1359432x%2e2011%2e578824.pdf

This article was downloaded by: [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije]On: 12 February 2013, At: 10:09Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

European Journal of Work andOrganizational PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

Understanding workplaceboredom among white collaremployees: Temporary reactionsand individual differencesGielis A. H. van der Heijden a , Jeroen J. L. Schepers a

& Edwin J. Nijssen aa Department of Industrial Engineering and InnovationSciences, Eindhoven University of Technology,Eindhoven, The NetherlandsVersion 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 andOrganizational 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/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.578824

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damageswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith or arising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nar

odna

Bib

liote

ka S

rbije

] at

10:

09 1

2 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

Understanding workplace boredom among white

collar employees: Temporary reactions and

individual differences

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

Edwin J. Nijssen

Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences, EindhovenUniversity of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

The purpose of this study is to investigate white collar employees’ temporaryrelief strategies to workplace boredom. Building on self-regulation theory wedefine two responses: engaging in distraction and work indifference. We alsoinvestigate whether some individuals are more likely to engage in these strategiesthan others by considering two employee competencies: time management skillsand proactiveness skills. Better understanding employee relief strategies andskills may help managers to remedy boredom problems before serious costs areincurred.We collected data from166Dutchwhite collar employees and analysedtheir survey responses using SPSS and Partial Least Squares (PLS) modelling.Findings indicate that workplace boredom is associated with engaging indistraction. Less consistent results were obtained with regard to workindifference. We find compelling results on the effectiveness of two moderatingconditions; proactiveness skills affect the relationship between boredom andwork indifference, and time management skills weaken the association betweenworkplace boredom and engaging in distractive behaviour. We consequentlyconclude that organizations may benefit most from employees with high timemanagement skills, as these employees are less prone to engaging in distraction asa result of workplace boredom. Directions for future research are offered.

Keywords: Proactiveness; Self-regulation; Time management; White collaremployees; 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: [email protected]

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.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND

ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

2012, 21 (3), 349–375

� 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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nar

odna

Bib

liote

ka S

rbije

] at

10:

09 1

2 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

Over the past three decades, the importance of boredom in the workplaceand its potential costs for firms have increasingly been recognized. A recentstudy by Malachowski (2005) shows that almost one-third of 10,000surveyed employees spent 2 hours on private affairs every working daybecause they were bored. The cost involved is calculated at over $750 billionper annum in the US alone. Traditionally studied among blue collarworkers, emerging evidence indicates that workplace boredom may also be aserious problem among white collar employees. Loukidou, Loan-Clarke,and Daniels (2009) state that ‘‘increases in the educational levels of theworkforce, plus the use of technology to routinize working practices hasmeant that the skills of workers, even in many white-collar jobs, exceed therequirements of their jobs’’ (p. 382). The current economic recession is likelyto exacerbate the pervasiveness of workplace boredom, because highlyeducated employees accept lower ranked jobs in times of low job security(Leonhardt, 2009; Rosenwald, 2008).

Workplace boredom refers to an unpleasant affective state resultingfrom the underuse of a person’s 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 onfactors that cause boredom. Job characteristics, like work underload andmonotony, have frequently been considered as important determinants ofworkplace boredom (e.g., Shackleton, 1981). It is also widely accepted thatsome individuals are more boredom prone than others, explaining whyindividuals in similar jobs and with similar requirements may vary in theirlevels of boredom (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986).

Research that investigates the consequences of boredom has focused onlong-term reactions (Loukidou et al., 2009). Examples include searchingfor work improvement (Vodanovich & Kass, 1990), absenteeism (Kass,Vodanovich, & Callender, 2001), and even sabotage (Ambrose, Seabright, &Schminke, 2002). Understanding such long-term responses is important andhas contributed greatly to our understanding of individuals’ reactions, but itdoesn’t take into account that an employee might not execute such activeproblem solving strategies instantly. Employees are likely to first attempttemporary relief strategies to feel better in the short term (Dyer-Smith &Wesson, 1997). These limited problem solving strategies alleviate theunpleasant state of boredom, but they do not remove the source ofboredom, which would require an active problem solving strategy (i.e.,boredom coping; Game, 2007). If such a strategy succeeds, this is atemporary relief to the dissatisfying work conditions and more activeproblem solving may not be required. Yet, studies of people’s initialreactions to feelings of boredom are virtually nonexistent.

The goal of this study is to highlight the importance of temporary reliefstrategies as individual’s reactions to workplace boredom. We build on the

350 VAN DER HEIJDEN, SCHEPERS, NIJSSEN

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nar

odna

Bib

liote

ka S

rbije

] at

10:

09 1

2 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

theory of self-regulation, which offers useful insights concerning potentialstrategies. It proposes that employees undertake immediate efforts totolerate, reduce, or minimize the incongruity between one’s desiredperformance level and the dissatisfying work environment (Kanfer, 1990;Karoly, 1993). Self-regulation theory is commonly used in stress manage-ment literature, but may also be a solid foundation for understanding thetemporary relief strategies applied in response to workplace boredom. Suchunderstanding may help managers to identify workplace boredom amongtheir staff at an early stage, and remedy the problem before serious costs areincurred.

We contribute to the literature in three ways. First, in accordance withthe research on self-regulation (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Kanfer, 1990; Yeo& Neal, 2008), we identify two temporary relief strategies that individualscan use as a limited problem solving strategy in a situation of workplaceboredom: engaging in distraction and work indifference. Both are useful tofeel better in the short term; the first helps by engaging in other, moreinteresting but often unrelated tasks, and the second, by distancing oneselffrom one’s job and employer. To date, studies on temporary relief strategiesare scant, but research on this subject could be an important step towards amore complete understanding of the process that leads to more extremereactions like sabotage (Ambrose et al., 2002). This is especially true sinceidentifying boredom in the workplace is difficult; many employees do not tellothers that they are bored due to fear of losing their jobs or concerns aboutfuture work overload (Rothlin & Werder, 2007).

Second, we investigate whether all employees are equally likely to engagein temporary relief strategies. Self-regulation theory suggests that theallocation of cognitive effort to tolerate a dissatisfying situation is largelydependent on employee self-regulatory skills (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1997;Karoly, 1993). We consider: (1) time management skills, that denotecapabilities to effectively plan work according to role prescriptions and workgoals (Claessens, Roe, & Rutte, 2008); and (2) employee proactiveness skills,that refer to the ability to make changes to work conditions and accept newwork approaches and methods (Parker, 2000). Managers might respondtimely to potential boredom problems by recruiting employees with specificskill sets, or leverage the competencies of current workers by training thembefore problems get worse (Game, 2007).

