JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES

Vol. XXIX Number 3 Fall 2017

Understanding Workplace Boredom among

Service Employees: Qualitative Insights and
Employee Outcomes

Franklin Velasco
Ph.D. Student, Department o f Marketing
University of Texas at Arlington - UTA
Associate Professor
Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ - Ecuador
fvelasco@usfq.edu.ec

Emotions are embedded in human nature and are very common; they
emerge in social contexts and in work organizations (Ashforth and Humphrey,
1995; Fineman, 2000). Workplace boredom is an emerging construct in the
emotion literature, and has been the subject of numerous empirical studies in
organizational behavior literature (e.g., Game, 2007; Bruursema el at., 2011).
However, with few exceptions (Stock, 2015; 2016), the understanding of
workplace boredom in a services context is limited. This study aims to fill this
gap by focusing on workplace boredom of Front Line Service Employees (FLEs)
and tries to legitimize it as a relevant psychological state rising from the
particular job characteristics embedded in FLEs jobs.
Research examining workplace boredom in service employees is c r i t i c a l
because of the role these individuals play in building relationships with
customers. Service organizations allocate large amounts of resources to pursue
higher standards in service performance, but FLEs report crises of meaning at
work and crises of professional development (Stock, 2016). In addition to this,
boredom in the workplace is on the rise (Mael and Jex, 2015). These aspects
aggravate the context in which FLEs try to maintain the dual role of satisfying
customers and demonstrating engagement at work.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES VOL. XXIX NUMBER 3 F a ll 2017

(278 )
 V elasco 279

Workplace boredom is often defined as “an unpleasant, transient affective

state in which the individual feels a pervasive lack of interest in and difficulty
concentrating on the current activity” (Game, 2007: 702). Moreover, Game
(2007) conceptualizes boredom as an affective reaction to workplace conditions
including the core tasks of the job. Certainly, this concept can be connected to
the particularity of FLEs’job characteristics and to potential negative outcomes
that harm the service organization’s efforts to deliver sen-ice quality and engage
FLEs in customer-oriented behaviors.
This paper aims to expand on the understanding of workplace boredom in
service employees in two ways. First, the majority of studies on workplace
boredom use quantitative methods, which may limit the understanding of the
construct. In order to understand the role of boredom more deeply, Study 1
uses a qualitative method tool that can add depth by detailing boredom
experiences from FLEs: the Critical Incident Technique (GIT) (Gremler, 2004;
Flanagan, 1954). Study 1 also aims to expand the findings of previous services
literature about workplace boredom by presenting a conceptual framework
cataloging FLEs incidents, thoughts, and boredom outcomes according to
perceptions of job characteristics. Study 2 uses survey findings to investigate
common effects of workplace boredom in the FLE context.
Summarizing, this study’s contribution is the derivation of incidents that
explain the role of boredom in FLE performance. In addition, this work
proposes a model that illustrates how FLEs’ perceptions of their job
characteristics determine boredom at work and how these perceptions affect
employees’ attitudes and behaviors. To draw this conceptual model, this study
uses organization behavioral literature, the Hackman and Oldham s (1980) Job
Characteristics Model (JCM) in particular, as a framework to answer the
following research questions:

• What specific aspects of FLEs job characteristics trigger boredom?

• What types of thoughts are present in FLEs’ minds when workplace
boredom exists?
• What are the typical positive outcomes in FLEs boredom?

From a managerial perspective, this study’s purpose is twofold. First, it

helps managers understand boredom as an emotion that is very common in
FLEs. Second, this research aims to rethink the job characteristics of FLEs by
illustrating the relationship between boredom elicitation and job characteristics
dimensions.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES VOL. XXIX NUMBER 3 Fall 2017

