three decades (Owler, Morrison, & Plester, 2010).
A keyword search using the Google Books Ngram Viewer revealed a significant rise in the
use of the term "fun work" from the late 1970s until 2019 (figure 1).

369
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - September-Desember, Vol. 26, No. 3, 2024

Figure 1. Google’s Book Ngram Viewer for fun work.

Numerous researchers have investigated fun work in different contexts, revealing

positive organizational impacts. Studies have shown that fun at work can increase appli-
cant attraction (Tews, Michel, & Bartlett, 2012), reduce turnover intention (Karl, Peluch-
ette, & Hall, 2008; McDowell, 2004), and enhance employee engagement and retention
(Tsaur, Hsu, & Lin, 2019; Chan, 2019; Djastuti, Rahardjo, Irviana, & Udin, 2019).
Despite the increasing popularity and evolving nature of research on fun work, it
is still considered a relatively new topic in organizational studies. Further exploration is
needed to understand the concept, its antecedents, the positive and negative impacts of
fun at work, and related issues. Therefore, this paper aims to employ bibliometric analysis
methods to examine the research trend in fun work and identify the distribution of crucial
topics within academic literature.

Literature Review
The "Fun Work” movement emerged from the influential books written by Deal & Ken-
nedy (1982) and Peters & Waterman (1982), which encouraged managers to cultivate a
corporate culture that embraces playful, enjoyable, and humorous experiences (Owler,
Morrison, & Plester, 2010; Tews, Michel, & Bartlett, 2012). This shift towards a culture of
fun challenged the conventional belief that work should solely be serious and devoid of
enjoyment (Owler, Morrison, & Plester, 2010).
Scholars have explored the concept of fun work using various terms such as work-
place fun, fun environment, fun at work, fun culture, and fun work. Lamm & Meek (2009)

370
 Fahreza & Harjanah

referred to it as workplace fun, encompassing activities that provide amusement, enjoy-

ment, and pleasure, whether social, interpersonal, recreational, or task-oriented. On the
other hand, Ford, McLaughlin, & Newstrom (2003) described it as a fun environment
where a wide range of enjoyable and pleasurable activities are intentionally encouraged,
initiated, and supported to positively impact the attitudes and productivity of individuals
and groups. Despite these terminological differences, both Lamm and Meek (2009) and
Ford, McLaughlin, and Newstrom (2003) shared a core similarity, considering anything
that fosters enjoyment in the workplace as part of the fun work concept. For this article,
the term "fun work" will be used as a more general term to encompass the culture, envi-
ronment, activities, and initiatives promoting workplace enjoyment.
Understanding fun work extends beyond conceptualization. Plester, Coop-
er-Thomas, and Winquist (2015) contributed to a deeper comprehension of the concept
by identifying three categories of fun work: organic fun, managed fun, and task fun. Or-
ganic fun occurs naturally and spontaneously through interactions among organizational
members. Managed fun comprises activities and initiatives organized by management to
achieve business objectives. Task fun refers to the enjoyment experienced by employees
while performing their job tasks.
As the popularity of fun work grew in business and academic literature, research-
ers explored its various contexts and purposes, including investigating its consequences.
The accumulating body of literature has demonstrated the positive impact of fun work on
organizations (Tews, Michel, & Bartlett, 2012). Ford et al. (2003) explained that imple-
menting fun work influences individual and group attitudes and productivity. Consist-
ent with their findings, fun work had also been associated with better job performance
(Tews, Michel, & Stafford, 2013). Tews et al. (2012) found that fun in the workplace has a
favorable influence on applicant attraction, suggesting that infusing fun into work can be
a strategy to enhance recruitment attractiveness and talent retention (Karl, Peluchette, &
Hall, 2008).
Despite the proven potential benefits of fun work documented by numerous stud-
ies, it is also met with negative perceptions from top management and employees (Michel,
Tews & Allen, 2018). Some managers express skepticism towards fun work, believing it
may blur the boundaries between work and play (Fleming, 2005). Additionally, the sub-
jective nature of what constitutes "fun" can lead to differing interpretations and attitudes
among individuals (Plester, Cooper-Thomas, & Winquist, 2015). Interview participants
have shown cynicism and resistance towards activities arranged by their organization,
contrasting with their more positive views of organic fun. Workplace humor can be per-
ceived as harmful or making fun of someone, creating negative implications (Georganta &
Montgomery, 2018). Furthermore, when faced with increased workloads, some employ-
ees may view fun activities as annoying.

371
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - September-Desember, Vol. 26, No. 3, 2024

Methods
This study employed a bibliographic approach to examine the research trend in fun work
and identify the distribution of critical topics within academic literature. This study in-
cluded a bibliometric analysis of publication analysis, author network analysis, and net-
work of words co-occurrence analysis. Bibliographic research enables researchers to in-
vestigate the spread and impact of knowledge within a specific area of interest. Its primary
objective is to quantify the influence of individuals, publications, or journals on a scientific
field's overall development and structure (Kraus, Filser, Eggers, Hills, & Hultman, 2012).
Bibliometrics is a quantitative and literature-based analysis that uses statistical methods
to analyze the interrelationship of publications and articles. Ferreira (2018) explained that
bibliometrics is a monitoring approach to developing a research topic by organizing the
basic information, such as citations, authors, co-authors, journals, and keywords. The
bibliometric analysis method is excellent in handling many articles to build up research
topics, identify areas of interest, researcher interaction, and internal relations explanation
(Van Eck & Waltman, 2010; Zupic & Cater, 2014; Vogel & Guttel, 2013). Unlike a tradi-
tional systematic literature review, this method also significantly reduces the researcher's
bias, effort, and time (Radhakrishnan, Erbis, Isaacs, & Kamarthi, 2017).

Data Search Strategy

One hundred forty-one documents were successfully retrieved from the Scopus database
through Publish or Perish software version 7 (Adams, 2019) using specific keywords ("fun
work" OR "fun working" OR "fun workplace" OR "fun at work" OR "fun at the workplace"
OR "fun of work" OR "fun of working" OR "work fun" OR "workplace fun"). The data re-
trieval was performed in the middle of May 2021, and the publication timeframe was set
until 2020. Afterward, the initial document-checking process found two duplications and
14 documents without abstracts, yielding 125 articles for the period until 2020. Thirty-two
articles with unrelated topics were removed after the title and abstract papers were read
(i.e., discussing fun but not in the work or workplace context). Hence, 93 document data
with abstracts were used in the present analysis, with the oldest document coming from
1988. Figure 2 shows the flow process of data retrieval.