Finally, we use a sample of white collar workers to test the frameworkand hypotheses developed. Previous research demonstrates the negativeconsequences of boredom among blue collar workers (e.g., Azizi,Zolfaghari, & Liang, 2010; Game, 2007; Melamed, Benavi, Luz, & Green,1995; O’Hanlon, 1981), but little empirical insight exists on workplaceboredom among white collar employees. Yet, there are many white collarwork situations where managers have little control over an employee’s

TEMPORARY REACTIONS TO WORKPLACE BOREDOM 351

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nar

odna

Bib

liote

ka S

rbije

] at

10:

09 1

2 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

workload and daily work scheme. Examples include out-of-office jobs suchas consultants and sales representatives, or jobs embedded in a virtual teamenvironment, where the lack of visual and social cues makes it hard tomonitor boredom. In addition, we note a tendency towards hiringoverqualified white collar workers. Both factors make research focusingon white collar staff a valuable extension.

The study outline is as follows: We first discuss the background ofworkplace boredom and recognize three streams of previous work.Specifically, we identify and substantiate the lack of attention for temporaryrelief strategies in prior boredom studies. We then introduce the theoreticalframework and develop our hypotheses, followed by an empirical test. Weconclude with a discussion of the findings, implications for management,and future research directions.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Different views on workplace boredom exist in literature. Table 1 providesan overview of previous research published over the last two decades andplaces each study in a specific stream. Three different research streams canbe identified.

The first research stream considers the correlates of workplace boredom.The majority of these studies relate boredom to features of individual well-being (e.g., Daniels, 2000; Melamed et al., 1995) and performance outcomes(e.g., Ambrose et al., 2002; Fisher, 1998). Fewer empirical studies exist onworkplace boredom and counterproductive work behaviours (e.g., Spectoret al., 2006). Although some long-term outcomes associated with high costsand profit loss for organizations have been identified (e.g., turnover andsabotage), temporary relief strategies to workplace boredom have remainedunexplored. Moreover, most of these studies do not include boredom as afocal construct, but rather as a correlate measured by a single item. Athorough explanation of the relationship between situational workplaceboredom and temporary relief strategies is therefore lacking.

A second research stream concentrates on individual differencesregarding workplace boredom (i.e., trait boredom; Game, 2007; Vodano-vich, 2003). There is substantive theory on boredom proneness, indicatingthat people have a different propensity to get bored across time andsituations (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986). Results show that an individual’sability to cope with boredom is positively correlated with his/her well-beingand compliance with organizational prescriptions (Game, 2007). Studieshave also related boredom proneness to individual characteristics such asintellectual capacity or extraversion (Kass, Vodanovich, Stanny, & Taylor,2001). Although such individual characteristics have been related toboredom, little is yet known about their potential contingency role in the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nar

odna

Bib

liote

ka S

rbije

] at

10:

09 1

2 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

TA

BL

E1

Ov

erv

iew

of

rese

arc

ho

nw

ork

pla

ceb

ore

do

m(1

99

0–p

rese

nt)

Study

Focusofresearch

stream

Measurement

ofboredom

Results

Sample

Loukidouet

al.

(2009)

Review

onboredom

intheworkplace

Nomeasurements

Boredom

isrelatedto

jobs(repetitiveness

andmonotony),theindividual(w

ell-

being,personality

traits),socialcontext,

andgoalsandcoping.

None

Vodanovich

(2003)

Review

onboredom

intheworkplace

Nomeasurements

ReviewsindividualcorrelateswithBPS

(Boredom

PronenessScale)such

as:

negativeaffect,personality

variables

such

asextraversion,im

pulsivity,low

jobsatisfaction,low

perform

ance,

anxiety,depression,lack

ofattention,

anddiffi

cultyin

socialinteractions.

None

Fisher

(1993)

Review

onboredom

intheworkplace

Nomeasurements

Discusses

severalcausesofboredom,

individualdifferences,personality,

mentalhealth,currentconcerns(goals),

andresponsesto

boredom.

None

Yang&

Diefendorff

(2009)

Boredom

correlates

Single

boredom

item

;part

of

theJob-relatedAffective

Well-beingScale,(van

Katw

yk,Fox,Spector,&

Kelloway,2000)

Negativeem

otions(includingboredom)

partiallymediate

therelationship

betweensituationalantecedents

and

counterproductiveworkplace

behaviour.

Whitecollar

employees

Spectoret

al.

(2006)

Boredom

correlates

Single

boredom

item

;part

of

theJob-relatedAffective

Well-beingScale,(van

Katw

yket

al.,2000)

Oneofthedim

ensionsof

counterproductivework

behaviour,

withdrawal,partly

relatesto

boredom.

Whitecollar

employees

(co

nti

nu

ed

ov

erl

ea

f)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nar

odna

Bib

liote

ka S

rbije

] at

10:

09 1

2 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

TA

BL

E1

(Co

nti

nu

ed

)

Study

Focusofresearch

stream

Measurement

ofboredom

Results

Sample

Wright(2006)

Boredom

correlates

Nomeasurements

Boredom/m

onotonyispositively

correlatedto

jobsatisfaction.

None

Daniels,Harris,

&Briner

(2004)

Boredom

correlates

Nomeasurements

Boredom

incognitiveprocessing.

None

Ambrose

etal.

(2002)

Boredom

correlates

Codingofnonscientificself-

reports,includingone

boredom

item

Most

importantmotives

forsabotage

behaviourare

injustice(59.8%),then

powerlessness(19.7%),andthen

boredom

(10.7%).

Mixed

sample;data

obtained

from

anonymous

interview

reports

Daniels(2000)

Boredom

correlates

Single

item

(part

ofaffective

well-beingscale)

Evidence

isprovided

forscalesthat

measure

fiveaspects

ofaffectivewell-

beingin

relationto

work

context.

Mixed

sample

Frone(1998)

Boredom

correlates

Developed

5-item

boredom

scale

Jobboredom,amongothers,ispositively

relatedto

work

injuries.

Students

Fisher

(1998)

Boredom

correlates

Labstudywithtasksand

interruptions;Single

boredom

item

andcorrelates

(e.g.,irritation,frustration,

attention)

Boredom

andattentionaldiffi

culties:More

interruptionsleadto

higher

levelsof

boredom.

Students

Melamed

etal.

(1995)

Boredom

correlates

Single

item

(part

ofthe

subjectivemonotonyscale;

alsoincluded

routine,

monotonous,andnotvaried

enough)

Objectiveandsubjectivework

monotony

relate

tohigher

levelsofpsychological

distress,lower

jobsatisfaction,and

higher

levelsofabsenteeism

.

Bluecollar

employees

(co

nti

nu

ed

ov

erl

ea

f)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nar

odna

Bib

liote

ka S

rbije

] at

10:

09 1

2 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

TA

BL

E1

(Co

nti

nu

ed

)

Study

Focusofresearch

stream

Measurement

ofboredom

Results

Sample

Csikszentm

ihalyi

(1990)

Boredom

correlates

Nomeasurements

Boredom

ariseswhen

employee

abilities

exceed

task

dem

ands.

None

Kass,

Vodanovich,&

Callender

(2001)

Individual

differences

Boredom

PronenessScale

(PBS)andJobBoredom

Scale

(JBS)

Lower

jobsatisfaction,longer

organizationaltenure,greater

absenteeism

.

