Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:19:18.879Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A practice-based framework for understanding (informal) play as practice phenomena in organizations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2018

Martin Spraggon  and
Virginia Bodolica Open the ORCID record for Virginia Bodolica [Opens in a new window]
Martin Spraggon
Affiliation:
Mohammed Bin Rashid School of Government (MBRSG), Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Virginia Bodolica*
Affiliation:
Department of Management, School of Business Administration, American University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
*
Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Play as practice literature has long been dominated by studies on the serious play. Focusing on a play that develops in artificial settings and requires managerial intervention, these studies overlook other playful manifestations, which are employee-driven and situated in the natural work habitat. This paper extends current play as practice reflections by adopting the notion of informal play as an alternative to prevailing views that espouses the employee rather than the managerial perspective. Drawing upon insights from play and practice literature, we incorporate five practice-based constructs into the systematic analysis of informal play in the world of work. We advance an integrative framework that highlights the constitutive relationships between the retained constructs and acknowledges different enactments of informal play for generating productive outcomes or cynically resisting authority. A multi-domain agenda for future inquiry that may contribute to a more nuanced understanding of informal play as practice in organizations concludes the paper.

Keywords

play as practiceserious playinformal playobjects of workcontext
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 24 , Issue 6 , November 2018 , pp. 846 - 869
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adame-Sanchez, C., Gonzalez-Cruz, T. F., & Martinez-Fuentes, C (2016). Do firms implement work-life balance policies to benefit their workers or themselves? Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5519–5523.Google Scholar
Alexandersson, A., & Kalonaityte, V (2018). Playing to dissent: The aesthetics and politics of playful office design. Organization Studies, 39(2-3), 297–317.Google Scholar
Anderson, N., Potocnik, K., & Zhou, J (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333.Google Scholar
Bakken, T., Holt, R., & Zundel, M (2012). Time and play in management practice: An investigation through the philosophies of McTaggart and Heidegger. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 29(1), 13–22.Google Scholar
Bechky, B. A (2003). Object lessons: Workplace artifacts as representations of occupational jurisdiction. American Journal of Sociology, 109(3), 720–752.Google Scholar
Bednall, T. C., Sanders, K., & Runhaar, P (2014). Stimulating informal learning activities through perceptions of performance appraisal quality and human resource management system strength: A two-wave study. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 13(1), 45–61.Google Scholar
Beech, N., Burns, H., de Caestecker, L., MacIntosh, R., & MacLean, D (2004). Paradox as invitation to act in problematic change situations. Human Relations, 57(10), 1313–1332.Google Scholar
Blodgett, B., & Tapia, A (2011). Do avatars dream of electronic picket lines? The blurring of work and play in virtual environments. Information Technology & People, 24(1), 26–45.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Burkus, D., & Oster, G (2012). Noncommissioned work: Exploring the influence of structured free time and on creativity and innovation. Journal of Strategic Leadership, 4(1), 48–60.Google Scholar
Caillois, R (2001). Man, play, and games. (M. Barash, Trans.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Carlile, P (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455.Google Scholar
Carter, C., Clegg, S. R., & Kornberger, M (2008). Strategy as practice? Strategic Organization, 6(1), 83–99.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. M., & Shaw, E (2017). The endogenous construction of entrepreneurial context: A practice-based perspective. International Small Business Journal, 35(1), 19–39.Google Scholar
Chia, R., & MacKay, B (2007). Post-processual challenges for the emerging strategy-as-practice perspective: Discovering strategy in the logic of practice. Human Relations, 60(1), 217–242.Google Scholar
Clark, M. A., Michel, J. S., Zhdanova, L., Pui, S. Y., & Baltes, B. B (2016). All work and no play? A meta-analytic examination of the correlates and outcomes of workaholism. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1836–1873.Google Scholar
Costea, B., Crump, N., & Holm, J. (2007). The spectre of Dionysus: Play, work, and managerialism. Society and Business Review, 2(2), 153–165.Google Scholar