372
 Fahreza & Harjanah

Figure 2. Documents retrieval process

Analysis and Tools

In this study, we conducted several analyses, including a network of words co-occurrence
analysis, author network analysis, and publication analysis.
Words co-occurrence was investigated to identify popular scientific research top-
ics in fun work. Words co-occurrence analysis used words in the document (abstract, title,
keywords) to find the connection between words and build a conceptual structure based
on the idea. The concept behind a set of words that appear in the different documents is
likely to have a related vision (Anderson, 2019; Zupic & Cater, 2015). The output of word
co-occurrence analysis was a topic network of research in fun work, providing us with an
overview of the field.
The author’s co-occurrence supplied the overview of research collaboration and
the social structure of research in fun work (Zupic & Cater, 2015). Authors work in the
same scientific research developed co-authorship. This method analyzed co-authorship
among contributing researchers and created authorship networks of research in fun work.
Publication analysis delivers descriptive analysis of the literature in fun work. It
consisted of publication frequency by years, publication frequency by journals or pub-
lishers’ name, the SJR score of the publications, and the number of citations. Publication
frequency by year provides information about research trends in the given topic. It pre-

373
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - September-Desember, Vol. 26, No. 3, 2024

sents the prevalence overview of scientific research in fun work year by year and the rise
of publications on a given topic. Publication frequency by journals provides information
about the field of science or scientific setting most relevant to fun work.
For the words co-occurrence and authors' co-occurrence, we used VOSViewer
version 1.6.16 (Centre for Science and Technology Study, Leiden University) in our anal-
yses. VOSViewers is software for constructing and visualizing bibliometric networks. The
software extracts keywords, analyses the co-occurrence, and creates clusters based on the
data. Words are used as indicators for the content of the research topic. Meanwhile, pub-
lication frequency by years and journals and SJR score were analyzed using frequency
charts.

Literature Review
Publications Analysis
Ninety-three publications provided information about fun work. The first publications
appeared in 1988; the present study’s cut-off year is 2020. Figure 3 reveals the trend of re-
search in fun work. Figure 3 shows that before 2005, the number of publications relating to
fun work was low, and the growth was steadily slow. After 2005, fun work research started
to show rapid growth, with a steep increase in 2019.

Figure 3. Documents retrieval process

In total, 93 publications were identified as research articles (80 documents), review

articles (7 documents), conference papers (4 documents), and book chapters (2 docu-
ments). These had been cited 1,970 times, averaging 21.18 citations per article. These pub-

374
 Fahreza & Harjanah

lications appeared in 64 journals, of which the Journal of Employee Relations produced

the most and yielded 12 publications relating to fun work (Table 1).

Table 1. Top 10 academic journals with the most publications

Publication Name Number of Articles
Employee Relations 12
International Journal of Hospitality Management 5
Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism 3
Business Information Review 2
Health Care Manager 2
Human Relations 2
Human Resource Management International Digest 2
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Manage- 2
ment
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public 2
Health
International Journal of Mechanical and Production Engi- 2
neering Research and Development

We also analyzed the SJR score of the 93 publications to evaluate the quality and
relevance of the publications. SJR score represents the prestige of a journal. The SJR score
is obtained from www.scimagojr.com. The score is obtained by considering the number
of citations and the importance of publications cited in the journal. Since the SJR score
was developed from the Scopus database, we only look for publications indexed by Scopus
(Scimago Research Group, 2007). Note that for the same journals published twice or more
in the same year, we count them as their frequency. The average SJR score is M = .908 (SD
= 1.344, Min. = .101, Max. = 7.936). It suggested that the SJR score for research in fun
work is low.

Figure 4. SJR score distribution by year

375
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - September-Desember, Vol. 26, No. 3, 2024

In addition to SJR score analysis, the number of articles published in that journal
and the number of citations were used to measure the relevance and influence of the jour-
nals. Table 1 presented 11 journals that had published the most significant digit. Employee
Relations Journal published the most with 12 papers, followed by the Internal Journal
of Hospitality Management (5) and the Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and
Tourism (3). Table 2 revealed the most cited journals. The Top 5 journals that were cited
the most were Employee Relation (439), Academy of Management Review (297), Human
Relations (145), Business Information Review (115), and International Journal of Con-
temporary Hospitality Management (66).

Table 2. Top 10 academic journals with the most cited

Publication Name Number of Citations
Employee Relations 439
Academy of Management Review 297
Human Relations 145
Business Information Review 115
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Man- 66
agement
International Journal of Hospitality Management 65
Journal of Applied Psychology 63
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 57
Journal of Health and Human Services Administration 56
Journal of Non-profit and Public Sector Marketing 45

Author Network Analysis

Between 1988 and 2020, 172 authors contributed to 93 fun work publications. The top six
authors with more than three publications were Michael J. Tews (Penn State University),
John W. Michel (Loyola University Maryland), Robert C. Ford (University of Central Flor-
ida), A. Karl (University of Tennessee at Chattanooga), Barbara Plester (The University
of Auckland Business School), and Simon C.H. Chan (The Hong Kong Polytechnic Uni-
versity). Table 3 revealed the number of authors with the highest number of publications.
Of 93 publications with 172 contributing authors, 31 were single-authored, and 61 were
multi-authored. To display the structure of the co-authors' relationship among contribut-
ing authors, we then examined the contribution of 172 unique authors by analyzing their
co-occurrence and connection.

