This article was downloaded by: [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] On: 12 February 2013, At: 10:09 Publisher: Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

Understanding workplace boredom among white collar employees: Temporary reactions and individual differences
Gielis A. H. van der Heijden , Jeroen J. L. Schepers & Edwin J. Nijssen
a a a a

Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands Version of record first published: 09 Aug 2011.

To cite this article: Gielis A. H. van der Heijden , Jeroen J. L. Schepers & Edwin J. Nijssen (2012): Understanding workplace boredom among white collar employees: Temporary reactions and individual differences, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21:3, 349-375 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.578824

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sublicensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable

for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 2012, 21 (3), 349375

Understanding workplace boredom among white collar employees: Temporary reactions and individual dierences
Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

Gielis A. H. van der Heijden, Jeroen J. L. Schepers, and Edwin J. Nijssen

Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
The purpose of this study is to investigate white collar employees temporary relief strategies to workplace boredom. Building on self-regulation theory we dene two responses: engaging in distraction and work indierence. We also investigate whether some individuals are more likely to engage in these strategies than others by considering two employee competencies: time management skills and proactiveness skills. Better understanding employee relief strategies and skills may help managers to remedy boredom problems before serious costs are incurred. We collected data from 166 Dutch white collar employees and analysed their survey responses using SPSS and Partial Least Squares (PLS) modelling. Findings indicate that workplace boredom is associated with engaging in distraction. Less consistent results were obtained with regard to work indierence. We nd compelling results on the eectiveness of two moderating conditions; proactiveness skills aect the relationship between boredom and work indierence, and time management skills weaken the association between workplace boredom and engaging in distractive behaviour. We consequently conclude that organizations may benet most from employees with high time management skills, as these employees are less prone to engaging in distraction as a result of workplace boredom. Directions for future research are oered. Keywords: Proactiveness; Self-regulation; Time management; White collar employees; Workplace boredom.
Correspondence should be addressed to Gielis A. H. van der Heijden, Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Industrial Engineering & Innovation Sciences, Subdepartment of Innovation Technology Entrepreneurship & Marketing, Den Dolech 2, CT 0.16, PO Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands. E-mail: G.A.H.v.d.Heijden@tue.nl We would like to acknowledge the insightful comments and suggestions provided by Christel Rutte (Tilburg University) and the anonymous reviewers on earlier drafts of this manuscript. 2012 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business http://www.psypress.com/ejwop http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.578824

350

VAN DER HEIJDEN, SCHEPERS, NIJSSEN

Over the past three decades, the importance of boredom in the workplace and its potential costs for rms have increasingly been recognized. A recent study by Malachowski (2005) shows that almost one-third of 10,000 surveyed employees spent 2 hours on private aairs every working day because they were bored. The cost involved is calculated at over $750 billion per annum in the US alone. Traditionally studied among blue collar workers, emerging evidence indicates that workplace boredom may also be a serious problem among white collar employees. Loukidou, Loan-Clarke, and Daniels (2009) state that increases in the educational levels of the workforce, plus the use of technology to routinize working practices has meant that the skills of workers, even in many white-collar jobs, exceed the requirements of their jobs (p. 382). The current economic recession is likely to exacerbate the pervasiveness of workplace boredom, because highly educated employees accept lower ranked jobs in times of low job security (Leonhardt, 2009; Rosenwald, 2008). Workplace boredom refers to an unpleasant aective state resulting from the underuse of a persons physical or cognitive capacity at work (Kass, Vodanovich, & Callender, 2001; Loukidou et al., 2009; Mikulas & Vodanovich, 1993). The majority of studies on workplace boredom focus on factors that cause boredom. Job characteristics, like work underload and monotony, have frequently been considered as important determinants of workplace boredom (e.g., Shackleton, 1981). It is also widely accepted that some individuals are more boredom prone than others, explaining why individuals in similar jobs and with similar requirements may vary in their levels of boredom (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986). Research that investigates the consequences of boredom has focused on long-term reactions (Loukidou et al., 2009). Examples include searching for work improvement (Vodanovich & Kass, 1990), absenteeism (Kass, Vodanovich, & Callender, 2001), and even sabotage (Ambrose, Seabright, & Schminke, 2002). Understanding such long-term responses is important and has contributed greatly to our understanding of individuals reactions, but it doesnt take into account that an employee might not execute such active problem solving strategies instantly. Employees are likely to rst attempt temporary relief strategies to feel better in the short term (Dyer-Smith & Wesson, 1997). These limited problem solving strategies alleviate the unpleasant state of boredom, but they do not remove the source of boredom, which would require an active problem solving strategy (i.e., boredom coping; Game, 2007). If such a strategy succeeds, this is a temporary relief to the dissatisfying work conditions and more active problem solving may not be required. Yet, studies of peoples initial reactions to feelings of boredom are virtually nonexistent. The goal of this study is to highlight the importance of temporary relief strategies as individuals reactions to workplace boredom. We build on the

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

TEMPORARY REACTIONS TO WORKPLACE BOREDOM

351

theory of self-regulation, which oers useful insights concerning potential strategies. It proposes that employees undertake immediate eorts to tolerate, reduce, or minimize the incongruity between ones desired performance level and the dissatisfying work environment (Kanfer, 1990; Karoly, 1993). Self-regulation theory is commonly used in stress management literature, but may also be a solid foundation for understanding the temporary relief strategies applied in response to workplace boredom. Such understanding may help managers to identify workplace boredom among their sta at an early stage, and remedy the problem before serious costs are incurred. We contribute to the literature in three ways. First, in accordance with the research on self-regulation (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Kanfer, 1990; Yeo & Neal, 2008), we identify two temporary relief strategies that individuals can use as a limited problem solving strategy in a situation of workplace boredom: engaging in distraction and work indierence. Both are useful to feel better in the short term; the rst helps by engaging in other, more interesting but often unrelated tasks, and the second, by distancing oneself from ones job and employer. To date, studies on temporary relief strategies are scant, but research on this subject could be an important step towards a more complete understanding of the process that leads to more extreme reactions like sabotage (Ambrose et al., 2002). This is especially true since identifying boredom in the workplace is dicult; many employees do not tell others that they are bored due to fear of losing their jobs or concerns about future work overload (Rothlin & Werder, 2007). Second, we investigate whether all employees are equally likely to engage in temporary relief strategies. Self-regulation theory suggests that the allocation of cognitive eort to tolerate a dissatisfying situation is largely dependent on employee self-regulatory skills (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1997; Karoly, 1993). We consider: (1) time management skills, that denote capabilities to eectively plan work according to role prescriptions and work goals (Claessens, Roe, & Rutte, 2008); and (2) employee proactiveness skills, that refer to the ability to make changes to work conditions and accept new work approaches and methods (Parker, 2000). Managers might respond timely to potential boredom problems by recruiting employees with specic skill sets, or leverage the competencies of current workers by training them before problems get worse (Game, 2007). Finally, we use a sample of white collar workers to test the framework and hypotheses developed. Previous research demonstrates the negative consequences of boredom among blue collar workers (e.g., Azizi, Zolfaghari, & Liang, 2010; Game, 2007; Melamed, Benavi, Luz, & Green, 1995; OHanlon, 1981), but little empirical insight exists on workplace boredom among white collar employees. Yet, there are many white collar work situations where managers have little control over an employees