 280 W orkplace B oredom am ong S e r v ic e E m p l o y e e s

LITERATURE REVIEW

Workplace Boredom

Although workplace boredom has received a lot of attention from

organizational behavior researchers, there still is an unclear definition and
understanding of its full dimensions (Schaufeli and Salanova, 2013). Some
researchers suggest that workers experience boredom because of repetitive
tasks and under-stimulation. Others focus more on the possibility that some
employees are boredom-prone by nature. Nevertheless, scholarly agreement
emerges around the fact that workplace boredom causes dissatisfaction,
disinterest, and undermines motivation.
The traditional approach in organizational behavior literature associates
workplace boredom with conducting tedious, repetitive, and monotonous tasks
(O Hanlon, 1981). According to this perspective, service managers could
intervene to limit boredom elicitation by enriching FLEs tasks. However, recent
literature suggests that workplace boredom goes beyond monotony (Mael and
Jex, 2015; Stock, 2015; Loukidou et at., 2009; Game, 2007) and that other
factors in the organizational setting may lead to boredom (Schaufeli and
Salanova, 2013).
Game (2007) follows this latter conceptualization to suggest that workplace
boredom is related to other factors such as individuals’ low levels of arousal,
employees’ perception of slow passage of time, and employees’ attentional
difficulties. Under this perspective, employees’ perception that their job is
boring alone can cause workplace boredom. The current study adopts this
conceptualization and depends on FLEs’ perceptions of job characteristics
when describing episodes of workplace boredom.

FLEs Job Characteristics and Workplace Boredom

This study relies on precepts derived from JCM (Hackman and Oldham,
1980) to identify FLEs work factors leading to workplace boredom. [CM is a
widely recognized framework that describes how job characteristics impact
employees’ emotions in organizational settings. It identifies five job dimensions
that influence affective experiences of employees during work: skill variety
(degree to which a job requires a variety' of skills and talents of the employee);
task identity (the job requiring completion of identifiable pieces of work), task
significance (impact of the job on lives and work of other people), autonomy (the
freedom given to the worker in determining the way of task accomplishment),
and feedback (the information given to a worker pertaining to his performance
as a result of carrying out his tasks). Additionally, JCM is grounded in how all
these dimensions influence employees’ perception of their tasks and

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIX N umber 3 F all 2017

 V elasco 281

subsequently influence their level of motivation with three psychological states:

experienced job meaningfulness, experienced responsibility, and knowledge of
results. Building on JCM’s logic, it is expected that:
PI: FLEs job characteristics are related to workplace boredom
perceptions. More specifically, FLEs’ experiences of feeling
bored echo their negative perception of skill variety, task
identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback.

Outcomes from Workplace Boredom

Since this study considers the different workplace boredom manifestations

from FLEs and incorporates survey data within its methodology, it is important
to explore how workplace boredom influences job satisfaction, job creativity,
and counter productive behaviors. Much of the workplace boredom literature
measures these outcomes.
Job Satisfaction. Theoretical support for the relationship between
workplace boredom and job satisfaction is evidenced in the findings of Di
Mascio (2010), which reported low scores on task enjoyment from FLEs from a
variety of retail organizations. Another basis for the link between workplace
boredom and job satisfaction is that service design (especially in retail settings)
creates trivial FLEs service scripts in a way that FLEs may not fit with job
requirements (see Donavan el al., 2004; Pooja and Rastogi, 2006). This may
lead FLEs to report poor job satisfaction as their lack of fit with the FLEs role.
Thus, it can be expected that when FLEs report boredom incidents, apart from
the determinant of a. context with low customer traffic, they will be critical about
their job characteristics and the tasks that induce FLEs to evaluate their job
satisfaction poorly.
Counter-Productive Work Behavior (CPWB). Workplace boredom has also
been linked to negative affective-based behaviors, like Counter-Productive
Work Behavior (CPWB). CPWB refers to acts of sabotage that harm or intend
to harm the organization in two ways. It includes interpersonal CPWB—
behaviors of employees toward other organizational members. It also includes
organizational CPWB—behaviors that harm the organization as a whole, such
as when workers take long breaks and therefore lower their productivity (Fox
and Spector, 2005: 236). Furthermore, Fox and Spector (2005) suggests a
combination of emotional, cognitive, and behavioral responses arising from
employees’ perception of workplace conditions determine CPWB. This
argument provides additional theoretical basis to expect that workplace
boredom leads to CPWB.
Job Creativity. Drawing from past literature that assumes FLEs understand
the importance of customer orientation and value co-creation, this paper
suggests that when FLEs feel frequently bored they may not be able to allocate

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES VOL.XXIX NUMBER 3 FALL 2 0 1 7

282 W o r k p l a c e B o r e d o m a m o n g S e r v ic e E m p l o y e e s

cognitive resources to creative tasks. Stock (2015) finds evidence that FLEs
burnout reduces innovative work behavior. It seems likely that this finding
reflects a process in which workplace boredom prompts FLEs to create schemas
that might make them feel they need not be creative or that distracts them from
their creative duties.
Interestingly, it is also possible to predict a positive relationship between
workplace boredom and job creativity. Evidence for a positive effect of the
relationship between boredom and creativity is found in the work of Belton and
Priyadharshini (2007). Also, Schuessler’s (2010) reflections about boredom
express that “boredom may itself be a highly useful human capacity, at least
according to some psychologists and neuroscientists, who have begun
examining it, not just as an accomplice to depression and addiction, but as an
important source of creativity, well-being, and our very sense of self.”