376
 Fahreza & Harjanah

Table 3. The authors with the highest number of publications

Authors Total link strength Documents
Tews, M.J. 15 7
Michel, J.W. 11 5
Ford, R.C. 9 4
Karl, K.A. 7 4
Plester, B. 5 4
Chan, S.C.H. 1 4
Mclaughlin, F.S. 6 3
Newstrom, J.W. 6 3
Peluchette, J.V. 5 3
Xu, S. 6 2
Aquino, K. 5 2
Stafford, K. 5 2
Kim, W. 4 2
Morrison, R.L. 3 2
Owler, K. 3 2
Fineman, S. 1 2
Mousa, M. 0 2
Chou, C.M. 6 1
Han, J. 6 1
Hoffman, D.I. 6 1

First, we conducted a co-authorship analysis. Figure 5a shows that there were sev-
enty different node colors representing different clusters. Seven clusters with more promi-
nent nodes (red, green, blue ocean, yellow, purple, blue sky, and orange clusters) consisted
of more than six authors. The remaining clusters with smaller nodes had several authors
ranging from one to five. The authors that represented the significant clusters were Tews
(red), Nanche and Chou (green), Ford (blue ocean), Capezio (yellow), Dong and Liu (pur-
ple), Karl (blue sky), and Plester (orange).
Figure 5b presents a heatmap of the 172 individuals level co-authorship net-
work. Heatmap helps us to visualize the profile of the articles. The co-authorship network
heatmap allows the visualization of researcher frequency and connectivity in the given
topic, also known as density. Figure 5b informed the density map from an analysis of 172
authors on fun work. The color intensity and font size indicated connectivity. The more in-
tense color and the bigger font size indicated the higher connectivity in the neighborhood.
The font size represented the frequency of the author’s appearance in several publications.
The colors ranged from red to green. The redder the color and parallel, the more extensive
the circle, the denser the author's meaning, the more often it appeared in the other articles,

377
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - September-Desember, Vol. 26, No. 3, 2024

and the more connected.

Four significant clusters (figure 5b) had the reddest color and the most enormous
font size. They were Tews, Ford, Karl, and Plester clusters. Those clusters were predicted to
be the most significant collaborators. Density offered an overview of 93 articles by show-
ing which authors were necessary for analysis.
The period of article production is shown in Figure 5c. Dark bluer colors showed
older articles, while yellower colors showed newer pieces. Karl Cluster was predicted to
be a pioneer of fun work research and got stuck. Karl and Ford clusters were also heralded
as pioneers and have continued their investigation. In comparison, Plester started her re-
search on fun work late and stopped too soon. Afterward, Tews came later but produced
fun work articles consistently. The yellow color wrote down recent research collaborations.
Wang, Wang, Ma, Hoefnagel, and Joly are considered newcomers in this field. Between
2018 to 2020, Wang explored the role of play in the workplace in providing favorable out-
comes to prevent employee burnout and increase employee productivity.

Figure 5. Documents retrieval process

Network analysis also showed 14 authors with the most prominent nodes, indi-
cating recurring research publications in fun work during the period (figure 6). Those 14
authors published ten journal articles that have been cited 239 times. Table 4 shows the
number of publications and citations of the 14 most prominent network authors. Tews
and Michel as the most central node indicating higher co-occurrence and stronger con-
nections to other papers and publications, followed by Stafford, Jolly, Noe, Becker, Bartlet,
Allen, Drost, Xu, Ma, Wang, and Wang. Figure 6 shows Tews and Michael as the most
collaborators.

378
 Fahreza & Harjanah

Table 4. Number of publications and citations of 14 authors with the most extensive network
Name Number of Publications Number of Citations
Tews 7 217
Michel 5 205
Stafford 1 43
Jolly 1 0
Noe 1 32
Becker 1 12
Barlett 1 57
Allen 1 51
Drost 1 22
Xu 1 22

Tews had been investigating fun work since 2012, made seven publications, and
cited 217 other publications. Four out of 10 articles focused on the impact of fun in the
workplace on employee turnover in the hospitality industry. The other three articles inves-
tigated the relationship between pleasure in the workplace and job embeddedness among
millennials, the impact of enjoyment in work on the learning domain, and applicant at-
traction. Alola, Asongu, and Alola (2019), emphasized the significance of job embedment,
highlighting its connection to favorable organizational outcomes like job satisfaction, in-
novative work behavior, and engagement. Michel had been exploring fun work since 2002
and published four papers with Tews as co-author. The latest research paper was published
in 2017. Michel, Stafford, Jolly, Noe, Becker, Bartlett, Allen, Drost, and Xu were involved
as Tews's research partners in seven publications on the positive effects of fun work.

Figure 6. The most extensive fun work co-authorships network.

379
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - September-Desember, Vol. 26, No. 3, 2024

Network of Words Co-Occurrence Analysis

This part identified the most frequent keywords in academic journals regarding fun work.
We used at least three co-occurrence terms in VOSViewer and selected 60% of the most
relevant comments from all words that met the threshold. As a result, only 89 keywords
were retained for co-word analysis.
Of 89 keywords, five keywords (5.6%) appeared more than equal to 10 times, 46
keywords (51.7%) emerged 5 to 9 times and 38 keywords (42.7%) arose less than five
times. Table 5 displays the top 13 occurring keywords and their total link strength. The
total link strength refers to the number of links an item has with other objects and the
overall strength of those connections. It encompasses the number of links an item has
with other things and the combined strength or weight assigned to those links (Van Eck
& Waltman, 2010). The fun work environment was the most occurring keyword for fun
work topics in academic journals and was followed by development, value, strategy, and
level. However, development was the most vital link keyword, followed by value, percep-
tion, strategy, and need.

Table 5. The most influential publications of co-word analysis

Label Cluster Total Link Strength Occurrences
Fun Work Environ- 2 54 11
ment
Development 2 81 10
Value 2 71 10
Strategy 2 69 10
Level 10 58 10
Perception 3 70 9
Attitude 3 63 9
Staff 1 48 9
Problem 2 59 8
Influence 4 52 8
Difference 3 49 8
Group 1 45 8
Job Satisfaction 3 43 8
Need 1 69 7
Year 2 55 7
Consequence 3 54 7
Number 2 52 7
Play 3 45 7
Case 2 43 7
Task 1 28 7

380
 Fahreza & Harjanah

Focus 1 27 7
Creativity 1 44 6
Addition 4 42 6
Commitment 2 42 6

A network map of keyword co-occurrence and interactions in academic journals is looked

at in Figure 7. The closeness of two nodes signifies the intensity of their connection, where-
as a shorter distance implies a stronger relationship. The network connections represent
keywords commonly appearing together in the analyzed papers, and a line connecting
two keywords indicates their occurrence. The thickness of the line corresponds to the
frequency of their co-occurrence, with thicker lines indicating a higher frequency. Lastly,
the color of each node is assigned based on the cluster to which the item belongs (Van Eck
& Waltman, 2010).