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

352

VAN DER HEIJDEN, SCHEPERS, NIJSSEN

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

workload and daily work scheme. Examples include out-of-oce jobs such as consultants and sales representatives, or jobs embedded in a virtual team environment, where the lack of visual and social cues makes it hard to monitor boredom. In addition, we note a tendency towards hiring overqualied white collar workers. Both factors make research focusing on white collar sta a valuable extension. The study outline is as follows: We rst discuss the background of workplace boredom and recognize three streams of previous work. Specically, we identify and substantiate the lack of attention for temporary relief strategies in prior boredom studies. We then introduce the theoretical framework and develop our hypotheses, followed by an empirical test. We conclude with a discussion of the ndings, implications for management, and future research directions.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Dierent views on workplace boredom exist in literature. Table 1 provides an overview of previous research published over the last two decades and places each study in a specic stream. Three dierent research streams can be identied. The rst research stream considers the correlates of workplace boredom. The majority of these studies relate boredom to features of individual wellbeing (e.g., Daniels, 2000; Melamed et al., 1995) and performance outcomes (e.g., Ambrose et al., 2002; Fisher, 1998). Fewer empirical studies exist on workplace boredom and counterproductive work behaviours (e.g., Spector et al., 2006). Although some long-term outcomes associated with high costs and prot loss for organizations have been identied (e.g., turnover and sabotage), temporary relief strategies to workplace boredom have remained unexplored. Moreover, most of these studies do not include boredom as a focal construct, but rather as a correlate measured by a single item. A thorough explanation of the relationship between situational workplace boredom and temporary relief strategies is therefore lacking. A second research stream concentrates on individual dierences regarding workplace boredom (i.e., trait boredom; Game, 2007; Vodanovich, 2003). There is substantive theory on boredom proneness, indicating that people have a dierent propensity to get bored across time and situations (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986). Results show that an individuals ability to cope with boredom is positively correlated with his/her well-being and compliance with organizational prescriptions (Game, 2007). Studies have also related boredom proneness to individual characteristics such as intellectual capacity or extraversion (Kass, Vodanovich, Stanny, & Taylor, 2001). Although such individual characteristics have been related to boredom, little is yet known about their potential contingency role in the

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

TABLE 1 Overview of research on workplace boredom (1990present) Measurement of boredom Results None Sample No measurements

Study

Focus of research stream

Loukidou et al. (2009)

Review on boredom in the workplace

Vodanovich (2003)

Review on boredom in the workplace

No measurements

None

Fisher (1993)

Review on boredom in the workplace

No measurements

None

Yang & Diefendor (2009)

Boredom correlates

White collar employees

TEMPORARY REACTIONS TO WORKPLACE BOREDOM

Spector et al. (2006)

Boredom correlates

Single boredom item; part of the Job-related Aective Well-being Scale, (van Katwyk, Fox, Spector, & Kelloway, 2000) Single boredom item; part of the Job-related Aective Well-being Scale, (van Katwyk et al., 2000)

Boredom is related to jobs (repetitiveness and monotony), the individual (wellbeing, personality traits), social context, and goals and coping. Reviews individual correlates with BPS (Boredom Proneness Scale) such as: negative aect, personality variables such as extraversion, impulsivity, low job satisfaction, low performance, anxiety, depression, lack of attention, and diculty in social interactions. Discusses several causes of boredom, individual dierences, personality, mental health, current concerns (goals), and responses to boredom. Negative emotions (including boredom) partially mediate the relationship between situational antecedents and counterproductive workplace behaviour. One of the dimensions of counterproductive work behaviour, withdrawal, partly relates to boredom.

White collar employees

(continued overleaf )

353

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

354

TABLE 1 (Continued )

Study No measurements No measurements None None

Focus of research stream Results Sample

Measurement of boredom

Wright (2006)

Boredom correlates

Boredom correlates

Boredom/monotony is positively correlated to job satisfaction. Boredom in cognitive processing.

Daniels, Harris, & Briner (2004) Ambrose et al. (2002) Coding of nonscientic selfreports, including one boredom item Single item (part of aective well-being scale)

Boredom correlates

VAN DER HEIJDEN, SCHEPERS, NIJSSEN

Daniels (2000)

Boredom correlates

Mixed sample; data obtained from anonymous interview reports Mixed sample

Frone (1998)

Boredom correlates

Students Students

Fisher (1998)

Boredom correlates

Most important motives for sabotage behaviour are injustice (59.8%), then powerlessness (19.7%), and then boredom (10.7%). Evidence is provided for scales that measure ve aspects of aective wellbeing in relation to work context. Job boredom, among others, is positively related to work injuries. Boredom and attentional diculties: More interruptions lead to higher levels of boredom.

Melamed et al. (1995)

Boredom correlates

Developed 5-item boredom scale Lab study with tasks and interruptions; Single boredom item and correlates (e.g., irritation, frustration, attention) Single item (part of the subjective monotony scale; also included routine, monotonous, and not varied enough)

Objective and subjective work monotony relate to higher levels of psychological distress, lower job satisfaction, and higher levels of absenteeism.

Blue collar employees

(continued overleaf )

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

TABLE 1 (Continued )

Study No measurements Boredom Proneness Scale (PBS) and Job Boredom Scale (JBS) Boredom Proneness Scale (BPS) Boredom Coping Scale (BC) None

Focus of research stream Results Sample

Measurement of boredom

Boredom correlates

Csikszentmihalyi (1990) Kass, Vodanovich, & Callender (2001) Watt & Hargis (2010)

Individual dierences

Boredom arises when employee abilities exceed task demands. Lower job satisfaction, longer organizational tenure, greater absenteeism.

Blue collar employees

Individual dierences

Healthcare employees Blue collar employees

Game (2007)

Individual dierences

Individual dierences Boredom Proneness Scale (BPS)

Boredom Proneness Scale (BPS)

Individual dierences

Feelings of underemployment, perceived low support from the organization, lower performance ratings. High boredom-copers show lower levels of work-related depression, anxiety, higher satisfaction, higher arousal, greater compliance with organizational safety rules. Higher daytime sleepiness and boredom proneness scores are predictive of higher cognitive failure scores. Trait Boredom Proneness is predictive of performance on monotonous tasks.

Blue collar employees and students Blue collar employees

TEMPORARY REACTIONS TO WORKPLACE BOREDOM

Wallace, Vodanovich, & Restino (2003) Kass, Vodanovich, Stanny, & Taylor (2001) Vodanovich, Weddle, & Piotrowski (1997) Boredom Proneness Scale (BPS)

Individual dierences

Individuals with high boredom proneness scores possessed signicantly greater external work value scores.