Crossa, V (2013). Play for protest, protest for play: Artisan and vendors’ resistance to displacement in Mexico City. Antipode, 45(4), 826–843.Google Scholar
Dane, E (2010). Reconsidering the trade-off between expertise and flexibility: A cognitive entrenchment perspective. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 579–603.Google Scholar
Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G (2007). Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decision making. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 33–54.Google Scholar
Deal, T., & Kennedy, A (1999). The new corporate culture. London: Orion Business.Google Scholar
Dodgson, M (2017). Innovation and play. Innovation: Organization & Management, 19(1), 86–90.Google Scholar
Dougherty, D., & Takacs, H (2004). Team play: Heedful interrelating as the boundary for innovation. Long Range Planning, 37(6), 569–590.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y., & Blackler, F (2005). On the life of the object. Organization, 12(3), 307–330.Google Scholar
Fleming, P., & Spicer, A (2004). ‘You can checkout anytime, but you can never leave’: Spatial boundaries in a high commitment organization. Human Relations, 57(1), 75–94.Google Scholar
Fleming, P., & Spicer, A (2014). Power in management and organization science. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 237–298.Google Scholar
Fleming, P., & Sturdy, A (2011). ‘Being yourself’ in the electronic sweatshop: New forms of normative control. Human Relations, 64(2), 177–200.Google Scholar
Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S (2009). Antecedents of day-level productive behavior: A look at job stressors and positive affect during the workday. Journal of Management, 35, 94–111.Google Scholar
Frost, M., & Lechner, S (2016). Two conceptions of international practice: Aristotelian praxis or Wittgensteinian language-games? Review of International Studies, 42, 334–350.Google Scholar
Fuglsang, L., & Mattsson, J (2011). Making sense of innovation: A future perfect approach. Journal of Management & Organization, 17(4), 448–458.Google Scholar
Gallagher, S., & Zahavi, D (2008). The phenomenological mind: An introduction to philosophy of mind and cognitive science. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
George, J. M., & Zhou, J (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 605–622.Google Scholar
Geppert, M., & Dörrenbächer, C (2014). Politics and power within multinational corporations: Mainstream studies, emerging critical approaches and suggestions for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16, 226–244.Google Scholar
Geurts, J. L., Duke, R. D., & Vermeulen, P. A (2007). Policy gaming for strategy and change. Long Range Planning, 40(6), 535–558.Google Scholar
Gherardi, S (2010). Practice? It’s a matter of taste. Management Learning, 40, 535–550.Google Scholar
Giddens, A (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Goggin, J (2011). Playbour, farming and leisure. Ephemera, 11(4), 357–368.Google Scholar
Goss, D., Jones, R., Betta, M., & Latham, J (2011). Power as practice: A micro-sociological analysis of the dynamics of emancipatory entrepreneurship. Organization Studies, 32(2), 211–229.Google Scholar
Guerrier, Y., & Adib, A (2003). Work at leisure and leisure at work: A study of the emotional labor of tour reps. Human Relations, 56(11), 1399–1417.Google Scholar
Haar, J. M., Russo, M., Sune, A., & Ollier-Malaterre, A (2014). Outcomes of work-life balance on job satisfaction, life satisfaction and mental health: A study across seven cultures. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85(3), 361–373.Google Scholar
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2015). Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 36(6), 831–850.Google Scholar
Heracleous, L., & Jacobs, C. D (2008). Crafting strategy: The role of embodied metaphors. Long Range Planning, 41(3), 309–325.Google Scholar
Hoedemaekers, C (2016). ‘Work hard, play hard’: Fantasies of nihilism and hedonism between work and consumption. Ephemera, 16(3), 61–94.Google Scholar
Hunter, C., Jemielniak, D., & Postula, A (2010). Temporal and spatial shifts within playful work. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 23(1), 87–102.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E (1991). Organizing work by adaptation. Organization Science, 2(1), 14–39.Google Scholar
Ibarra, H., & Petriglieri, J. L (2010). Identity work and play. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 23(1), 10–25.Google Scholar
Jacobs, C. D., & Statler, M (2006). Toward a technology of foolishness: Developing scenarios through serious play. International Studies of Management and Organization, 36(3), 77–92.Google Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., & Kaplan, S (2015). Strategy tools-in-use: A framework for understanding ‘technologies of rationality’ in practice. Strategic Management Journal, 36(4), 537–558.Google Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., Kaplan, S., Seidl, D., & Whittington, R (2016). On the risk of studying practices in isolation: Linking what, who, and how in strategy research. Strategic Organization, 14(3), 248–259.Google Scholar