Bluecollar

employees

Watt&

Hargis

(2010)

Individual

differences

Boredom

PronenessScale

(BPS)

Feelingsofunderem

ployment,perceived

low

support

from

theorganization,

lower

perform

ance

ratings.

Healthcare

employees

Game(2007)

Individual

differences

Boredom

CopingScale

(BC)

Highboredom-copersshowlower

levelsof

work-relateddepression,anxiety,higher

satisfaction,higher

arousal,greater

compliance

withorganizationalsafety

rules.

Bluecollar

employees

Wallace,

Vodanovich,&

Restino(2003)

Individual

differences

Boredom

PronenessScale

(BPS)

Higher

daytimesleepinessandboredom

pronenessscoresare

predictiveofhigher

cognitivefailure

scores.

Bluecollar

employeesand

students

Kass,

Vodanovich,

Stanny,&

Taylor(2001)

Individual

differences

Boredom

PronenessScale

(BPS)

TraitBoredom

Pronenessispredictiveof

perform

ance

onmonotonoustasks.

Bluecollar

employees

Vodanovich,

Weddle,&

Piotrowski

(1997)

Individual

differences

Boredom

PronenessScale

(BPS)

Individualswithhighboredom

proneness

scorespossessedsignificantlygreater

externalwork

valuescores.

Students

(co

nti

nu

ed

ov

erl

ea

f)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nar

odna

Bib

liote

ka S

rbije

] at

10:

09 1

2 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

TA

BL

E1

(Co

nti

nu

ed

)

Study

Focusofresearch

stream

Measurement

ofboredom

Results

Sample

Sawin

&Scerbo

(1995)

Individual

differences

Boredom

PronenessScale

(BPS)

Provides

evidence

forthelinkbetween

traitboredom

andperform

ance

in

vigilance

tasks.

Mixed

sample

Azizi

etal.(2010)

Managem

ent

interventions

Seriesofform

ulations;

motivationcurves

Anew

methodologyto

implement

rotationsplansispresented.

Bluecollar

employees

Rothlin&

Werder

(2007)

Managem

ent

interventions

Nomeasurements

Qualitativemanagem

entbookon

boredom

intheoffice.

Whitecollar

employees

Bhadury

&

Radovilsky

(2006)

Managem

ent

interventions

Seriesofform

ulations

Optimizationmodelsare

form

ulatedand

solved

usingpolynomialtime

algorithmsorsimple

heuristics.

None

Briner

(1999)

Managem

ent

interventions

Nomeasurements

Statestheim

portance

ofmanaging

employee

emotions.

None

Mikulas&

Vodanovich

(1993)

Managem

ent

interventions

Nomeasurements

Conceptualpaper.

None

Gem

mill&

Oakley(1992)

Managem

ent

interventions

Nomeasurements

Speculationsaboutthemeaningof

boredom.Severalexamplesofwell-

beingcorrelates.

None


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nar

odna

Bib

liote

ka S

rbije

] at

10:

09 1

2 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

boredom reaction process. In other words, we know that some individualsare more likely to experience boredom than others, but it is not clearwhether reactions to boredom also differ with individual skills (Fisher,1993).

Finally, a third stream of interest identified is the boredom literaturefocusing on management interventions to alleviate the boredom problem.Strategies include job enrichment, job rotation, and active communicationbetween supervisors and employees (e.g., Azizi et al., 2010; Rothlin &Werder, 2007). Numerous studies build on Hackman and Oldham’s (1976)job characteristics theory and stress the importance of the relationshipbetween work content and work motivation (Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter,2011; Morrison, Cordery, Girardi, & Payne, 2005). Authors have arguedthat a lack of task variety, limited learning opportunities, or a deficiency ofsufficient tasks are responsible for employees experiencing high levels ofworkplace boredom (Mikulas & Vodanovich, 1993). As a result, severalmanagement actions have been suggested, including the creation of acompelling organizational vision (Gemmill & Oakley, 1992) and interven-tions to increase positive emotions (Briner, 1999). However, most studies inthis stream are conceptual rather than empirical in nature. Consequently,little evidence exists on the effectiveness of these interventions. In addition,management advice focuses on the prevention of workplace boredom, whilelittle is known on how managers can leverage employee skills to prevent thenegative boredom consequences.

Based on our review of the literature we conclude that current research onworkplace boredom has left some important questions unanswered. We aimto address some of the shortcomings in each of the three discussed researchstreams by identifying two temporary relief strategies, and examining themin combination with individual differences in employees’ reactions, in anattempt to substantiate how management can take instant measures againstworkplace boredom among their employees.

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

In this study, we view employee reactions to workplace boredom from thetheory of self-regulation. According to this theory, individuals adjust theireffort in response to a discrepancy between current and desired levels of jobor task performance (Kanfer, 1990; Karoly, 1993). Large discrepancies leadto anxiety when a task is too difficult, but lead to boredom when a task is toeasy (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Self-regulation is defined as ‘‘processes thatenable an individual to guide his or her goal-directed activities over time andacross changing circumstances, including the modulation of thought, affect,and behavior’’ (Porath & Bateman, 2006, p. 185). Within the theory of self-regulation, distal and proximal processes can be distinguished (Karoly,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nar

odna

Bib

liote

ka S

rbije

] at

10:

09 1

2 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

1993; Yeo & Neal, 2008). Distal processes are responsible for active problemsolving behaviours, like leaving a dissatisfying job or voicing complaints tohigher authorities (Hirschman, 1970). Proximal processes refer to temporaryrelief strategies, where people change their cognitive effort allocation to dealwith the situation (Carver & Scheier, 1998).

Because we aim to understand the temporary relief strategies toworkplace boredom, we focus on the proximal process of self-regulation.Additionally, and in line with the self-regulation theory, we propose thatemployees who vary in self-regulatory skills (i.e., time management andproactiveness skills) may differentially react to feelings of workplaceboredom. Our conceptual framework is depicted in Figure 1.

Main effects

Literature on emotions suggests disengagement and avoidance as naturalresponses to discomforting situations (Daniels et al., 2004; Dyer-Smith &Wesson, 1997). These responses are dominated by cognitive efforts ofseeking relief (van Eerde, 2000). Consistent with this, we focus on engagingin distraction and work indifference as two useful temporary relief strategies

Figure 1. Framework of workplace boredom and its consequences.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nar

odna

Bib

liote

ka S

rbije

] at

10:

09 1

2 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

to workplace boredom. When engaging in distraction, an individual divertshimself/herself with matters that are unrelated to one’s actual job, forinstance by attending to matters of personal interests during work time(Fisher, 1993). Cognitive psychologists describe this phenomenon asstimulus seeking behaviours (Gardner, 1990); when stimulation in theworkplace falls below the ideal level and causes boredom, an employee’smental resources are superfluous to their allocation to the original level ofdemand. Cognitive action like exploration or stimulus seeking providesmore input or challenge and compensates for the low stimulation in thework environment (Dyer-Smith & Wesson, 1997; Perkins & Hill, 1985). Themuch-needed variety is oftentimes experienced within the limitations ofone’s working environment (Rothlin & Werder, 2007), for instance, visitingweb pages on the Internet, which can be easily combined with other officetasks.