Students

355
(continued overleaf )

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

356

TABLE 1 (Continued )

Study Boredom Proneness Scale (BPS) Series of formulations; motivation curves No measurements Series of formulations

Focus of research stream Results

Measurement of boredom

Sample Mixed sample

Sawin & Scerbo (1995)

Individual dierences

VAN DER HEIJDEN, SCHEPERS, NIJSSEN

Azizi et al. (2010)

Rothlin & Werder (2007) Bhadury & Radovilsky (2006) Briner (1999) No measurements No measurements

Management interventions Management interventions Management interventions

Blue collar employees White collar employees None

Management interventions Management interventions No measurements

Provides evidence for the link between trait boredom and performance in vigilance tasks. A new methodology to implement rotations plans is presented. Qualitative management book on boredom in the oce. Optimization models are formulated and solved using polynomial time algorithms or simple heuristics. States the importance of managing employee emotions. Conceptual paper.

None None

Mikulas & Vodanovich (1993) Gemmill & Oakley (1992)

Management interventions

Speculations about the meaning of boredom. Several examples of wellbeing correlates.

None

TEMPORARY REACTIONS TO WORKPLACE BOREDOM

357

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

boredom reaction process. In other words, we know that some individuals are more likely to experience boredom than others, but it is not clear whether reactions to boredom also dier with individual skills (Fisher, 1993). Finally, a third stream of interest identied is the boredom literature focusing on management interventions to alleviate the boredom problem. Strategies include job enrichment, job rotation, and active communication between supervisors and employees (e.g., Azizi et al., 2010; Rothlin & Werder, 2007). Numerous studies build on Hackman and Oldhams (1976) job characteristics theory and stress the importance of the relationship between work content and work motivation (Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011; Morrison, Cordery, Girardi, & Payne, 2005). Authors have argued that a lack of task variety, limited learning opportunities, or a deciency of sucient tasks are responsible for employees experiencing high levels of workplace boredom (Mikulas & Vodanovich, 1993). As a result, several management actions have been suggested, including the creation of a compelling organizational vision (Gemmill & Oakley, 1992) and interventions to increase positive emotions (Briner, 1999). However, most studies in this stream are conceptual rather than empirical in nature. Consequently, little evidence exists on the eectiveness of these interventions. In addition, management advice focuses on the prevention of workplace boredom, while little is known on how managers can leverage employee skills to prevent the negative boredom consequences. Based on our review of the literature we conclude that current research on workplace boredom has left some important questions unanswered. We aim to address some of the shortcomings in each of the three discussed research streams by identifying two temporary relief strategies, and examining them in combination with individual dierences in employees reactions, in an attempt to substantiate how management can take instant measures against workplace boredom among their employees.

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

In this study, we view employee reactions to workplace boredom from the theory of self-regulation. According to this theory, individuals adjust their eort in response to a discrepancy between current and desired levels of job or task performance (Kanfer, 1990; Karoly, 1993). Large discrepancies lead to anxiety when a task is too dicult, but lead to boredom when a task is to easy (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Self-regulation is dened as processes that enable an individual to guide his or her goal-directed activities over time and across changing circumstances, including the modulation of thought, aect, and behavior (Porath & Bateman, 2006, p. 185). Within the theory of selfregulation, distal and proximal processes can be distinguished (Karoly,

358

VAN DER HEIJDEN, SCHEPERS, NIJSSEN

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

1993; Yeo & Neal, 2008). Distal processes are responsible for active problem solving behaviours, like leaving a dissatisfying job or voicing complaints to higher authorities (Hirschman, 1970). Proximal processes refer to temporary relief strategies, where people change their cognitive eort allocation to deal with the situation (Carver & Scheier, 1998). Because we aim to understand the temporary relief strategies to workplace boredom, we focus on the proximal process of self-regulation. Additionally, and in line with the self-regulation theory, we propose that employees who vary in self-regulatory skills (i.e., time management and proactiveness skills) may dierentially react to feelings of workplace boredom. Our conceptual framework is depicted in Figure 1.

Main effects
Literature on emotions suggests disengagement and avoidance as natural responses to discomforting situations (Daniels et al., 2004; Dyer-Smith & Wesson, 1997). These responses are dominated by cognitive eorts of seeking relief (van Eerde, 2000). Consistent with this, we focus on engaging in distraction and work indierence as two useful temporary relief strategies

Figure 1.

Framework of workplace boredom and its consequences.

TEMPORARY REACTIONS TO WORKPLACE BOREDOM

359

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

to workplace boredom. When engaging in distraction, an individual diverts himself/herself with matters that are unrelated to ones actual job, for instance by attending to matters of personal interests during work time (Fisher, 1993). Cognitive psychologists describe this phenomenon as stimulus seeking behaviours (Gardner, 1990); when stimulation in the workplace falls below the ideal level and causes boredom, an employees mental resources are superuous to their allocation to the original level of demand. Cognitive action like exploration or stimulus seeking provides more input or challenge and compensates for the low stimulation in the work environment (Dyer-Smith & Wesson, 1997; Perkins & Hill, 1985). The much-needed variety is oftentimes experienced within the limitations of ones working environment (Rothlin & Werder, 2007), for instance, visiting web pages on the Internet, which can be easily combined with other oce tasks. Alternatively, work indierence can be characterized by an employees careless attitude about work. When mental capacities exceed the resources required to perform a job, an employee will attempt to reduce the allocation of mental resources to the lowest level possible (Damrad-Frye & Laird, 1989; Dyer-Smith & Wesson, 1997). As active engagement in ones work requires lez-Roma, Schaufeli, Bakker, & the nutriments of need fullment (Gonza Lloret, 2006), the reduction of mental resources also reduces intrinsic motivation (Meyer, Becker, & Vandenberghe, 2004). Hence, boredom can also lead to conditions of disconnectedness, or a lack of concern with ones environment (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986). In summary, the more an employee is subject to workplace boredom, the more he/she will search for relief and engage in distracting and indierent reactions. Therefore, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 1: Workplace boredom is positively associated with (a) engaging in distraction, and (b) work indierence.