Figure 7. Fun work words co-occurrence by clusters

Table 6. Four fun work words co-occurrence themes

Cluster N of Words Words (After) Theme
1 29 ability, attempt, communication, Activities of Fun
content, creativity, emergence, Work
emotion, employee performance,
expectation, fact, focus, game, gen-
eration, group, humor, need, nega-
tive emotion, organizational culture,
positive impact, sense, staff, stress,
task, team, view, work environment,
work fun, workforce.

381
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - September-Desember, Vol. 26, No. 3, 2024

2 25 age, attention, case, challenge, The Environment of

commitment, customer, definition, Fun Work
development, fun work, fun work
environment, fun workplace, hu-
man resource, leader, nature, new
employee, number, practitioner,
problem, service, source, strategy,
suggestion, supervisor, value, year.
3 23 affective events theory, attitude, The positive impact
consequence, difference, direction, of fun work
everyone, experienced fun, feeling,
greater level, higher job satisfaction,
job performance, job satisfaction,
level, organizational citizenship be-
havior, part, perception, play, posi-
tive attitude, positive effect, salience,
task performance, total, turn.
4 12 addition, co-worker socializing, Support to fun work
dimension, diversity, employee
turnover, form, influence, manager
support, opportunity, respect, reten-
tion, and turnover.

Four clusters emerged from the words co-occurrence network analysis. Table 6
summarizes the findings with details of the terms and themes for each group.

Red cluster: Activities to make work fun

The first cluster that emerges is papers that discuss activities to make work fun. In this
theme, researchers investigate research topics such as humor and games to find their asso-
ciations with fun work. Two prominent examples are Romero and Pescosolido (2008) and
Plester (2009), which discuss how humor could lead to workplace fun. Another famous
example is Dale (2014), who discusses workplace gamification to make work fun. Further,
Chan (2010) breaks fun work activities into four types: staff-oriented, supervisor-oriented,
social-oriented, and strategy-oriented. There were three forms of workplace creating fun:
managed, organic, and task fun (Plester & Hutchison, 2016). However, for making fun
activities, we had to consider the type of employee, such as the generation gap (Lamm &
Meeks, 2009), gender, position, tenure, and education (Nnambooze & Parumasur, 2016).

Green cluster: Fun work environment system

The second cluster is research about fun work environment systems. Here, the green group
emphasizes the design of the workplace that is associated with fun. For example, Fleming

382
 Fahreza & Harjanah

and Sturdy (2009) highlight the neo-normative control management that does not restrain
employees from being themselves in the workplace. Joy in a work environment becomes
essential since the workplace is a serious and stressful place. Hence, support between or-
ganization and manager for developing and executing something perceived as fun activi-
ties was crucial to becoming a functional, fun workplace (Ford, Newstrom, & McLaugh-
lin, Making workplace fun more functional, 2004). Before fun work became popular, ISO
9000 had already instructed employers to create a fun work environment (Stewart, 1996).
At the same time, Berdahl and Aquino (2009) reported that sexual behavior at work (for
example, sexual jokes and propositions) had happened, and some men and women em-
ployees felt enjoyed. However, it was harmful to employee work and well-being. This re-
search echoed (Chen & Ayoun, 2019) finding that aggressive humor (sarcasm or irony)
was considered a significant part of acceptable in-group members as well as helping foster
a sense of identity and community.

Blue cluster: Positive effects of fun work

The third emerging cluster indicates how fun work can create positive effects. Some posi-
tive outcomes include higher job satisfaction, higher job performance, and organizational
citizenship behavior (Choi, Kwon, & Kim, 2013). It has also been found that fun work can
attract new talents (Tews, Michel & Bartlett, 2012). Based on Chan and Mak (2016), the
relationship between workplace fun and employee job satisfaction was mediated by trust
in management. Also, the superior level of fun in the workplace correlated with workplace
fun, trust in management, and job satisfaction. Tews, Michel, and Noe (2017) claimed that
fun activities were also significantly related to informal learning; they helped the learning
process from other employees and non-interpersonal sources. Fun and enjoyable manage-
ment techniques had advantages in attracting new employees, better customer satisfac-
tion, more substantial employee commitment, lower employee turnover and absenteeism,
and increasing job satisfaction, creativity, and an act of citizenship (Ford, McLaughlin, &
Newstrom, 2004).

Yellow cluster: Support for fun work

The final cluster that appears is support for fun work. Not all employers support or
agree with fun work, although it shows many benefits. The prominent example for this
cluster is from Tews, Michel, and Stafford (2013). They discussed that supporting fun
work from managers was a critical factor in reducing turnover, although it adverse-
ly affects performance. In addition, Tews, Michel, and Allen (2014) found that man-
ager support and high-quality co-worker relationships were vital in reducing turnover
value. The study by Nair and Nair (2018) also showed that organizational support for
employee engagement increased productivity, retention, commitment, and profitability.

383
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - September-Desember, Vol. 26, No. 3, 2024

Discussion
This paper extensively explores research papers on the science of fun work spanning the
last three decades, utilizing the Scopus database as the primary source of inquiry. The
primary goal is to comprehend the trajectory of fun work research and identify distinct re-
search streams by delving into the critical topic of fun work in academic literature. It also
introduces a nuanced perspective on managed fun, acknowledging its potential coercive-
ness while highlighting how organic fun liberates individuals from compulsion. This per-
spective underscores the importance of fun related to tasks, challenging the conventional
notion of a strict work-fun divide. The study illuminates the complexities and tensions
surrounding fun at work, offering a rich tapestry of diverse views and experiences among
organizational members (Plester, Cooper-Thomas, & Winquist, 2015). The multifaceted
exploration of the science of fun work presented in this paper contributes to a compre-
hensive understanding of the subject. It paves the way for further research and practical
implications in diverse organizational contexts. The surge in the development of fun work
becomes palpable in 2019, indicative of a heightened interest in this dynamic subject.
Examining the top three most cited publications associated with fun work reveals
Employee Relations (with 439 citations), Academy of Management Review (with 297 ci-
tations), and Human Relations (with 145 citations). This analysis serves as an integral
part of performance analysis, dissecting the contributions of research constituents to the
overarching topic. The frequency of sources serves as a barometer of a journal's influence,
with a higher count symbolizing robust interest and exerting a substantial impact on the
evolution of fun work research.
The co-author heatmaps unveil four hotspots, denoting frequent collaborations,
with the Tews cluster emerging as the most extensive and vibrant. This cluster also garners
the highest number of citations, underscoring heightened productivity and a profound
interest in the subject matter. The more significant number of citations is a marker of pro-
ductivity and a strong collective interest in the topic.
This paper identifies four clusters emanating from the co-occurrence network
analysis, representing distinct research streams in the science of fun work. These four
streams encapsulate the fun work environment system, activities aimed at infusing fun
into work, the positive effects of fun work, and support structures for fostering fun work.
McDowell's seminal work in 2004 asserts a significant correlation between a fun
climate, the intention to leave, and organizational commitment. This research not only es-
tablishes the nexus between job satisfaction and a fun environment but also introduces the
multidimensional construct of fun climates, as conceptualized by Fluegge (2008) and Mc-
Dowell (2004). This construct encompasses socializing, celebrating, personal freedoms,
and global fun. Socializing reflects enjoyable interactions with colleagues, celebrating in-
corporates formal fun activities, personal freedoms denote the freedom to enjoy work,