Alternatively, work indifference can be characterized by an employee’scareless attitude about work. When mental capacities exceed the resourcesrequired to perform a job, an employee will attempt to reduce the allocationof mental resources to the lowest level possible (Damrad-Frye & Laird, 1989;Dyer-Smith & Wesson, 1997). As active engagement in one’s work requiresthe nutriments of need fulfilment (Gonzalez-Roma, Schaufeli, Bakker, &Lloret, 2006), the reduction of mental resources also reduces intrinsicmotivation (Meyer, Becker, & Vandenberghe, 2004). Hence, boredom canalso lead to conditions of ‘‘disconnectedness’’, or a lack of concern with one’senvironment (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986).

In summary, the more an employee is subject to workplace boredom, themore he/she will search for relief and engage in distracting and indifferentreactions. Therefore, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 1: Workplace boredom is positively associated with (a)engaging in distraction, and (b) work indifference.

Moderation effects

Although not every individual is equally capable of dealing with workplaceboredom (Kass, Vodanovich, & Callender, 2001; Watt & Hargis, 2010), littleis known about how managers can help employees who have difficulties incoping with this problem (Game, 2007). Several authors argue that self-regulatory skills can be improved through management intervention becausethey are malleable skills (Kanfer & Heggestad, 1997; Yeo & Neal, 2008). Weconsider two employee skills that managers can build by developing trainingprogrammes for their staff: time management skills and proactiveness skills.These skills may moderate the relationship between workplace boredom andthe proposed temporary relief strategies. As employees become more skilled


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nar

odna

Bib

liote

ka S

rbije

] at

10:

09 1

2 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

in time management and proactiveness, they should be better able toregulate their cognitive efforts, and therefore withhold their temporary reliefstrategies to workplace boredom.

First, good time management skills are typically needed to effectivelywork according to role prescriptions (Claessens, van Eerde, Rutte, & Roe,2007). Time management skills refer to the employee’s ability of setting andprioritizing goals, planning tasks, and monitoring the progress of one’s work(Macan, 1994; Peeters & Rutte, 2005), and can be considered as self-regulation in the temporal domain (Claessens et al., 2007). These skills helpemployees 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; VanEerde, 2000). Goal setting can also help employees to overcome the negativeinfluence of boredom, as setting specific performance goals increases taskinterest and dedication (Locke & Bryan, 1967; Meyer et al., 2004). Thismakes individuals less vulnerable to workplace boredom, which willtherefore be a less important antecedent to the reactions of engaging indistraction and work indifference. In contrast, if employees fail to managetheir time appropriately, they do not gain control, and therefore becomeincreasingly avoidant and passive as a result of workplace boredom. On thebasis of these arguments, we suggest the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: The relationships between workplace boredom and (a)engaging in distraction, and (b) work indifference, are weaker foremployees who score high on time management skills than for those whoscore low on time management skills.

Second, employee proactiveness is also a relevant self-regulatory skill;excellent job performance requires employees to take initiative and gobeyond the call of duty to improve work conditions and outcomes(Aspinwall & Taylor, 1997; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Ahearne, 1998).Employee proactiveness is a precondition for this type of behaviour.Proactiveness refers to the employee’s ability to act on the environment in aself-directed way, aimed at changing or improving the current workcircumstances (Parker, 2000; Warr & Fay, 2001). Although past researchconceptualizes proactivity as a stable individual disposition towardsproactive behaviour (Bateman & Crant, 1993), recent research shows thatproactive orientations can also be enhanced by managerial interventionssuch as training (Parker, 2000; Porath & Bateman, 2006). Fisher (1993)suggests that a proactive attitude can make a job more interesting, althoughthey do not provide empirical evidence. Likewise, Frese and Fay (2001)argue that that highly proactive employees change the complexity of theirwork without actually changing their jobs. For example, a secretary hired


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nar

odna

Bib

liote

ka S

rbije

] at

10:

09 1

2 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

originally as a typist might expand his/her job responsibilities by taking theinitiative to improve work productivity. Hence, proactivity can alleviate theinfluence of workplace boredom on engaging in distraction and workindifference by adding new dimensions or complexity to one’s job. Wetherefore hypothesize:

Hypothesis 3: The relationships between workplace boredom and (a)engaging in distraction, and (b) work indifference, are weaker foremployees who score high on proactiveness skills than for those whoscore low on proactiveness skills.

Theory suggests that our two contingency factors could also directly driveperceptions of workplace boredom (Fisher, 1993). Although individualdifferences may affect the strength of the relationship between boredom andtemporary relief strategies, previous research (see earlier, research stream 2)predominantly has considered and found support for the direct relationshipbetween such individual characteristics and boredom (e.g., Kass, Vodano-vich, & Callender, 2001). For instance, Daniels et al. (2004) suggest thatboredom arises when an individual has no clear work goals to pursue. Timemanagement skills may help an employee in clarifying and attainingorganizational targets, preventing feelings of boredom (Claessens et al.,2004; Harris, 2000). In a similar way, proactivity may lead to self-selectedand future-oriented goals that may be equally stimulating as organization-imposed targets, again reducing the risk of a boredom experience (Parker,2000; Porath & Bateman, 2006). Therefore, we also consider time manage-ment and proactiveness skills as direct antecedents of workplace boredom,next to their previously defined role as moderators. We hypothesize:

Hypothesis 4: High (a) time management skills and (b) proactivenessskills are negatively associated with workplace boredom.

METHODOLOGY

Sample and procedure

To test our hypotheses, we collected data from 166 Dutch white collaremployees. Because the identification of bored individuals is difficult (e.g.,fear of losing one’s job, social stigma associated with the topic; see Rothlin& Werder, 2007), an announcement was placed in a popular weekly labormagazine targeted at white collar workers, asking people to participate inthe research. The announcement included a reference to a website with anonline questionnaire, which warranted anonymous participation andconfidentiality. Employees were asked to participate if they met the criteria


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nar

odna

Bib

liote

ka S

rbije

] at

10:

09 1

2 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

of (1) being bored at work at least some time over the past 6 months, and (2)classified as a white collar job worker. To stimulate the response rateinformants were given the opportunity to receive a summary of the results ofthe study.

The survey instrument was brief and presented the respondent withseveral blocks of questions, which were introduced by a clear onset, andused a variety of Likert-type scales to reduce the possibility of respondentsintroducing consistency motifs in answering the questions. Finally, the web-based instrument was pretested to ensure ease of use and a good, logical flowpreventing complex language or jargon.