Moderation effects
Although not every individual is equally capable of dealing with workplace boredom (Kass, Vodanovich, & Callender, 2001; Watt & Hargis, 2010), little is known about how managers can help employees who have diculties in coping with this problem (Game, 2007). Several authors argue that selfregulatory skills can be improved through management intervention because they are malleable skills (Kanfer & Heggestad, 1997; Yeo & Neal, 2008). We consider two employee skills that managers can build by developing training programmes for their sta: time management skills and proactiveness skills. These skills may moderate the relationship between workplace boredom and the proposed temporary relief strategies. As employees become more skilled

360

VAN DER HEIJDEN, SCHEPERS, NIJSSEN

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

in time management and proactiveness, they should be better able to regulate their cognitive eorts, and therefore withhold their temporary relief strategies to workplace boredom. First, good time management skills are typically needed to eectively work according to role prescriptions (Claessens, van Eerde, Rutte, & Roe, 2007). Time management skills refer to the employees ability of setting and prioritizing goals, planning tasks, and monitoring the progress of ones work (Macan, 1994; Peeters & Rutte, 2005), and can be considered as selfregulation in the temporal domain (Claessens et al., 2007). These skills help employees to gain control over their work (Claessens, van Eerde, Rutte & Roe, 2004), motivate and regulate individuals in goal-directed behaviour (Gollwitzer, 1999), and reduce time wasting (Claessens et al., 2008; Van Eerde, 2000). Goal setting can also help employees to overcome the negative inuence of boredom, as setting specic performance goals increases task interest and dedication (Locke & Bryan, 1967; Meyer et al., 2004). This makes individuals less vulnerable to workplace boredom, which will therefore be a less important antecedent to the reactions of engaging in distraction and work indierence. In contrast, if employees fail to manage their time appropriately, they do not gain control, and therefore become increasingly avoidant and passive as a result of workplace boredom. On the basis of these arguments, we suggest the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 2: The relationships between workplace boredom and (a) engaging in distraction, and (b) work indierence, are weaker for employees who score high on time management skills than for those who score low on time management skills. Second, employee proactiveness is also a relevant self-regulatory skill; excellent job performance requires employees to take initiative and go beyond the call of duty to improve work conditions and outcomes (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1997; MacKenzie, Podsako, & Ahearne, 1998). Employee proactiveness is a precondition for this type of behaviour. Proactiveness refers to the employees ability to act on the environment in a self-directed way, aimed at changing or improving the current work circumstances (Parker, 2000; Warr & Fay, 2001). Although past research conceptualizes proactivity as a stable individual disposition towards proactive behaviour (Bateman & Crant, 1993), recent research shows that proactive orientations can also be enhanced by managerial interventions such as training (Parker, 2000; Porath & Bateman, 2006). Fisher (1993) suggests that a proactive attitude can make a job more interesting, although they do not provide empirical evidence. Likewise, Frese and Fay (2001) argue that that highly proactive employees change the complexity of their work without actually changing their jobs. For example, a secretary hired

TEMPORARY REACTIONS TO WORKPLACE BOREDOM

361

originally as a typist might expand his/her job responsibilities by taking the initiative to improve work productivity. Hence, proactivity can alleviate the inuence of workplace boredom on engaging in distraction and work indierence by adding new dimensions or complexity to ones job. We therefore hypothesize: Hypothesis 3: The relationships between workplace boredom and (a) engaging in distraction, and (b) work indierence, are weaker for employees who score high on proactiveness skills than for those who score low on proactiveness skills. Theory suggests that our two contingency factors could also directly drive perceptions of workplace boredom (Fisher, 1993). Although individual dierences may aect the strength of the relationship between boredom and temporary relief strategies, previous research (see earlier, research stream 2) predominantly has considered and found support for the direct relationship between such individual characteristics and boredom (e.g., Kass, Vodanovich, & Callender, 2001). For instance, Daniels et al. (2004) suggest that boredom arises when an individual has no clear work goals to pursue. Time management skills may help an employee in clarifying and attaining organizational targets, preventing feelings of boredom (Claessens et al., 2004; Harris, 2000). In a similar way, proactivity may lead to self-selected and future-oriented goals that may be equally stimulating as organizationimposed targets, again reducing the risk of a boredom experience (Parker, 2000; Porath & Bateman, 2006). Therefore, we also consider time management and proactiveness skills as direct antecedents of workplace boredom, next to their previously dened role as moderators. We hypothesize: Hypothesis 4: High (a) time management skills and (b) proactiveness skills are negatively associated with workplace boredom.

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

METHODOLOGY Sample and procedure

To test our hypotheses, we collected data from 166 Dutch white collar employees. Because the identication of bored individuals is dicult (e.g., fear of losing ones job, social stigma associated with the topic; see Rothlin & Werder, 2007), an announcement was placed in a popular weekly labor magazine targeted at white collar workers, asking people to participate in the research. The announcement included a reference to a website with an online questionnaire, which warranted anonymous participation and condentiality. Employees were asked to participate if they met the criteria

362

VAN DER HEIJDEN, SCHEPERS, NIJSSEN

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

of (1) being bored at work at least some time over the past 6 months, and (2) classied as a white collar job worker. To stimulate the response rate informants were given the opportunity to receive a summary of the results of the study. The survey instrument was brief and presented the respondent with several blocks of questions, which were introduced by a clear onset, and used a variety of Likert-type scales to reduce the possibility of respondents introducing consistency motifs in answering the questions. Finally, the webbased instrument was pretested to ensure ease of use and a good, logical ow preventing complex language or jargon. A total number of 483 people visited the website, of whom 166 (34.4%) classied and completed the web-based questionnaire. Of the total sample 79 respondents are male and 87 are female. The mean age of the total sample is 36.9 years (SD 10.2 years), the average working week is 36.7 hours (SD 4.8 hours), and the average duration of current employment is 3.9 years (SD 2.9 years). The distribution of respondents across job functions is as follows: administration (14%), management (14%), IT and logistics (13%), consultancy (11%), communication (10%), human resource (9%), sales (8%), nancial services (7%), engineering (5%), marketing and medical (4%), law and governance (3%), and education and science (2%). The education levels of the sample are as follows: 14.5% intermediate vocational education, 52.4% higher vocational education, and 33.1% university education. The high level of more educated people in our sample is consistent with our focus on white collar employees.

Measurement
We operationalize all the latent constructs with multiitem scales drawn from the literature. To limit the length of the web-survey, some scales rely on a subset of items of the original scale. A restricted survey length is a critical element in Internet-based research (Crawford, Couper, & Lamias, 2001). Workplace boredom. There is much debate over the actual content of workplace boredom (Fisher, 1993; Game, 2007). The decision on operationalization was therefore not straightforward. Based on discussions with three experts in the elds and factor loadings reported in previous studies, we decided to combine items from two scales that received support in previous literature, i.e., Lees Job Boredom Scale (LJBS; Lee, 1986) and the VBBA (Questionnaire on the Experience and Assessment of Work; van Veldhoven, Meijman, Broersen, & Fortuin, 1997) to strike a good mix. Purication was done using principal component analysis; those items with high loadings (greater than .70) and minimal cross-loadings (below .40) were used for the actual measure. The nal instrument contained