384
 Fahreza & Harjanah

and global fun assesses the overall fun quotient of the workplace. ISO 9000 guidelines
advocate for implementing a fun work environment, positing its critical role in enhancing
employee productivity (Stewart, 1996), thus emphasizing the collective responsibility of
all organizational elements in cultivating a fun work culture.
Furthermore, many studies substantiate the benefits of fun work, including height-
ened job satisfaction, job performance, and organizational citizenship behavior. Chan's
(2019) research underscores that employees' perception of fun at the workplace can mod-
erate the positive relation between participative leadership and work engagement and
job satisfaction. This highlights the managerial imperative to foster fun activities at work,
ranging from casual lunch gatherings to game days and other friendly activities aimed at
engaging employees. Tews, Michel, and Noe's (2017) survey of 206 managers accentuates
the significant contribution of fun activities to informal learning. However, the impact of
managerial support for fun exhibits variation, emphasizing the strategic integration of fun
into informal learning by considering individual personalities for optimal effectiveness.
Djastuti et al. (2019) establish that organizational commitment and job satisfaction act as
mediators for the impact of fun work, significantly influencing employee performance,
particularly in manufacturing companies. The positive correlation between workplace
satisfaction and job performance is echoed by Russell (1988), who proposes that reduced
sick leave usage can indicate a fun workplace. Dempcy and Tihista's (1981) research adds
depth by positing illness as a product of stress caused by over-commitment to a job, pro-
longed work hours under extreme pressure, and neglect of personal well-being.
The integral role of Human Resource Management (HRM) in fostering a fun work
environment to increase employee commitment is emphasized by Fineman (2007). Em-
pirical research by Chan and Mak (2016) identifies trust in management as a mediator
between workplace fun and employee satisfaction. Leaders play a vital role in supporting
a conducive environment (Alif & Nastiti, 2022). Chen and Ayoun (2019) highlight the
positive correlation between supervisor support for a fun work environment and higher
job embeddedness, underscoring the indispensable role of leaders and human resource
management in supporting a fun work environment. The findings strongly advocate for
leaders to not only encourage playful work design but also inspire their teams to incor-
porate humor. Chen and Ayoun (2019) go a step further by suggesting that organizations,
especially in the hospitality industry, should actively cultivate a culture of fun and humor.
In addition, leadership style also has a vital role in creating a fun environment in
the workplace. For example, Syahrul (2020) states that an empowering leadership style
increases employee intrinsic motivation (feeling motivated, happy, and enthusiastic in
their job). This condition is related to emerging psychological empowerment (meaning-
ful, competent, impactful, and connected) in the employee (Meng, Zou, He, & Luo, 2015).

385
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - September-Desember, Vol. 26, No. 3, 2024

Not only intrinsic motivation, Thomas and Velhouse (1990) track psychological empow-
erment also affect employee satisfaction.
Becker and Tews (2016) provide a comprehensive definition of fun activities at
work, encompassing various activities conducted during work hours or sponsored by the
workplace. These activities are designed to encourage employee socialization, providing
avenues for enjoyment, leisure, and play distinct from work-related responsibilities. Ford,
McLaughlin, and Newstrom (2003) identify three categories of fun work elements:

1. Recognition of personal milestones (such as birthdays and anniversaries).

2. Social events (such as picnics, parties, and social gatherings).
3. Public celebrations of professional achievements (such as award bouquets).

In 2009, Bolton and Houlihan introduced a matrix exploring managerial motiva-

tions for introducing workplace fun. This matrix incorporates HR strategies and manage-
ment perspectives. It delineates four primary dimensions: fun as a developmental reward,
fun as engagement, fun as a means of alleviation, and fun as a form of containment.
In addition, other research underscores the role of humor (Romero & Pescosolido,
2008; Plester, 2009) and gamification (Dale, 2014) in promoting a fun environment in
the workplace. Humor, broadly defined as any expression eliciting a positive cognitive or
emotional reaction, serves as a collaborative tool, stress buffer, and social interaction en-
hancer (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). Aligning this definition with various forms of enjoy-
ment implies that humor from colleagues constitutes a subset of the coworker socializing
aspect of enjoyment. In contrast, humor from a manager forms a subset of managerial
support for enjoyment.
On the other hand, Fleming and Sturdy's (2009) exploration of Sunray's imple-
mentation of a culture program entitled "the 3Fs: Fun, Focus, Fulfilment" provides valu-
able insights into how a company aims to emphasize "being yourself " in the workplace.
However, this culture is perceived as a form of neo-normative control, as outlined by five
related dimensions observed at Sunray:

1. Reinforcement of societal constructions: Sunray reinforces societal con-

structions of identity, framing diversity in specific ways such as sexuality,
consumerism, and playfulness rather than considering broader aspects like
occupational skills or familial roles.
2. Implicit and explicit limits: Despite encouraging individualism and creativ-
ity, there are limits to self-expression. Organized events, such as the Away
Day, may exclude those who do not conform to the expected "fun" and "dif-
ferent" persona, contradicting the rhetoric of a laissez-faire approach.