METHODS

An important goal of this study is to explore the role of boredom as a

relevant emotion of FLEs and classify workplace boredom incidents according
to the JCM model. Following Deshpande (1983) and Glaser and Strauss (1967)
guidelines, the research methods and procedures for theory development in
marketing should include collecting actual incidents about FLEs feeling bored.
Thus, two research methods are proposed following these guidelines. First, the
use of the Critical Incident Technique (CIT) to collect incidents of workplace
boredom, to identify boredom determinants, and to identify boredom
consequences. For the purpose of this study, critical incidents are defined as
events or a series of events when FLEs feel bored. Thus, the key criterion for
inclusion corresponds with incidents that report FLEs feeling bored at their
job. The CIT content analysis was performed by the author with the help of one
independent judge to code the incidents into categories that are related to each
of the five dimensions of the JCM. Second, this study uses quantitative data as
FLEs also responded to a questionnaire that includes measures to capture
boredom frequency, job characteristics, CPWB behavior, ratings for job
satisfaction, and job creativity.

Sample Characteristics and Data Collection Process

Twelve students were trained with the CIT technique and with the
instrument designed for this study. Students and the author helped collect the
incidents by interviewing a sample of FLEs from a vast group of service
industries that include financial services, healthcare services, retail, restaurants,
hotels, and education (FLEs from a science museum and a university). After
completion of the interview, FLEs were asked to answer a short questionnaire

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES VOL. XXIX NUMBER 3 FALL 2017

 V elasco 283

that included measures of common outcomes from workplace boredom. An

initial random sample of 123 FLEs were approached and asked to participate.
Out of the 123 FLEs, 74 interviews were considered for the analysis. The
questionnaires that were excluded were the ones that did not fulfill the critical
criteria to report a boredom incident and did not complete the entire
questionnaire (e.g., some FLEs interrupted this data collection process to give
attention to customers and could not start again). Tire FLEs that participated
represented a cross-section of the population. Forty-five percent were men and
fifty-five percent were women. The median age of FLEs was 31 years.
The questionnaire began by asking FLEs to recall the latest episode of
feeling bored at work and describe it with as many details as possible. In
addition to the CIT, additional questions were asked for a more complete
understanding of the specific boring episodes they described. For example,
“what do you think is the root cause for feeling bored, to what do you attribute
this feeling?” “What is the working context in which this episode happened?”
“Is there any benefit from feeling bored at work?” Two judges, including the
author, sorted the boredom incidents into categories and sub-categories using
as a frame the JCM dimensions: skill variety, task identity, task significance,
autonomy, and feedback. Additionally, categories were in place to sort incidents
for outcomes, thoughts, and strategies for freedom from boredom. This process
consisted of repeated reading and sorting similarities that were apparent.
Disagreements were resolved through discussions and the final inter-judge
reliability was 81% between the two judges.

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Study I - Workplace Boredom Incidents of FLEs

The CIT involves the classification of incidents to rmcover commonality

with theoretical themes or categories. The main objective of the CIT for this
study is the classification of workplace boredom incidents into meaningful
categories related to FLEs job characteristics. A process to categorize each
boredom incident was systematically defined to present a framework that
illustrates the relationship of boredom episodes with the perception of FLEs
job characteristics. In the first step of this process, all incidents were grouped
and associated with the five dimensions of the JCM. Second, incidents were
grouped into a different category referring to the FLEs’ thoughts when they
felt bored. This category helped identify what psychological states of mind were
present. Third, boredom incidents were grouped into positive or negative
behaviors rising from FLEs workplace boredom. Figure I shows the resultant
framework from the analysis, including the percentage of incidents related to
each of the FLEs job characteristics.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES VOL. XXIX NUMBER 3 Fall 2017

284 Workplace Boredom among S ervice E mployees

Figure I
Classification of Boredom Incidents According to the JCM.