TEMPORARY REACTIONS TO WORKPLACE BOREDOM

363

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

seven items1 (e.g., Do you feel bored at work?, Is there insucient work to do?, and Do you learn new skills at work?), measured on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 never to 4 always. Engaging in distraction was operationalized using three items and was specically developed for this study (e.g., I spend much time on personal interests during work time and I visit web pages on the Internet without this being necessary for my work). Work indierence was measured with two items, referring to a lack of concern about ones work (e.g., I dont care whether I perform badly on my job or not). These items were derived from French and Kahn (1962) and used a 6-point Likert scales ranging from 1 never to 6 very often. Time management skills was operationalized drawing on Peeters and Rutte (2005) and Macan (1994). The sevenitem 5-point Likert scale assessed the extent to which respondents tend to plan their tasks (e.g., setting deadlines when working on a task), set goals (e.g., nishing top priority tasks before working on less important ones), and monitor personal progress (e.g., reviewing goals to determine if they need revising). Proactiveness skills was operationalized using six items adapted from Frese, Fay, Hilburger, Leng, and Tag (1997). Sample items included: I take initiative immediately even when others dont and I use opportunities quickly in order to attain my goals. Participants responded on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 totally disagree to 5 totally agree. Finally, we included several demographic variables as controls, including education, age, and gender. Young people, for instance, may be less resistant to engaging in distraction, as they may not have learned yet how to deal with uctuations in workload. A complete overview of the items used is displayed in Table 2.

Data analyses
The data were analysed in three stages using SPSS 17 and Partial Least Squares (PLS) modelling using SmartPLS 2.0 software (Ringle, Wende, & Will, 2005). First, the validity and reliability of the measures were examined, assessing the measurement model in SmartPLS. Measurement properties such as construct reliability and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) were considered. The internal reliability (alpha) of each measure is above or equal to the commonly accepted threshold of .70 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995). The conrmatory factor analysis indicates that each item loaded signicantly on its respective latent construct, supporting the dimensionality and convergent validity of our constructs. The AVE of all
1 Two boredom items (Do you nd your job dull? and Does the time seem to go by slowly at work?) were dropped from the analysis because of low factor loadings on the boredom construct.

364

VAN DER HEIJDEN, SCHEPERS, NIJSSEN TABLE 2 Items, constructs, and measurement model

Constructs Workplace boredom (AVE 62.7%) B1: Do you feel bored at work? B2: Is there insucient work to do? B3: Is there variety in your work? (R) B4: Do you learn new skills at work? (R) B5: Does your work provide you with opportunities for personal learning and development? (R) B6: Could you nish your work in less time than it takes now? B7: Does your work appeal to your skills and capabilities? (R) Engaging in distraction (AVE 87.0%) E1: I spend time on personal interests during work time. E2: I divert myself with matters which have nothing to do with my actual job. E3: I visit web pages on the Internet without this being necessary for my work. Work indierence (AVE 77.3%) W1: I dont care whether I perform badly on my job or not. W2: My opinion of myself does not go down when I do my job badly. Time management skills (AVE 62.4%) T1: I break tasks down to subtasks that are easier to work with. T2: I set short-term goals to achieve tasks that only take a few days or weeks. T3: I set deadlines when working on a task. T4: I look for opportunities to increase the eciency of tasks. T5: I tend to nish top priority tasks before working on less important ones. T6: I review my goals to determine if they need revising. T7: I tend to schedule my time daily. Proactiveness skills (AVE 64.9%) P1: I actively attack problems. P2: Whenever something goes wrong, I search for a solution immediately. P3: Whenever there is a chance to get actively involved, I take it. P4: I take initiative immediately even when others dont. P5: I use opportunities quickly in order to attain my goals. P6: Usually I do more than I am asked to do.

Factor loading

t-value

.89 .75 .77 .77 .82 .69 .83 .92 .93 .95

36.18 18.27 23.16 20.94 28.78 13.97 31.30 33.00 70.44 91.42

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

.91 .85

36.43 14.64

.76 .83 .77 .76 .79 .80 .81 .88 .69 .86 .75 .82 .74

16.62 32.00 19.55 15.58 21.49 22.13 27.14 13.60 6.08 12.52 7.07 12.35 8.29

All t-values are signicant at p 5 .01; (R) indicates reverse-scaled item. AVE Average Variance Extracted.

indicator variables exceeded .5 and the square root of the AVEs was larger than the intercorrelation with any other study construct, yielding evidence for internal reliability and discriminant validity respectively (Chin, 1998; Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The AVE, alphas, factor loadings, and t-values of the items are presented with the item wordings in Table 2. Subsequently,

TEMPORARY REACTIONS TO WORKPLACE BOREDOM

365

TABLE 3 Means, standard deviations, and correlations of composite measures of the models core constructs (N 166) Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Workplace boredom Engaging in distraction Work indierence Time management skills Proactiveness skills M 2.44 3.23 2.64 2.88 3.69 SD 0.74 1.37 1.03 0.94 0.76 1 (.90) .71** 7.21** 7.46** 7.17* 2 3 4 5

(.92) 7.07 7.31** 7.05

(.70) .22** .21**

(.89) .40**

(.90)

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

Cronbachs a reliabilities between brackets are on the diagonal. *p  .05, **p  .01 (twotailed).

means, standard deviations, and correlations of the composite measures of the model constructs were computed in SPSS taking the latent variable scores from the PLS estimation. Results are shown in Table 3. Second, we empirically examined whether common method bias might inate relationships in the perceptual data. First, the smallest correlation among the manifest variables was examined, which provides a reasonable proxy for common method bias (Lindell & Whitney, 2001). The smallest observed correlation among the model variables is .05 (between engaging in distraction and proactiveness skills), and the second-smallest correlation is .07 (between work indierence and engaging in distraction). Hence, low intercorrelation between dierent focal constructs of the data collected exists. Next, we also performed a Harmans one-factor test (McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992) on the items of the latent constructs in our study. It resulted in ve factors with the rst factor only explaining 33.1% of the total variance and the remaining factors explaining an additional 37.5%. In sum, the evidence from these procedures supports the assumption that common method bias is not a serious issue in our data (Podsako, Mackenzie, Lee, & Podsako, 2003). Finally, we used SmartPLS to obtain PLS estimates for the structural parameters in our conceptual model (Chin, 1998; Ringle et al., 2005). PLS is recommended for relatively small sample sizes (Barclay, Higgins, & Thompson, 1995) and has no restrictions concerning distribution of variables. In order to test the eects and the statistical signicance of the hypothesized pathways in the structural model, we used SmartPLSs bootstrapping option with 500 samples, which is recommended for obtaining stable results (Chin, 1998).