386
 Fahreza & Harjanah

3. Appropriation of identities for productive ends: The regime at Sunray appro-

priates and partially constructs identities, mainly focusing on youthfulness,
sexuality, and enthusiasm. These characteristics enhance customer service
and contribute to the overall "fun" atmosphere as part of the job.
4. Self-disciplinary control: The encouragement and visibility of private iden-
tities at Sunray lead to a form of self-disciplinary control. Individual success
and failure are attributed to the type of person an employee is, fostering a
judgmental environment based on how well they embrace the 3Fs program.
5. Resistance and the "be yourself " philosophy: The "be yourself " philosophy at
Sunray is seen as a controlling element, inspiring a unique form of resistance.
While normative control often leads employees to hide their real identities, at
Sunray, the control function encourages the expression of real identities. The
passage raises questions about how resistance manifests when employees are
encouraged to be themselves.

The idea of fun is subjective, varying from person to person, and the concept is elusive. A
clear conceptual understanding of fun is necessary to avoid difficulties when investigating
the connections between fun and organizational outcomes. The variability in individuals'
experiences of fun contributes to a lack of agreement on what constitutes fun for mem-
bers within an organization (Owler, Morrison, Plester, 2010; Aldag & Sherony, 2001; Ford
et al., 2003; Plester & Sayers, 2007; McDowell, 2004; Warren & Fineman, 2007). Smith
and Lewis (2011) introduce the "dynamic equilibrium model of paradox," unveiling how
organizations handle diverse perspectives, leading to internal tensions due to differing
perceptions and demands. This model sheds light on the intricate nature of workplace fun,
particularly the challenges posed by managed fun organized by managers.

Conclusion
This study showed that there has been an increasing trend in fun work research. Since
2005, the number of publications on fun work has accelerated and showed a steep rise in
2019, indicating the increased interest in fun work.
According to the co-authorship network analysis, there were 172 authors who
yielded 70 co-authorship clusters based on the heatmap. Out of these clusters, there were
four significant ones. We also presented a heatmap of the co-authorship network. It identi-
fied the four most prominent contributor authors on fun work literature: Michael J. Tews,
R. Ford, Barbara Plester, and Katherine Karl.

387
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - September-Desember, Vol. 26, No. 3, 2024

We identified four clusters of research streams: activities to make work fun, a fun
work environment, positive effects of fun work, and support for fun work. These clusters
are also known as research fronts in literature. Recognizing different research fronts can
serve as a source of inspiration for researchers to determine the direction in which a par-
ticular discourse should progress. Alternatively, it can help identify areas where discus-
sions are lacking and introduce new topics for exploration.
It is anticipated that the exploration study of fun work will inspire new scholars to
engage in this emerging field. Furthermore, the findings from the examination of relevant
literature will assist researchers in defining the scope of their current research and identi-
fying potential future research paths.

Limitations
While this study contributes valuable insights into the scientific structures and relation-
ships within the field of fun work through bibliometric analysis, it is essential to acknowl-
edge its limitations. These limitations can guide future research and investigations in this
area.
Firstly, selecting search terms and query formulation plays a crucial role in the
outcomes of bibliometric analyses. In this study, the specific search terms chosen may
have unintentionally excluded influential sources and scholars in the field of fun work. Fu-
ture research may yield a more diverse set of keywords that would provide different results
and summarize more relevant publications and researchers. This requires an investigation
of various combinations of keywords, synonyms, and related terms that capture the mul-
tidimensional nature of joy work to ensure completeness. This will increase the likelihood
of detecting all publications and authors who may have made significant contributions to
the field but were not included in the initial analysis. With a set of search terms that better
cover the diversity of a particular field of study, one can increase the level of represent-
ativeness and inclusivity of bibliometric analysis and ultimately provide a better under-
standing of its development and influential contributors.
Secondly, this study relies on the Scopus database for analysis, mainly due to the
SJR score for academic publications provided by Scopus. While this approach ensures
consistency and reliability in assessing the impact and significance of included publica-
tions, it is essential to acknowledge that other sources may offer alternative and diverse
perspectives on the subject matter. Future research could expand its scope by including
other databases and sources, as this research is interdisciplinary and can utilize several
sources. Adding other databases, such as Web of Science or Google Scholar, would have
resulted in a broader range of literature searched for this study, allowing identification
of research published in non-traditional academic media, along with gray literature and

388
 Fahreza & Harjanah

publications targeting practitioners. Therefore, an expanded approach such as this will

make field examinations more inclusive and enable a wider range of views to be captured,
thereby increasing the insight and relevance of research findings.

Acknowledgement
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to our former manager at Nutrifood Or-
ganizational Development & Research Departemen, Herman Yosef Paryono, for his in-
valuable intellectual and technical assistance throughout the course of this research. His
expertise and support were essential to the successful completion of this manuscript.

References
Adams, D. 2019. Publish or Perish version 7. Retrieved January 10, 2022, from Research
in International Management: https://harzing.com/blog/2019/09/publish-or-per-
ish-version-7.
Alif, M. I., & Nastiti, T. 2022. Empowering leadership in creativity and work effort: An elu-
cidation through the psychological empowerment and self-leadership of the mil-
lennials generation. Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, 24(3), 269-288.
Alola, U. V., Asongu, S., & Alola, A. A. 2019. Linking supervisor incivility with job embed-
dedness and cynicism: The mediating role of employee self-efficacy. Gadjah Mada
International Journal of Business, 21(3), 330-352.
Anderson, N. 2019. Mapping the expatriate literature: a bibliometric review of the field
from 1998 to 2017 and identification of current research fronts. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(22), 4687–4724.
Araújo, M.S.G. de, and P.M.P.R. Lopes. 2015. “Virtuous Leadership, Organizational Com-
mitment and Individual Performance.” Tékhne - Review of Applied Management
Studies. Instituto Politécnico do Cávado e do Ave (IPCA).
Berdahl, J., & Aquino, K. 2009. Sexual Behavior at Work: Fun or Folly? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94(1), 34-47.
Bolton, S.C. and Houlihan, M. 2009. Are we having fun yet? A consideration of workplace
fun and engagement. Employee Relations, 31(6), 556–568.
Chan, S. C. 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.
Chan, S. C. 2019. Participative leadership and job satisfaction: The mediating role of work
engagement and the moderating role of fun experienced at work. Leadership &

389
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - September-Desember, Vol. 26, No. 3, 2024

Organization Development Journal, 40(3), 319–333.