A total number of 483 people visited the website, of whom 166 (34.4%)classified and completed the web-based questionnaire. Of the total sample 79respondents are male and 87 are female. The mean age of the total sample is36.9 years (SD¼ 10.2 years), the average working week is 36.7 hours(SD¼ 4.8 hours), and the average duration of current employment is 3.9years (SD¼ 2.9 years). The distribution of respondents across job functionsis as follows: administration (14%), management (14%), IT and logistics(13%), consultancy (11%), communication (10%), human resource (9%),sales (8%), financial services (7%), engineering (5%), marketing andmedical (4%), law and governance (3%), and education and science (2%).The education levels of the sample are as follows: 14.5% intermediatevocational education, 52.4% higher vocational education, and 33.1%university education. The high level of more educated people in our sampleis consistent with our focus on white collar employees.

Measurement

We operationalize all the latent constructs with multiitem scales drawn fromthe literature. To limit the length of the web-survey, some scales rely on asubset of items of the original scale. A restricted survey length is a criticalelement in Internet-based research (Crawford, Couper, & Lamias, 2001).

Workplace boredom. There is much debate over the actual content ofworkplace boredom (Fisher, 1993; Game, 2007). The decision onoperationalization was therefore not straightforward. Based ondiscussions with three experts in the fields and factor loadings reported inprevious studies, we decided to combine items from two scales that receivedsupport in previous literature, i.e., Lee’s Job Boredom Scale (LJBS; Lee,1986) and the VBBA (Questionnaire on the Experience and Assessment ofWork; van Veldhoven, Meijman, Broersen, & Fortuin, 1997) to strike agood mix. Purification was done using principal component analysis; thoseitems with high loadings (greater than .70) and minimal cross-loadings(below .40) were used for the actual measure. The final instrument contained


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nar

odna

Bib

liote

ka S

rbije

] at

10:

09 1

2 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

seven items1 (e.g., ‘‘Do you feel bored at work?’’, ‘‘Is there insufficient workto do?’’, and ‘‘Do you learn new skills at work?’’), measured on a 4-pointLikert scale ranging from 1¼ ‘‘never’’ to 4¼ ‘‘always’’.

Engaging in distraction was operationalized using three items and wasspecifically developed for this study (e.g., ‘‘I spend much time on personalinterests during work time’’ and ‘‘I visit web pages on the Internet withoutthis being necessary for my work’’). Work indifference was measured withtwo items, referring to a lack of concern about one’s work (e.g., ‘‘I don’tcare whether I perform badly on my job or not’’). These items were derivedfrom French and Kahn (1962) and used a 6-point Likert scales ranging from1¼ ‘‘never’’ to 6¼ ‘‘very often’’. Time management skills was operationa-lized drawing on Peeters and Rutte (2005) and Macan (1994). The seven-item 5-point Likert scale assessed the extent to which respondents tend toplan their tasks (e.g., setting deadlines when working on a task), set goals(e.g., finishing top priority tasks before working on less important ones),and monitor personal progress (e.g., reviewing goals to determine if theyneed revising). Proactiveness skills was operationalized using six itemsadapted from Frese, Fay, Hilburger, Leng, and Tag (1997). Sample itemsincluded: ‘‘I take initiative immediately even when others don’t’’ and ‘‘I useopportunities quickly in order to attain my goals.’’ Participants respondedon a 5-point scale ranging from 1¼ ‘‘totally disagree’’ to 5¼ ‘‘totally agree’’.Finally, we included several demographic variables as controls, includingeducation, age, and gender. Young people, for instance, may be less resistantto engaging in distraction, as they may not have learned yet how to deal withfluctuations in workload. A complete overview of the items used is displayedin Table 2.

Data analyses

The data were analysed in three stages using SPSS 17 and Partial LeastSquares (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 propertiessuch as construct reliability and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) wereconsidered. The internal reliability (alpha) of each measure is above or equalto the commonly accepted threshold of .70 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, &Black, 1995). The confirmatory factor analysis indicates that each itemloaded significantly on its respective latent construct, supporting thedimensionality and convergent validity of our constructs. The AVE of all

1Two boredom items (‘‘Do you find 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.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nar

odna

Bib

liote

ka S

rbije

] at

10:

09 1

2 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

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

TABLE 2Items, constructs, and measurement model

Constructs Factor loading t-value

Workplace boredom (AVE¼ 62.7%)

B1: Do you feel bored at work? .89 36.18

B2: Is there insufficient work to do? .75 18.27

B3: Is there variety in your work? (R) .77 23.16

B4: Do you learn new skills at work? (R) .77 20.94

B5: Does your work provide you with opportunities for personal

learning and development? (R)

.82 28.78

B6: Could you finish your work in less time than it takes now? .69 13.97

B7: Does your work appeal to your skills and capabilities? (R) .83 31.30

Engaging in distraction (AVE¼ 87.0%)

E1: I spend time on personal interests during work time. .92 33.00

E2: I divert myself with matters which have nothing to do with

my actual job.

.93 70.44

E3: I visit web pages on the Internet without this being necessary

for my work.

.95 91.42

Work indifference (AVE¼ 77.3%)

W1: I don’t care whether I perform badly on my job or not. .91 36.43

W2: My opinion of myself does not go down when I do my job

badly.

.85 14.64

Time management skills (AVE¼ 62.4%)

T1: I break tasks down to subtasks that are easier to work with. .76 16.62

T2: I set short-term goals to achieve tasks that only take a few

days or weeks.

.83 32.00

T3: I set deadlines when working on a task. .77 19.55

T4: I look for opportunities to increase the efficiency of tasks. .76 15.58

T5: I tend to finish top priority tasks before working on less

important ones.

.79 21.49

T6: I review my goals to determine if they need revising. .80 22.13

T7: I tend to schedule my time daily. .81 27.14

Proactiveness skills (AVE¼ 64.9%)

P1: I actively attack problems. .88 13.60

P2: Whenever something goes wrong, I search for a solution

immediately.

.69 6.08

P3: Whenever there is a chance to get actively involved, I take it. .86 12.52

P4: I take initiative immediately even when others don’t. .75 7.07

P5: I use opportunities quickly in order to attain my goals. .82 12.35

P6: Usually I do more than I am asked to do. .74 8.29

All t-values are significant at p5 .01; (R) indicates reverse-scaled item. AVE¼Average

Variance Extracted.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nar

odna

Bib

liote

ka S

rbije

] at

10:

09 1

2 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

means, standard deviations, and correlations of the composite measures ofthe model constructs were computed in SPSS taking the latent variablescores from the PLS estimation. Results are shown in Table 3.

Second, we empirically examined whether common method bias mightinflate relationships in the perceptual data. First, the smallest correlationamong the manifest variables was examined, which provides a reasonableproxy for common method bias (Lindell & Whitney, 2001). The smallestobserved correlation among the model variables is –.05 (between engagingin distraction and proactiveness skills), and the second-smallest correlationis –.07 (between work indifference and engaging in distraction). Hence, lowintercorrelation between different focal constructs of the data collectedexists. Next, we also performed a Harman’s one-factor test (McFarlin &Sweeney, 1992) on the items of the latent constructs in our study. It resultedin five factors with the first factor only explaining 33.1% of the totalvariance and the remaining factors explaining an additional 37.5%. In sum,the evidence from these procedures supports the assumption that commonmethod bias is not a serious issue in our data (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, &Podsakoff, 2003).