RESULTS
The results of the PLS model estimationincluding standardized path coecients, t-values, and the amount of variances explained (R2)are

366

VAN DER HEIJDEN, SCHEPERS, NIJSSEN

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

presented in Table 4. According to these ndings, 20.7% of the variance is explained by employees work indierence, and 55.8% by engaging in distraction. Looking at specic results, we nd that there is a statistically signicant path between workplace boredom to engaging in distraction, b .60, t 9.81, p 5 .01, supporting Hypothesis 1a. However, contrary to our expectations, workplace boredom is not signicantly related to work indierence, b .11, t 1.38, ns, which means that Hypothesis 1b is not supported. With regard to the anticipated moderating eects, time management skills negatively moderates the relationship between workplace boredom and engaging in distraction, b .22, t 2.20, p 5 .05. This supports Hypothesis 2a. To help the interpretation of this interaction, we plot the relationship between workplace boredom and engaging in distraction for average, low (one standard deviation below the mean), and high (one standard deviation above the mean) values of time management skills (see Figure 2a). The gure conrms that bored employees who are procient in time management skills engage in less distraction than their less procient counterparts. However, in work environments characterized by

TABLE 4 Results of PLS estimates for integrated path model Dependent constructs Temporary relief strategies Workplace boredom (b) Independent constructs Workplace boredom Time management skills Proactiveness skills Boredom 6 Time management skills Boredom 6 Proactiveness skills Control variables Age Education Gender{ 2 R t-value Engaging in distraction (b) t-value Work indierence (b) t-value

7.46** 7.03

7.08 0.43

.60** 7.03 7.06 7.22* .12

9.81 0.45 0.73 2.20 1.15

7.11 .08 .04 7.18 .21*

1.38 0.94 0.51 0.75 1.96

22.1%

7.10* 7.06 7.08 55.8%

1.72 1.10 1.41

.09 7.05 7.20** 20.7%

1.17 0.63 2.72

N 166. *p  .05, **p  .01 (one-tailed). {0 male, 1 female. Table reports results from analysing a single path model in SmartPLS 2.0.

TEMPORARY REACTIONS TO WORKPLACE BOREDOM

367

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

Figure 2. Moderating eects of (a) time management skills and (b) proactiveness skills on the relationship between workplace boredom and its consequences.

Figure 3. Path diagram of the research model. Dashed lines indicate hypothesized moderation eects. Only the eects for the hypothesized relationships and signicant eects of the control variables are displayed. *p  .05, **p  .01 (one-tailed).

low boredom, time management procient employees are more easily distracted compared to employees who lack time management skills. In contrast to our hypothesis, the eect of time management on the relationship between workplace boredom and work indierence is not signicant, b .18, t 0.75, ns. Consequently, there is no support for Hypothesis 2b. Surprisingly, the results show that proactiveness skills positively rather than negatively inuence the relationships between boredom and the two

368

VAN DER HEIJDEN, SCHEPERS, NIJSSEN

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

temporary relief strategies, although only the boredomwork indierence relationship is signicantly aected, b .21, t 1.96, p 5 .05. Hence, the ndings do not lend support to Hypothesis 3a and suggest rejecting Hypothesis 3b. We again plot the relationships to facilitate the correct interpretation of the eects found. Figure 2b depicts that proactive employees do not dier very much in their levels of work indierence across dierent levels of boredom. However, employees who are less proactive are seriously aected. These employees are most indierent about their work under conditions of low boredom, but most concerned (i.e., least indierent) in situations of high boredom. The gure thus suggests that the reversed eect is limited to the low proactive group. Direct relationships between employee skills and workplace boredom reveal a strong negative association between time management skills and workplace boredom, b .46, t 7.08, p 5 .01. However, no relationship between proactiveness skills and workplace boredom is detected, b .03, t 0.43, ns. This implies that there is support for Hypothesis 4a but not for 4b. Finally, with regard to the control variables, we nd age to be negatively associated with engaging in distraction, b .10, t 1.72, p 5 .10; younger employees are thus more likely to engage in distractive behaviour. It could be that young people are more restless and have shorter attention spans and deal less eectively with distractions. A relationship between gender and work indierence is also encountered, b .20, t 2.72, p 5 .01. This suggests that men are more indierent towards their work than women.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The point of departure for this study was to better understand employees temporary relief strategies to workplace boredom, i.e., engaging in distraction and work indierence, and to account for the potential moderating eects of two self-regulatory skills, i.e., time management and proactiveness skills. In doing so, we tried to address the shortcomings in prior work. The results provide initial support for employees engaging in distraction as a limited problem solving strategy, but are less consistent with regard to work indierence as a strategy of temporary relief. The positive relationship between workplace boredom and engaging in distraction does not just match our expectations. It also conrms that boredom is not only a problem among blue collar workers, but impacts white collar employees too. For these workers, engaging in distractive behaviours can serve as a temporary relief strategy. This is consistent with studies on self-regulation, which suggest that one way to react to a dissatisfying work environment is to compensate by allocating eort to alternative tasks and activities (DyerSmith & Wesson, 1997; Karoly, 1993; Yeo & Neal, 2008). If this temporary

TEMPORARY REACTIONS TO WORKPLACE BOREDOM

369

relief strategy works, further and more active problem solving may not be needed. However, if boredom is structural in nature, additional management interventions may still be required. Further research on this topic is needed to determine the boundary conditions of proximal and distal selfregulation processes to prevent escalation of reactions to boredom. In contrast to the highly signicant relationship between boredom and engaging in distraction, boredom was not signicantly related to work indierence. A potential explanation provided by research on cognitive resource allocation is that reducing ones resources to the lowest level is often dicult because employees still are expected to attain designated targets (Dyer-Smith & Wesson, 1997). Experimental research shows that it takes extreme manipulation of work before participants really withdraw eort (Yeo & Neal, 2008). An alternative explanation is that work indierence is a long-term rather than short-term reaction. If an employee fails to apply other problem solving strategies, boredom might become so much of a strain that he/she feels the need to distance him-/herself from his/her job. Such long-term dynamic would be consistent with earlier studies that link boredom to absenteeism (Kass, Vodanovich, & Callender, 2001; Melamed et al., 1995). The results of our moderation analysis also provide some compelling details warranting further discussion. First, for low proactive individuals a high boredom condition is accompanied by low work indierence and a low boredom condition with high work indierence (Figure 2b). Hence, a reactive worker gets more involved when boredom levels are higher. A possible explanation is that reactive employees, compared to proactive workers, feel more comfortable under regular conditions than under the more extreme conditions of very low demanding situations (compare Frese & Fay, 2001). Their lack of proactiveness then could make them feel uneasy because it draws more attention to their own inactivity. As a result they may become more concerned rather than less concerned about their job. Second, employees who have high proactiveness skills are rather unaected by dierent levels of boredom. This suggests that these employeescompared to their low proactive counterpartsare able to remain involved with their job despite high levels of boredom and a lack of challenging job-related goals. Their proactive skills probably help in this process. However, particularly for this group the result also supports the earlier conjecture that work indierence may be a long-term rather than a short-term reaction. Results conrmed that time management skills make individuals less susceptible to engaging in distractive behaviours when confronted with feelings of boredom in the workplace. Apart from the anticipated moderation eect, a direct negative eect was present. Thus, time management is not only a powerful self-regulatory skill for countering negative eects of workplace boredom, but also prevents employees from getting bored. Being able to plan tasks, set goals, and organize ones work enables

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

370

VAN DER HEIJDEN, SCHEPERS, NIJSSEN

an employee to spread the boring moments over a work week. Alternatively, when an individual has more overview over his/her work, boring situations may be put into the right perspective. The eectiveness of time management has been demonstrated for strained and emotionally exhausted workers (e.g., Claessens et al., 2008), but our study is the rst to show that it can also prevent and alleviate the negative consequences of workplace boredom.