Jett, Q. R., & George, J. M (2003). Work interrupted: A closer look at the role of interruptions in organizational life. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 494–507.Google Scholar
Judge, T. A., Simon, L. S., Hurst, C., & Kelley, K (2014). What I experienced yesterday is who I am today: Relationship of work motivations and behaviors to within-individual variation in the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 199–221.Google Scholar
Karlsen, M. P., & Villadsen, K (2015). Laughing for real? Humor, management power and subversion. Ephemera, 15(3), 513–535.Google Scholar
Kavanagh, D (2011). Work and play in management studies: A Kleinian analysis. Ephemera, 11(4), 336–356.Google Scholar
Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J (2010). Organizational social network research: Core ideas and key debates. Academy of Management Annals, 4, 317–357.Google Scholar
Kim, A., Kim, Y., Han, K., Jackson, S. E., & Ployhart, R. E (2017). Multilevel influences on voluntary workplace green behavior: Individual differences, leader behavior, and coworker advocacy. Journal of Management, 43(5), 1335–1358.Google Scholar
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A (2010). Learning to play, playing to learn: A case study of a ludic learning space. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 23(1), 26–50.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Y.-H., & Lin, H (2011). ‘Gaming is my work’: Identity work in internet-hobbyist game workers. Work, Employment & Society, 25(3), 451–467.Google Scholar
Li, N., Chiaburu, D. S., & Kirkman, B. L (2017). Cross-level influencing of empowering leadership on citizenship behavior: Organizational support climate as a double-edged sword. Journal of Management, 43(4), 1076–1102.Google Scholar
Liu, D., Gong, Y., Zhou, J., & Huang, J.-C (2017). Human resource systems, employee creativity, and firm innovation: The moderating role of firm ownership. Academy of Management Journal, 60(3), 1164–1188.Google Scholar
Llewellyn, N., & Spence, L. (2009). Practice as a members’ phenomenon. Organization Studies, 30(12), 1419–1439.Google Scholar
Lozeau, D., Langley, A., & Denis, J. L (2002). The corruption of managerial techniques by organizations. Human Relations, 55(5), 537–564.Google Scholar
Miettinen, R., Samra-Fredericks, D., & Yanow, D (2009). Re-turn to practice: An introductory essay. Organization Studies, 30(12), 1309–1327.Google Scholar
Miettinen, R., & Virkkunen, J (2005). Epistemic objects, artifacts and organizational change. Organization, 12(3), 437–456.Google Scholar
Miller, D (1998). Material cultures: Why some things matter. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mirabeau, L., & Maguire, S (2014). From autonomous strategic behavior to emergent strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 35(8), 1202–1229.Google Scholar
Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Klebe Trevino, L., Baker, V. L., & Mayer, D. M (2012). Why employees do bad things: Moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology, 65(1), 1–48.Google Scholar
Nicolini, D (2013). Practice theory, work, and organization: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435–1448.Google Scholar
Parke, M. R., & Myeong-Gu, S (2017). The role of affect climate in organizational effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 42(2), 334–360.Google Scholar
Paroutis, S., & Heracleous, L (2013). Discourse revisited: Dimensions and employment of first-order strategy discourse during institutional adoption. Strategic Management Journal, 34(8), 935–956.Google Scholar
Pels, D., Hetherington, K., & Vandenberghe, F (2002). The status of the object. Theory, Culture and Society, 19(5/6), 1–21.Google Scholar
Perry-Smith, J. E., & Mannucci, P. V (2017). From creativity to innovation: The social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey. Academy of Management Review, 42(1), 53–79.Google Scholar
Phelps, C., Heidl, R., & Wadhwa, A (2012). Knowledge, networks, and knowledge networks: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1115–1166.Google Scholar
Proyer, R. T (2017). A new structural model for the study adult playfulness: Assessment and exploration of an understudied individual differences variable. Personality and Individual Differences, 108, 113–122.Google Scholar
Roos, J., & Victor, B (1999). Toward a new model of strategy-making as serious play. European Management Journal, 17(4), 348–355.Google Scholar
Rost, K (2011). The strength of strong ties in the creation of innovation. Research Policy, 40(4), 588–604.Google Scholar
Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H (2011). Grasping the logic of practice: Theorizing through practical rationality. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 338–360.Google Scholar
Schatzki, T. R., Knorr-Cetina, K., & von Savigny, E (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schrage, M (2000). Serious play: How the world’s best companies stimulate to innovate. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Schulz, K. P., Geithner, S., Woelfel, C., & Krzywinski, J (2015). Toolkit‐based modeling and serious play as means to foster creativity in innovation processes. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24(2), 323–340.Google Scholar
Seidl, D., & Whittington, R (2014). Enlarging the strategy-as-practice research agenda: Towards taller and flatter ontologies. Organization Studies, 35(10), 1407–1421.Google Scholar
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 933–958.Google Scholar
Shepherd, D. A., Mcmullen, J. S., & Ocasio, W (2017). Is that an opportunity? An attention model of top managers’ opportunity beliefs for strategic action. Strategic Management Journal, 38(3), 626–644.Google Scholar
Sørensen, B. M., & Spoelstra, S (2012). Play at work: Continuation, intervention an usurpation. Organization, 19(1), 81–97.Google Scholar
Spraggon, M., & Bodolica, V (2008). Knowledge creation processes in small innovative hi-tech firms. Management Research Review, 31(11), 879–894.Google Scholar
Spraggon, M., & Bodolica, V (2012). A multidimensional taxonomy of knowledge transfer processes. Journal of Business Research, 65(9), 1273–1282.Google Scholar
Spraggon, M., & Bodolica, V (2014). Social ludic activities: A polymorphous form of organizational play. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(5), 524–540.Google Scholar
Spraggon, M., & Bodolica, V (2017). Collective tacit knowledge generation through play: Integrating socially distributed cognition with transactive memory systems. Management Decision, 55(1), 119–135.Google Scholar
Statler, M., Heracleous, L., & Jacobs, C. D (2011). Serious play as a practice of paradox. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(2), 236–256.Google Scholar
Styhre, A (2008). The element of play in innovation work: The case of new drug development. Creativity and Innovation Management, 17(2), 136–146.Google Scholar
Tews, M. J., Michel, J. W., & Noe, R. A (2017). Does fun promote learning? The relationship between fun in the workplace and informal learning. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 98, 46–55.Google Scholar
Tignor, S. M., Fombelle, P. W., & Sirianni, N. J (2014). Fun made me do it! Transforming consumer well-being through serious play. Advances in Consumer Research, 42, 718–719.Google Scholar
Tokkari, V (2015). Organizational play: Within and beyond managing. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 10(2), 86–104.Google Scholar
Tortoriello, M., Reagans, R., & McEvily, B (2012). Bridging the knowledge gap: The influence of strong ties, network cohesion, and network range on the transfer of knowledge between organizational units. Organization Science, 23(4), 1024–1039.Google Scholar
Truss, C., Alfes, K., Delbridge, R., Shantz, A., & Soane, E (2014). Employee engagement in theory and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vaara, E., & Whittington, R (2012). Strategy-as-practice: Taking social practices seriously. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 285–336.Google Scholar
Vermeulen, J., Koster, M., Loos, E., & van Slobbe, M (2016). Play and work: An introduction to sport and organization. Culture and Organization, 22(3), 199–202.Google Scholar
Walker, A (2011). ‘Creativity loves constraints’: The paradox of Google’s twenty percent time. Ephemera, 11(4), 369–386.Google Scholar
Webb, J (2017). Keeping alive inter-organizational innovation through identity work and play. International Journal of Innovation Management, 21(5), 1–22.Google Scholar
West, S (2015). Playing at work: Organizational play as a facilitator of creativity. Lund: Department of Psychology, Lund University.Google Scholar
Whittington, R (2006). Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization Studies, 27(5), 613–634.Google Scholar
Whittle, A., Mueller, F., Gilchrist, A., & Lenney, P (2016). Sensemaking, sense-censoring and strategic inaction: The discursive enactment of power and politics in a multinational corporation. Organization Studies, 37(9), 1323–1351.Google Scholar
Yamamoto, R. H (2016). Serious fun: The power of improvisation for learning and life. London: Hamilton Books.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, R. D., Swider, B. W., Woo, S. E., & Allen, D. G (2016). Who withdraws? Psychological individual differences and employee withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(4), 498–519.Google Scholar
Zhou, X., & Ingram, P (2013). Bonds and boundaries: Network structure, organizational boundaries, and job performance. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(1), 98–109.Google Scholar