Finally, we used SmartPLS to obtain PLS estimates for the structuralparameters in our conceptual model (Chin, 1998; Ringle et al., 2005). PLS isrecommended for relatively small sample sizes (Barclay, Higgins, &Thompson, 1995) and has no restrictions concerning distribution ofvariables. In order to test the effects and the statistical significance of thehypothesized pathways in the structural model, we used SmartPLS’sbootstrapping option with 500 samples, which is recommended forobtaining stable results (Chin, 1998).

RESULTS

The results of the PLS model estimation—including standardized pathcoefficients, t-values, and the amount of variances explained (R2)—are

TABLE 3Means, standard deviations, and correlations of composite measures of the model’s

core constructs (N¼ 166)

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Workplace boredom 2.44 0.74 (.90)

2. Engaging in distraction 3.23 1.37 .71** (.92)

3. Work indifference 2.64 1.03 7.21** 7.07 (.70)

4. Time management skills 2.88 0.94 7.46** 7.31** .22** (.89)

5. Proactiveness skills 3.69 0.76 7.17* 7.05 .21** .40** (.90)

Cronbach’s a reliabilities between brackets are on the diagonal. *p� .05, **p� .01 (two-

tailed).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nar

odna

Bib

liote

ka S

rbije

] at

10:

09 1

2 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

presented in Table 4. According to these findings, 20.7% of the variance isexplained by employees’ work indifference, and 55.8% by engaging indistraction.

Looking at specific results, we find that there is a statistically significantpath between workplace boredom to engaging in distraction, b¼ .60,t¼ 9.81, p5 .01, supporting Hypothesis 1a. However, contrary to ourexpectations, workplace boredom is not significantly related to workindifference, b¼ –.11, t¼ 1.38, ns, which means that Hypothesis 1b is notsupported. With regard to the anticipated moderating effects, time manage-ment skills negatively moderates the relationship between workplaceboredom and engaging in distraction, b¼ –.22, t¼ 2.20, p5 .05. Thissupports Hypothesis 2a. To help the interpretation of this interaction, weplot the relationship between workplace boredom and engaging indistraction for average, low (one standard deviation below the mean), andhigh (one standard deviation above the mean) values of time managementskills (see Figure 2a). The figure confirms that bored employees who areproficient in time management skills engage in less distraction than their lessproficient counterparts. However, in work environments characterized by

TABLE 4Results of PLS estimates for integrated path model

Dependent constructs

Temporary relief strategies

Workplace

boredom

Engaging

in distraction

Work

indifference

(b) t-value (b) t-value (b) t-value

Independent constructs

Workplace boredom – – .60** 9.81 7.11 1.38

Time management

skills

7.46** 7.08 7.03 0.45 .08 0.94

Proactiveness skills 7.03 0.43 7.06 0.73 .04 0.51

Boredom 6 Time

management skills

– – 7.22* 2.20 7.18 0.75

Boredom 6Proactiveness skills

– – .12 1.15 .21* 1.96

Control variables

Age – – 7.10* 1.72 .09 1.17

Education – – 7.06 1.10 7.05 0.63

Gender{ – – 7.08 1.41 7.20** 2.72

R2 22.1% 55.8% 20.7%

N¼ 166. *p� .05, **p� .01 (one-tailed). {0¼male, 1¼ female. Table reports results from

analysing a single path model in SmartPLS 2.0.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nar

odna

Bib

liote

ka S

rbije

] at

10:

09 1

2 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

low boredom, time management proficient employees are more easilydistracted compared to employees who lack time management skills.In contrast to our hypothesis, the effect of time management on therelationship between workplace boredom and work indifference is notsignificant, b¼ –.18, t¼ 0.75, ns. Consequently, there is no support forHypothesis 2b.

Surprisingly, the results show that proactiveness skills positively ratherthan negatively influence the relationships between boredom and the two

Figure 2. Moderating effects 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

effects. Only the effects for the hypothesized relationships and significant effects of the control

variables are displayed. *p� .05, **p� .01 (one-tailed).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nar

odna

Bib

liote

ka S

rbije

] at

10:

09 1

2 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

temporary relief strategies, although only the boredom–work indifferencerelationship is significantly affected, b¼ .21, t¼ 1.96, p5 .05. Hence, thefindings do not lend support to Hypothesis 3a and suggest rejectingHypothesis 3b. We again plot the relationships to facilitate the correctinterpretation of the effects found. Figure 2b depicts that proactiveemployees do not differ very much in their levels of work indifferenceacross different levels of boredom. However, employees who are lessproactive are seriously affected. These employees are most indifferent abouttheir work under conditions of low boredom, but most concerned (i.e., leastindifferent) in situations of high boredom. The figure thus suggests that thereversed effect is limited to the low proactive group.

Direct relationships between employee skills and workplace boredomreveal a strong negative association between time management skills andworkplace boredom, b¼ –.46, t¼ 7.08, p5 .01. However, no relationshipbetween proactiveness skills and workplace boredom is detected, b¼ –.03,t¼ 0.43, ns. This implies that there is support for Hypothesis 4a but notfor 4b.

Finally, with regard to the control variables, we find age to be negativelyassociated with engaging in distraction, b¼ –.10, t¼ 1.72, p5 .10; youngeremployees are thus more likely to engage in distractive behaviour. It couldbe that young people are more restless and have shorter attention spans anddeal less effectively with distractions. A relationship between gender andwork indifference is also encountered, b¼ –.20, t¼ 2.72, p5 .01. Thissuggests that men are more indifferent 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 indistraction and work indifference, and to account for the potentialmoderating effects of two self-regulatory skills, i.e., time management andproactiveness skills. In doing so, we tried to address the shortcomings inprior work. The results provide initial support for employees’ engaging indistraction as a limited problem solving strategy, but are less consistent withregard to work indifference as a strategy of temporary relief. The positiverelationship between workplace boredom and engaging in distraction doesnot just match our expectations. It also confirms that boredom is not only aproblem among blue collar workers, but impacts white collar employees too.For these workers, engaging in distractive behaviours can serve as atemporary relief strategy. This is consistent with studies on self-regulation,which suggest that one way to react to a dissatisfying work environment isto compensate by allocating effort to alternative tasks and activities (Dyer-Smith & Wesson, 1997; Karoly, 1993; Yeo & Neal, 2008). If this temporary


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nar

odna

Bib

liote

ka S

rbije

] at

10:

09 1

2 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

relief strategy works, further and more active problem solving may not beneeded. However, if boredom is structural in nature, additional manage-ment interventions may still be required. Further research on this topic isneeded to determine the boundary conditions of proximal and distal self-regulation processes to prevent escalation of reactions to boredom.