Limitations, future research, and management implications

Our study is subject to some limitations, which at the same time constitute opportunities for future research. First, our cross-sectional design implies that we should be careful with interpretation and inferences regarding causal eects. Causality was inferred based on theoretical arguments. Therefore, we recommend future research to take a longitudinal approach. It will help to gain better insight in the causality of the relationships involved, and enables to extend the analysis to include the link between temporary relief strategies and long-term problem solving strategies (e.g., actively voicing complaints). Second, our measures were all subjective in nature. Future studies could relate boredom to a larger set of relevant dependent variables including also objectively measurable outcomes, such as productive hours and other key performance indicators. This would enable researchers to not only give advice to increase worker well-being, but also to identify areas for enhancing work eciency and eectiveness. Third, the assessment of work indierence used a two-item measure and may explain the nonsignicant relationship with workplace boredom. Therefore, we recommend future research to use a more comprehensive measure of work indierence including also items regarding disengagement and psychological distancing. Furthermore, other employee competencies such as career management skills, or personal traits like extraversion or conscientiousness, could be considered when further exploring employees self-regulatory skills for preventing or reducing boredom. Extravert employees, for instance, might react to boredom by actively voicing complaints instead of seeking passive temporary relief. Fourth, our results are limited to a sample of Dutch white collar employees. Research with respondents from other countries would be useful as boredom in the workplace may be inuenced by cultural factors. As more rms are hiring across national borders, such additional insights might be useful. For instance, in collective versus individualistic cultures (also see Hofstede, 1980) workers may be more comfortable accepting the low challenges of a particular job if the rm seems to demand this. Finally, future research could also substantiate whether any dierences in relationships can be found between occupational groups. Although our research sample represents a wide variety of occupations, it may be useful,

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

TEMPORARY REACTIONS TO WORKPLACE BOREDOM

371

for instance, to compare workplace boredom among back-oce and frontoce workers. Current research indicates that employees who work at the boundary of an organization (e.g., customer-contact employees) are typically vulnerable to role stress as they have to balance their self-interests with those of their managers and customers (Singh, 2000). This uncertainty may reinforce the relationship between workplace boredom and its negative consequences. Managers may oer time management training to prevent employees from engaging in counterproductive boredom responses, teaching workers to formulate and prioritize goals. They can also show them how to plan tasks and monitor their own progress, which may motivate white collar employees to focus on goal-directed behaviour in situations of low stimulation (Claessens et al., 2008; Fisher, 1993). This is consistent with the literature on career self-management, which explains how employees can self-manage their careers within a single organization (de Vos, Dewettinck, & Buyens, 2009). If employees take responsibility by establishing their own development programmes, supervisor workload and concerns of access danger of boredom may be reduced (Rothlin & Werder, 2007). This is particularly relevant in companies where employees are overeducated for their respective tasks, which could have serious implications for business performance (Malachowski, 2005). Some researchers have estimated that the underemployment rate (i.e., employees working below their current skill level) in the US has increased to 16.8% in 2009 (Watt & Hargis, 2010). Organizations should therefore be more sensitive to signals of workplace boredom. Furthermore, rms can recruit employees with specic skill sets, or alternatively leverage the competencies of current workers by training them to counteract workplace boredom and its consequences. Finally, we note that responsiveness and trying to manage boredom in the workplace involves a balancing act. On the one hand, proactiveness and assertiveness training may help employees gain control and master their work situations. It may even help workers in simplied jobs to move away from a narrow thats not my job mentality to an orientation in which employees see broader problems as their responsibility and recognize the importance of being proactive. (Parker, 2000, p. 449). On the other hand, in an environment where employees are easily bored, high proactiveness skills may not always be a solution; employees become better equipped to deal with boredom but the boredom will not go away. The training thus is best accompanied by structural measures of job enhancement. Based on the results, we could also reason that organizations may benet more from employees with low proactiveness skills for jobs that are characterized by, for instance, modest challenges and low task variety. We hope that further research uses this studys foundation and results to further investigate workplace boredom and employee reaction strategies.

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

372

VAN DER HEIJDEN, SCHEPERS, NIJSSEN

REFERENCES
Ambrose, M. L., Seabright, M. A., & Schminke, M. (2002). Sabotage in the workplace: The role of organizational injustice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 947965. Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. (1997). A stitch in time: Self-regulation and proactive coping. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 417436. Azizi, N., Zolfaghari, S., & Liang, M. (2010). Modeling job rotation in manufacturing systems: The study of employees boredom and skill variations. International Journal of Production Economics, 123(1), 6985. Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., & Leiter, M. P. (2011). Key questions regarding work engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 428. Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The Partial Least Squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, 22, 285309. Bateman, T., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103118. Bhadury, J., & Radovilsky, Z. (2006). Job rotation using the multi-period assignment model. International Journal of Production Research, 44(20), 44314444. Briner, R. B. (1999). The neglect and importance of emotion at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(3), 323346. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Chin, W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly 22(1), 716. Claessens, B. J. C., Roe, R. A., & Rutte, C. G. (2008). Time management: Logic, eectiveness and challenges. In R. A. Roe, M. J. Waller, & S. Clegg (Eds.), Time in organizational research (pp. 2341). London, UK: Routledge. Claessens, B. J. C., van Eerde, W., Rutte, C. G., & Roe, R. A. (2004). Planning behavior and perceived control of time at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 937950. Claessens, B. J. C., van Eerde, W., Rutte, C. G., & Roe, R. A. (2007). A review of the time management literature. Personnel Review, 36, 255276. Crawford, S. D., Couper, M. P., & Lamias, M. J. (2001). Web surveys: Perception of burden. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 146162. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Damrad-Frye, R., & Laird, J. D. (1989). The experience of boredom: The role of self-perception of attention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 315320. Daniels, K. (2000). Measures of ve-aspects of aective well-being at work. Human Relations, 53, 275294. Daniels, K., Harris, C., & Briner, R. B. (2004). Linking work conditions to unpleasant aect: Cognition, categorisation and goals. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 343364. De Vos, A., Dewettinck, K., & Buyens, D. (2009). The professional career on the right track: A study on the interaction between career self-management and organizational career management in explaining employee outcomes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18(1), 5580. Dyer-Smith, M. B. A., & Wesson, D. A. (1997). Resource allocation eciency as an indicator of boredom, work performance and absence. Ergonomics, 40, 515521. Farmer, R., & Sundberg, D. (1986). Boredom proneness: The development and correlates of a new scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 417. Fisher, C. D. (1993). Boredom at work: A neglected concept. Human Relations, 46, 395417. Fisher, C. D. (1998). Eects of external and internal interruptions on boredom at work: Two studies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 503522.