Chan, S. C., & Mak, M. 2016. Have you experienced fun in the workplace? An empirical
study of workplace fun, trust-in-management, and job satisfaction. Journal of Chi-
nese Human Resource Management, 7(1), 27-38.
Chen, H., & Ayoun, B. 2019. Is negative workplace humor really all that "negative"? Work-
place humor and hospitality employees' job embeddedness. International Journal
of Hospitality Management, 79, 41–49.
Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. 2005. Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. Ran-
dom House.
Crawford, C. B. 1994. Theory and implications regarding the utilization of strategic humor
by leaders. Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(4), 53-68.
Dale, S. 2014. Gamification: Making work fun, or making fun of work? Business informa-
tion review, 31(2), 82–90.
Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. 1982. Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Dempcy, M., Tihista, R., & Watson, R. R. 1981. Your Stress Personalities: A Look at Your
Selves. Presidio Press.
Djastuti, I., Rahardjo, S. T., Irviana, L., & Udin, U. 2019. Fun at Work and Employee Per-
formance: The Roles of Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in Man-
ufacturing Companies. WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics, 16, 153-
162.
Ferreira, F. A. 2018. Mapping the field of arts-based management: Bibliographic coupling
and co-citation analyses. Journal of Business Research, 85(1), 348–357.
Fineman, S. 2006. On being positive: Concerns and counterpoints. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 31(2), 270–291.
Fleming, P. 2005. Workers' Playtime: Boundaries and Cynicism in a 'Culture of Fun' Pro-
gram. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41, 285–303.
Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. 2004. ‘You Can Checkout Anytime, but You Can Never Leave’:
Spatial Boundaries in a High Commitment Organization. Human Relations, 57(1),
75–94.
Fleming, P., & Sturdy, A. 2009. “Just be yourself!” Towards neo-normative control in or-
ganisations?. Employee relations, 31(6), 569–583.
Fluegge, E. R. 2008 Who put the fun in functional? Fun at work and its effects on job per-
formance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Florida, Gainesville.
Ford, R. C., McLaughlin, F. S., & Newstrom, J. W. 2003. Questions and answers about fun
at work. Human Resource Planning, 26(4), 18–33.
Ford, R. C., Newstrom, J. W., & McLaughlin, F. S. 2004. Making workplace fun more func-

390
 Fahreza & Harjanah

tional. Industrial and Commercial Training, 36(3), 117–120.

Ford, R., McLaughlin, F., & Newstrom, J. 2004. Having fun at work. Engineering Manage-
ment, 14(2), 32–33.
Frederick W. Becker & Michael J. Tews. 2016. Fun activities at work: Do they matter to
hospitality employees? Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 15(3),
279-29.
Georganta, K., & Montgomery, A. 2019. Workplace fun: A matter of context and not con-
tent. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International
Journal, 14(3), 317–336.
Gin Choi, Y., Kwon, J., & Kim, W. 2013. Effects of attitudes vs experience of workplace fun
on employee behaviors: Focused on Generation Y in the hospitality industry. Inter-
national journal of contemporary hospitality management, 25(3), 410–427.
Karl, K., Peluchette, J., & Hall, L. 2008. Give them something to smile about A marketing
strategy for recruiting and retaining volunteers. Journal of Nonprofit and Public
Sector Marketing, 20(1), 91-96.
Kraus, S., Filser, M., Eggers, F., Hills, G. E., & Hultman, C. M. 2012. The entrepreneurial
marketing domain: a citation and co-citation analysis. Journal of Research in Mar-
keting and Entrepreneurship, 14(1), 6-26.
Lamm, E., & Meeks, M. 2009. Workplace fun: the moderating effects of generational dif-
ferences. Employee Relations, 31(6), 613-631.
McDowell, T. 2004. Fun at work: Scale development, confirmatory factor analysis, and
links to organizational outcomes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Alliant In-
ternational University, San Diego, CA.
McMurray, A., & Scott, D. 2003. The relationship between organizational climate and or-
ganizational culture. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 3(1),
1–8.
Meek, A. 2015. Google’s head of HR shares his hiring secrets.
Meng, Y., Zou, L., He, J., & Luo, C. (2015). Supervisors’ leadership and health science re-
searchers’ intrinsic motivation: The mediate role of psychological empowerment.
Nankai Business Review International, 6(1), 68-81.
Michel, J. W., Tews, M. J., & Allen, D. G. 2019. Fun in the workplace: A review and expand-
ed theoretical perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 29(1), 98-110.
Nair, S., & Nair, B. C. 2018. Employee Engagement Practices in Organized Retail Sector:
An Empirical Study with Respect to Ernakulam Town. International Journal of En-
gineering & Technology, 7(3), 453-455.
Nnambooze, E. B., & Parumasur, S. B. 2016. Understanding the multigenerational work-
force: Are the generations significantly different or similar? Corporate Ownership

391
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - September-Desember, Vol. 26, No. 3, 2024

and Contro, 13(2), 224-237.

Owler, K., Morrison, R. and Plester, B. 2010, Does fun work? The complexity of promoting
fun at work. Journal of Management and Organization, 16(3), 338-352.
Owler, K., Morrison, R., & Plester, B. 2010. Does fun work? The complexity of promoting
fun at work. Journal of Management & Organization, 16(3), 338-352.
Peters, T., & Waterman, R. H. 1982. In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s Best-
Run Companies. New York: Harper and Row.
Plester, B. 2009. Crossing the line: Boundaries of workplace humour and fun. Employee
Relations, 31(6). 584-599.
Plester, B., & Hutchison, A. 2016. Fun times: The relationship between fun and engage-
ment. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 38(3), 332-350.
Plester, B., Cooper-Thomas, H., & Winquist, J. 2015. The fun paradox. Employee Relations,
37(3), 380-398.
Radhakrishnan, S., Erbis, S., Isaacs, J. A., & Kamarthi, S. 2017. Novel keyword co-occur-
rence network-based methods to foster systematic reviews of scientific literature.
PLoS ONE, 12(3), e0172778.
Romero, E. J., & Cruthirds, K. W. 2006. The Use of Humor in the Workplace. The Academy
of Management Perspectives, 20(2), 58–69.
Romero, E., & Pescosolido, A. 2008. Humor and group effectiveness. Human relations,
61(3), 395-418.
Schmidt, E., & Rosenberg, J. 2014. How Google works. Grand Central Publishing.
SCImago Research Group. 2007. Description of Scimago journal rank indicator. Retrieved
March, 3, 2018.
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. 2011. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium
model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403.
Stewart, W. 1996. ISO 9000 work instruction-subject: fun. The TQM Magazine, 8(4), 17-
19.
Syahrul, K. 2020. The effect of empowering leadership on intrinsic motivation: the role
of psychological empowerment as a mediation. Journal of Leadership in Organiza-
tions, 2(2).
Tews, M. J., Michel, J. W., & Bartlett, A. 2012. The Fundamental Role of Workplace Fun in
Applicant Attraction. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19(1), 105–
114.
Tews, M. J., Michel, J. W., & Stafford, K. 2013. Does fun pay? The impact of workplace fun
on employee turnover and performance. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(4), 370-
382.
Tews, M., Michel, J., & Allen, D. 2014. Fun and friends: The impact of workplace fun