In contrast to the highly significant relationship between boredom andengaging in distraction, boredom was not significantly related to workindifference. A potential explanation provided by research on cognitiveresource allocation is that reducing one’s resources to the lowest level isoften difficult because employees still are expected to attain designatedtargets (Dyer-Smith & Wesson, 1997). Experimental research shows that ittakes extreme manipulation of work before participants really withdraw effort(Yeo & Neal, 2008). An alternative explanation is that work indifference is along-term rather than short-term reaction. If an employee fails to apply otherproblem solving strategies, boredom might become so much of a strain thathe/she feels the need to distance him-/herself from his/her job. Such long-termdynamic would be consistent with earlier studies that link boredom toabsenteeism (Kass, Vodanovich, & Callender, 2001; Melamed et al., 1995).

The results of our moderation analysis also provide some compellingdetails warranting further discussion. First, for low proactive individuals ahigh boredom condition is accompanied by low work indifference and a lowboredom condition with high work indifference (Figure 2b). Hence, areactive worker gets more involved when boredom levels are higher. Apossible explanation is that reactive employees, compared to proactiveworkers, feel more comfortable under regular conditions than under themore extreme conditions of very low demanding situations (compare Frese& Fay, 2001). Their lack of proactiveness then could make them feel uneasybecause it draws more attention to their own inactivity. As a result they maybecome more concerned rather than less concerned about their job. Second,employees who have high proactiveness skills are rather unaffected bydifferent levels of boredom. This suggests that these employees—comparedto their low proactive counterparts—are able to remain involved with theirjob despite high levels of boredom and a lack of challenging job-relatedgoals. Their proactive skills probably help in this process. However,particularly for this group the result also supports the earlier conjecture thatwork indifference may be a long-term rather than a short-term reaction.

Results confirmed that time management skills make individuals lesssusceptible to engaging in distractive behaviours when confronted withfeelings of boredom in the workplace. Apart from the anticipatedmoderation effect, a direct negative effect was present. Thus, time manage-ment is not only a powerful self-regulatory skill for countering negativeeffects of workplace boredom, but also prevents employees from gettingbored. Being able to plan tasks, set goals, and organize one’s work enables


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nar

odna

Bib

liote

ka S

rbije

] at

10:

09 1

2 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

an employee to spread the boring moments over a work week. Alternatively,when an individual has more overview over his/her work, boring situationsmay be put into the right perspective. The effectiveness of time managementhas been demonstrated for strained and emotionally exhausted workers(e.g., Claessens et al., 2008), but our study is the first to show that it can alsoprevent 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 constituteopportunities for future research. First, our cross-sectional design impliesthat we should be careful with interpretation and inferences regarding causaleffects. Causality was inferred based on theoretical arguments. Therefore,we recommend future research to take a longitudinal approach. It will helpto gain better insight in the causality of the relationships involved, andenables to extend the analysis to include the link between temporary reliefstrategies and long-term problem solving strategies (e.g., actively voicingcomplaints). Second, our measures were all subjective in nature. Futurestudies could relate boredom to a larger set of relevant dependent variablesincluding also objectively measurable outcomes, such as productive hoursand other key performance indicators. This would enable researchers to notonly give advice to increase worker well-being, but also to identify areas forenhancing work efficiency and effectiveness.

Third, the assessment of work indifference used a two-item measure andmay explain the nonsignificant relationship with workplace boredom.Therefore, we recommend future research to use a more comprehensivemeasure of work indifference including also items regarding disengagementand psychological distancing. Furthermore, other employee competenciessuch as career management skills, or personal traits like extraversion orconscientiousness, could be considered when further exploring employees’self-regulatory skills for preventing or reducing boredom. Extravertemployees, for instance, might react to boredom by actively voicingcomplaints instead of seeking passive temporary relief.

Fourth, our results are limited to a sample of Dutch white collaremployees. Research with respondents from other countries would be usefulas boredom in the workplace may be influenced by cultural factors. As morefirms are hiring across national borders, such additional insights might beuseful. For instance, in collective versus individualistic cultures (also seeHofstede, 1980) workers may be more comfortable accepting the lowchallenges of a particular job if the firm seems to demand this.

Finally, future research could also substantiate whether any differences inrelationships can be found between occupational groups. Although ourresearch sample represents a wide variety of occupations, it may be useful,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nar

odna

Bib

liote

ka S

rbije

] at

10:

09 1

2 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

for instance, to compare workplace boredom among back-office and front-office workers. Current research indicates that employees who work at theboundary of an organization (e.g., customer-contact employees) aretypically vulnerable to role stress as they have to balance their self-interestswith those of their managers and customers (Singh, 2000). This uncertaintymay reinforce the relationship between workplace boredom and its negativeconsequences.

Managers may offer time management training to prevent employeesfrom engaging in counterproductive boredom responses, teaching workersto formulate and prioritize goals. They can also show them how to plantasks and monitor their own progress, which may motivate white collaremployees to focus on goal-directed behaviour in situations of lowstimulation (Claessens et al., 2008; Fisher, 1993). This is consistent withthe literature on career self-management, which explains how employees canself-manage their careers within a single organization (de Vos, Dewettinck,& Buyens, 2009). If employees take responsibility by establishing their owndevelopment programmes, supervisor workload and concerns of accessdanger of boredom may be reduced (Rothlin & Werder, 2007). This isparticularly relevant in companies where employees are overeducated fortheir respective tasks, which could have serious implications for businessperformance (Malachowski, 2005). Some researchers have estimated thatthe underemployment rate (i.e., employees working below their current skilllevel) in the US has increased to 16.8% in 2009 (Watt & Hargis, 2010).Organizations should therefore be more sensitive to signals of workplaceboredom. Furthermore, firms can recruit employees with specific skill sets,or alternatively leverage the competencies of current workers by trainingthem to counteract workplace boredom and its consequences.

Finally, we note that responsiveness and trying to manage boredom inthe workplace involves a balancing act. On the one hand, proactiveness andassertiveness training may help employees gain control and master theirwork situations. It may even help workers in simplified jobs to ‘‘move awayfrom a narrow ‘that’s not my job’ mentality to an orientation in whichemployees see broader problems as their responsibility and recognize theimportance of being proactive.’’ (Parker, 2000, p. 449). On the other hand,in an environment where employees are easily bored, high proactivenessskills may not always be a solution; employees become better equipped todeal with boredom but the boredom will not go away. The training thus isbest accompanied by structural measures of job enhancement. Based on theresults, we could also reason that organizations may benefit more fromemployees’ with low proactiveness skills for jobs that are characterized by,for instance, modest challenges and low task variety. We hope that furtherresearch uses this study’s foundation and results to further investigateworkplace boredom and employee reaction strategies.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nar

odna

Bib

liote

ka S

rbije

] at

10:

09 1

2 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

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, 947–965.

Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. (1997). A stitch in time: Self-regulation and proactive coping.

Psychological Bulletin, 121, 417–436.

Azizi, N., Zolfaghari, S., & Liang, M. (2010). Modeling job rotation in manufacturing systems:

The study of employee’s boredom and skill variations. International Journal of Production

Economics, 123(1), 69–85.

Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., & Leiter, M. P. (2011). Key questions regarding work

engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 4–28.

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, 285–309.

Bateman, T., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A

measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103–118.

Bhadury, J., & Radovilsky, Z. (2006). Job rotation using the multi-period assignment model.

International Journal of Production Research, 44(20), 4431–4444.

Briner, R. B. (1999). The neglect and importance of emotion at work. European Journal of Work

and Organizational Psychology, 8(3), 323–346.

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 equationmodeling.MISQuarterly 22(1), 7–16.

Claessens, B. J. C., Roe, R. A., & Rutte, C. G. (2008). Time management: Logic, effectiveness

and challenges. In R. A. Roe, M. J. Waller, & S. Clegg (Eds.), Time in organizational

research (pp. 23–41). 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, 937–950.

Claessens, B. J. C., van Eerde, W., Rutte, C. G., & Roe, R. A. (2007). A review of the time

management literature. Personnel Review, 36, 255–276.

Crawford, S. D., Couper, M. P., & Lamias, M. J. (2001). Web surveys: Perception of burden.

Social Science Computer Review, 19, 146–162.

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, 315–320.

Daniels, K. (2000). Measures of five-aspects of affective well-being at work. Human Relations,

53, 275–294.

Daniels, K., Harris, C., & Briner, R. B. (2004). Linking work conditions to unpleasant affect:

Cognition, categorisation and goals. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,

77, 343–364.

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 Organiza-

tional Psychology, 18(1), 55–80.

Dyer-Smith, M. B. A., & Wesson, D. A. (1997). Resource allocation efficiency as an indicator of

boredom, work performance and absence. Ergonomics, 40, 515–521.

Farmer, R., & Sundberg, D. (1986). Boredom proneness: The development and correlates of a

new scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 4–17.

Fisher, C. D. (1993). Boredom at work: A neglected concept. Human Relations, 46, 395–417.

Fisher, C. D. (1998). Effects of external and internal interruptions on boredom at work: Two

studies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 503–522.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nar

odna

Bib

liote

ka S

rbije

] at

10:

09 1

2 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable

variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.

French, J., & Kahn, R. (1962). A programmatic approach to studying the industrial

environment and mental health. Journal of Social Issues, 18, 1–47.

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. 133–187). 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, 139–161.

Frone, M. R. (1998). Predictors of work injuries among employed adolescents. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 83, 565–576.

Game, A. M. (2007). Workplace boredom coping: Health, safety, and HR implications.

Personnel Review, 36(5), 701–721.

Gardner, D. G. (1990). Task complexity effects on non-taskrelated movements: A test of

activation theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45, 209–231.

Gemmill, G., & Oakley, J. (1992). The meaning of boredom in organizational life. Group and

Organizational Management, 17, 358–369.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. The

American Psychologist, 54, 493–503.

Gonzalez-Roma, V., Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Lloret, S. (2006). Burnout and

engagement: Independent factors or opposite poles? Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 68,

165–174.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a

theory. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 16, 250–279.

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, 576–598.

Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations,

and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences 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. 75–170). 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. 1–56). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Karoly, P. (1993). Mechanisms of self-regulation: A systems view. Annual Review of Psychology,

44, 23–52.

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, 317–327.

Kass, S. J., Vodanovich, S. J., Stanny, C., & Taylor, T. (2001). Watching the clock: Boredom

and vigilance performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 92, 969–976.

Lee, T. W. (1986). Toward the development and validation of a measure of job boredom.

Manhattan College Journal of Business, 15, 22–28.

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 cross-

sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 114–121.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nar

odna

Bib

liote

ka S

rbije

] at

10:

09 1

2 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

Locke, E., & Bryan, J. (1967). Performance goals as determinants of level of performance and

boredom. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 120–130.

Loukidou, L., Loan-Clarke, J., & Daniels, K. (2009). Boredom in the workplace: More than

monotonous tasks. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(4), 381–405.

Macan, T. H. (1994). Time management: Test of a process model. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 79, 381–391.

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Ahearne, M. J. (1998). Some possible antecedents and

consequences of in-role and extra-role salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 62,

87–98.

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, 626–637.

Melamed, S., Benavi, I., Luz, J., & Green, M. S. (1995). Objective and subjective work

monotony: Effects on job-satisfaction, psychological distress, and absenteeism in blue-collar

workers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 29–42.

Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and

motivation: A conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology,

89, 991–1007.

Mikulas, W. L., & Vodanovich, S. J. (1993). The essence of boredom. Psychological Record, 43,

3–12.

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, 59–79.

O’Hanlon, J. F. (1981). Boredom: Practical consequences and a theory. Acta Psychologica, 49,

53–82.

Parker, S. K. (2000). From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of flexible role

orientations and role breadth self-efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49,

447–469.

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, 64–75.

Perkins, R. E., & Hill, A. B. (1985). Cognitive and affective aspects of boredom. British Journal

of Psychology, 76, 221–234.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method

biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

Porath, C. L., & Bateman, T. S. (2006). Self-regulation: From goal orientation to job

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 185–192.

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 fields (pp. 195–218). 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). Effects of instruction type and boredom proneness in

vigilance: Implications for boredom and workload. Human Factors, 37(4), 752–765.

Shackleton, V. J. (1981). Boredom and repetitive work: A review. Personnel Review, 10, 30–36.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nar

odna

Bib

liote

ka S

rbije

] at

10:

09 1

2 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

http://www.salary.com/careers/layouthtmls/crel_display_nocat_Ser374_Par555.html

http://www.salary.com/careers/layouthtmls/crel_display_nocat_Ser374_Par555.html

Singh, J. (2000). Performance, productivity, and quality of frontline employees in service

organizations, Journal of Marketing, 64, 15–34.

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, 446–460.

Van Eerde, W. (2000). Procrastination: Self-regulation in initiating aversive goals. Applied

Psychology: An International Review, 49, 372–389.

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 Bed-

rijfsgezondheid.

Vodanovich, S. J. (2003). Psychometric measures of boredom: A review of the literature.

Journal of Psychology, 137, 569–601.

Vodanovich, S. J., & Kass, S. J. (1990). A factor analytic study of the boredom proneness scale.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 115–123.

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),

259–264.

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 Differences, 34, 635–644.

Warr, P., & Fay, D. (2001). Age and personal initiative at work. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 10, 343–353.

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, 163–174.

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),

262–277.

Yang, J., & Diefendorff, 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), 259–295.

Yeo, G., & Neal, A. (2008). Subjective cognitive effort: A model of states, traits, and time.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 617–631.

Original manuscript received September 2010

Revised manuscript received March 2011

First published online August 2011


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nar

odna

Bib

liote

ka S

rbije

] at

10:

09 1

2 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

1359432x%2e2011%2e578824.pdf

Documents

boredom problems

whitecollar employees

white collaremployees

registered office

schepers edwin j

work indierence

wales registered number

narodna biblioteka srbijeon