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

TEMPORARY REACTIONS TO WORKPLACE BOREDOM

373

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 3950. French, J., & Kahn, R. (1962). A programmatic approach to studying the industrial environment and mental health. Journal of Social Issues, 18, 147. Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. In B. M. Staw & R. M. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organisational behavior (Vol. 23, pp. 133187). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity in two German samples. Journal of Organizational and Occupational Psychology, 70, 139161. Frone, M. R. (1998). Predictors of work injuries among employed adolescents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 565576. Game, A. M. (2007). Workplace boredom coping: Health, safety, and HR implications. Personnel Review, 36(5), 701721. Gardner, D. G. (1990). Task complexity eects on non-taskrelated movements: A test of activation theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45, 209231. Gemmill, G., & Oakley, J. (1992). The meaning of boredom in organizational life. Group and Organizational Management, 17, 358369. Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong eects of simple plans. The American Psychologist, 54, 493503. lez-Roma, V., Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Lloret, S. (2006). Burnout and Gonza engagement: Independent factors or opposite poles? Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 68, 165174. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 16, 250279. Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis: With readings (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Harris, M. B. (2000). Correlates and characteristics of boredom proneness and boredom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 576598. Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in rms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International dierences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory and industrial/organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. (Vol. 1, pp. 75170). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Kanfer, R., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Motivational traits and skills: A person-centered approach to work motivation. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 19, pp. 156). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Karoly, P. (1993). Mechanisms of self-regulation: A systems view. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 2352. Kass, S. J., Vodanovich, S. J., & Callendar, A. (2001). State-trait boredom: Relationship to absenteeism, tenure, and job satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16, 317327. Kass, S. J., Vodanovich, S. J., Stanny, C., & Taylor, T. (2001). Watching the clock: Boredom and vigilance performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 92, 969976. Lee, T. W. (1986). Toward the development and validation of a measure of job boredom. Manhattan College Journal of Business, 15, 2228. Leonhardt, D. (2009, March 4). Job losses show breadth of recession. The New York Times. p. B1. Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in crosssectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 114121.

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

374

VAN DER HEIJDEN, SCHEPERS, NIJSSEN

Locke, E., & Bryan, J. (1967). Performance goals as determinants of level of performance and boredom. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 120130. Loukidou, L., Loan-Clarke, J., & Daniels, K. (2009). Boredom in the workplace: More than monotonous tasks. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(4), 381405. Macan, T. H. (1994). Time management: Test of a process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 381391. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsako, P. M., & Ahearne, M. J. (1998). Some possible antecedents and consequences of in-role and extra-role salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 62, 8798. Malachowski, D. (2005). Wasted time at work costing companies billions. Salary.com. Retrieved 20 February 2009 from http://www.salary.com/careers/layouthtmls/crel_display_nocat_ Ser374_Par555.html McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 626637. Melamed, S., Benavi, I., Luz, J., & Green, M. S. (1995). Objective and subjective work monotony: Eects on job-satisfaction, psychological distress, and absenteeism in blue-collar workers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 2942. Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation: A conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 9911007. Mikulas, W. L., & Vodanovich, S. J. (1993). The essence of boredom. Psychological Record, 43, 312. Morrison, D., Cordery, J., Girardi, A., & Payne, R. (2005). Job design and opportunities for skill utilization and intrinsic job satisfaction. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 5979. OHanlon, J. F. (1981). Boredom: Practical consequences and a theory. Acta Psychologica, 49, 5382. Parker, S. K. (2000). From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of exible role orientations and role breadth self-ecacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 447469. Peeters, A. G., & Rutte, C. G. (2005). Time management behavior as a moderator for the job demand-control interaction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 6475. Perkins, R. E., & Hill, A. B. (1985). Cognitive and aective aspects of boredom. British Journal of Psychology, 76, 221234. Podsako, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsako, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879903. Porath, C. L., & Bateman, T. S. (2006). Self-regulation: From goal orientation to job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 185192. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). Finite mixture partial least squares analysis: Methodology and numerical examples. In V. Esposito Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods and applications in marketing and related elds (pp. 195218). Berlin, Germany: Springer. Rosenwald, M. (2008, December 6). Rising underemployment contributes to pain of jobs slump. The Washington Post. p. D01. Rothlin, P., & Werder, P. R. (2007). Boreout! Overcoming workplace demotivation. London: Kogan Page. Sawin, D. A., & Scerbo, M. W. (1995). Eects of instruction type and boredom proneness in vigilance: Implications for boredom and workload. Human Factors, 37(4), 752765. Shackleton, V. J. (1981). Boredom and repetitive work: A review. Personnel Review, 10, 3036.

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

TEMPORARY REACTIONS TO WORKPLACE BOREDOM

375

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

Singh, J. (2000). Performance, productivity, and quality of frontline employees in service organizations, Journal of Marketing, 64, 1534. Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 446460. Van Eerde, W. (2000). Procrastination: Self-regulation in initiating aversive goals. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 372389. Van Veldhoven, M., Meijman, T. F., Broersen, J. P. J., & Fortuin, R. J. (1997). Research into the experiences of psychosocial workload and strain with the questionnaire experiencing and evaluation of work. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Stichting Kwaliteitsbevordering Bedrijfsgezondheid. Vodanovich, S. J. (2003). Psychometric measures of boredom: A review of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 137, 569601. Vodanovich, S. J., & Kass, S. J. (1990). A factor analytic study of the boredom proneness scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 115123. Vodanovich, S. J., Weddle, C., & Piotrowski, C. (1997). The relationship between boredom proneness and internal and external work values. Social Behavior and Personality, 25(3), 259264. Wallace, J. C., Vodanovich, S. J., & Restino, B. M. (2003). Predicting cognitive failures from boredom proneness and daytime sleepiness scores: An investigation within military and undergraduate samples. Personality and Individual Dierences, 34, 635644. Warr, P., & Fay, D. (2001). Age and personal initiative at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 343353. Watt, J. D., & Hargis, M. B. (2010). Boredom proneness: Its relationship with subjective underemployment, perceived organizational support, and job performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 163174. Wright, T. A. (2006). The emergence of job satisfaction in organizational behavior: A historical overview of the dawn of job attitude research. Journal of Management History, 12(3), 262277. Yang, J., & Diefendor, J. M. (2009). The relations of daily counterproductive workplace behavior with emotions, situational antecedents, and personality moderators: A diary study in Hong Kong. Personnel Psychology, 62(2), 259295. Yeo, G., & Neal, A. (2008). Subjective cognitive eort: A model of states, traits, and time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 617631. Original manuscript received September 2010 Revised manuscript received March 2011 First published online August 2011