392
 Fahreza & Harjanah

and constituent attachment on turnover in a hospitality context. Human Relations,

67(8), 923-946.
Tews, M., Michel, J., & Noe, R. A. 2017. Does fun promote learning? The relationship be-
tween fun in the workplace and informal learning. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
98, 46-55.
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. 1990. Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “in-
terpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review,
15(4), 666-681.
Tsaur, S. H., Hsu, F. S., & Lin, H. 2019. Workplace fun and work engagement in tourism
and hospitality: The role of psychological capital. International Journal of Hospital-
ity Management, 81, 131-140.
Van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. 2010. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for
bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523-538.
Vogel, R., & Guttel, W. H. 2013. The dynamic capability view in strategic management: A
bibliometric review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(4), 426-446.
Zupic, I., & Cater, T. 2015. Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Or-
ganizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472.

Appendix
Table 1. Top 10 academic journals with the most publications
Publication Name Number of Articles
Employee Relations 12
International Journal of Hospitality Management 5
Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism 3
Business Information Review 2
Health Care Manager 2
Human Relations 2
Human Resource Management International Digest 2
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Manage- 2
ment
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public 2
Health
International Journal of Mechanical and Production Engi- 2
neering Research and Development

393
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - September-Desember, Vol. 26, No. 3, 2024

Table 2. Top 10 academic journals with the most cited

Publication Name Number of Citations
Employee Relations 439
Academy of Management Review 297
Human Relations 145
Business Information Review 115
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Man- 66
agement
International Journal of Hospitality Management 65
Journal of Applied Psychology 63
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 57
Journal of Health and Human Services Administration 56
Journal of Non-profit and Public Sector Marketing 45

Table 3. The authors with the highest number of publications

Authors Total link strength Documents
Tews, M.J. 15 7
Michel, J.W. 11 5
Ford, R.C. 9 4
Karl, K.A. 7 4
Plester, B. 5 4
Chan, S.C.H. 1 4
Mclaughlin, F.S. 6 3
Newstrom, J.W. 6 3
Peluchette, J.V. 5 3
Xu, S. 6 2
Aquino, K. 5 2
Stafford, K. 5 2
Kim, W. 4 2
Morrison, R.L. 3 2
Owler, K. 3 2
Fineman, S. 1 2
Mousa, M. 0 2
Chou, C.M. 6 1
Han, J. 6 1
Hoffman, D.I. 6 1

394
 Fahreza & Harjanah

Table 4. Number of publications and citations of 14 authors with the most extensive network
Name Number of Publications Number of Citations
Tews 7 217
Michel 5 205
Stafford 1 43
Jolly 1 0
Noe 1 32
Becker 1 12
Barlett 1 57
Allen 1 51
Drost 1 22
Xu 1 22

Table 5. The most influential publications of co-word analysis

Label Cluster Total Link Strength Occurrences
Fun Work Environ- 2 54 11
ment
Development 2 81 10
Value 2 71 10
Strategy 2 69 10
Level 10 58 10
Perception 3 70 9
Attitude 3 63 9
Staff 1 48 9
Problem 2 59 8
Influence 4 52 8
Difference 3 49 8
Group 1 45 8
Job Satisfaction 3 43 8
Need 1 69 7
Year 2 55 7
Consequence 3 54 7
Number 2 52 7
Play 3 45 7
Case 2 43 7
Task 1 28 7
Focus 1 27 7
Creativity 1 44 6
Addition 4 42 6
Commitment 2 42 6

395
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - September-Desember, Vol. 26, No. 3, 2024

Table 6. Four fun work words co-occurrence themes

Cluster N of Words Words (After) Theme
1 29 ability, attempt, communication, Activities of Fun
content, creativity, emergence, Work
emotion, employee performance,
expectation, fact, focus, game, gen-
eration, group, humor, need, nega-
tive emotion, organizational culture,
positive impact, sense, staff, stress,
task, team, view, work environment,
work fun, workforce.
2 25 age, attention, case, challenge, The Environment of
commitment, customer, definition, Fun Work
development, fun work, fun work
environment, fun workplace, hu-
man resource, leader, nature, new
employee, number, practitioner,
problem, service, source, strategy,
suggestion, supervisor, value, year.
3 23 affective events theory, attitude, The positive impact
consequence, difference, direction, of fun work
everyone, experienced fun, feeling,
greater level, higher job satisfaction,
job performance, job satisfaction,
level, organizational citizenship be-
havior, part, perception, play, posi-
tive attitude, positive effect, salience,
task performance, total, turn.
4 12 addition, co-worker socializing, Support to fun work
dimension, diversity, employee
turnover, form, influence, manager
support, opportunity, respect, reten-
tion, and turnover.

396
 Fahreza & Harjanah

Figure 1. Google’s Book Ngram Viewer for fun work.

Figure 2. Documents retrieval process

397
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - September-Desember, Vol. 26, No. 3, 2024

Figure 3. Documents retrieval process

Figure 4. SJR score distribution by year

Figure 5. Documents retrieval process

398
 Fahreza & Harjanah

Figure 6. The most extensive fun work co-authorships network.

Figure 7. Fun work words co-occurrence by clusters

399