Job characteristics ()tuconies

(91 incidents) Psychological States (9< incidents)

______ Skill Variety (29%)______ _____ FLEs thoughts_____

“Watching a long line of
customers made me think on how
repetitive is my work”
“Exhibitions at the museum are
just standing there every day”
______Task identity (23%)______
“At summer time I dedicate my
time to administrative work: only
send emails and file documents”
“One day I have to make 450
customer calls, but the contact
information from the database
was wrong. That makes no sense”
“Sometimes I feel “I feel anxious, depressed
frustrated and having and have feeling of anger
more pressure to sell to and resentment to
reach my quota” _______ customers”_______
“When I finish my work, I “Talk to my co-workers, start
_____ just feel free"______ _____ joking around”______
“I feel I can do more, want “Check social media
to change my activity” messages, play video games”
“I pay attention to things “Some sense of desperation
around me but I feel I am to find what to do, I started
going in autopilot” applying to other jobs”
“I get worried that the
“I took a walk outside the
business is loosing
store to see what is going
customers and they will
on”
fire me”

Task significance (24%) ______ Positive (26%)_____

“I get bored with dull customers “I started to watch tutorials
that do not understand what they about new dental
_________ have to do”_________ ______ procedures”______
“I constantly received training “1 started to clean my desk
that is irrelevant for my job” and organize my stuff’
“Try to go ahead on things
at work and plan what to do
_______ Autonomy (3%)________ _________ next”_________
“I feel trapped at the cashier” “Focus on new projects”
My desktop computer at the front
desk blocks access to websites”

_______ Feedback (11%)_______

“My manager is rude and does
not provide me feedback”
“My manager is the one that
receives all credit, she thinks she
is the only valuable employee”

The analysis revealed that the skill variety dimension of FLEs job
characteristics is representative of most workplace boredom incidents (29% of
incidents fall in this category'). This finding is in line with previous literature
that monotonous, tedious, and repetitive tasks are a determinant of workplace
boredom (O’Hanlon, 1981) and that FLEs go through a mental process in
which they recognize their jobs are not stimulating or are not challenging
enough. Additionally, this model identifies the substantial role of task

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol . XXIX N umber 3 Fall 2017

 V elasco 285

significance (24% of total incidents) and task identity (23% of total incidents)
dimensions of FLEs job characteristics in eliciting workplace boredom. This
means that FLEs have difficulty understanding their strategic role in the sendee
design and do not know what tangible results their jobs contribute to the overall
sendee performance. Furthermore, the collection of thoughts rising from
feeling bored at work are closely related to the definition this study adopted.
FLEs are indeed having unpleasant thoughts, trouble focusing their attention
on other aspects from the sendee script, and having crises of meaningfulness of
work. Finally, this first analysis reveals that the majority of boredom outcomes
are negative to the service organization, mirroring previous studies that relate
workplace boredom to negative attitudes and behaviors. However, it is
noteworthy to emphasize that there are a few exceptions as FLEs are showing
interest in engaging in productive tasks (26% of the total incidents) to the
benefit of the sendee organization. In the content analysis of incidents, some
incidents were not associated with a category in the model, as they lack enough
evidence to be classified.
A deeper analysis of boredom incidents helps classify each according to the
constructs the model explores: (a) FLEs job characteristics; (b) job satisfaction;
(c) CPWB divided in two subcategories: incidents related to interpersonal
CPWB and incidents related to organizational CPWB; and (d) job creativity.
Table 1 presents the distribution of incidents among these four categories.

Category 1 - FLEs job characteristics and workplace boredom. The most

common collective characterization of boredom incidents was “lack of
stimulation” and “slow days,” which suggests that a lack of customer traffic is a
strong determinant of workplace boredom. More broadly, 83.8% of the total
incidents refer to job characteristics, suggesting that FLEs job characteristics
elicit workplace boredom. Among the typical incidents for this group, FLEs
reported episodes that involve: lack of managerial feedback and stimulation
(e.g., “my manager is very rude and never compliments any of my actions”);
irrelevant training sessions (e.g., “I received training that is irrelevant for my
job”); anticipating monotony (e.g., “when I see a large column of customers at
the bank, I feel bored just thinking about the repetitive work I have to do for
all of them”); and providing service to uninteresting types of customers (e.g., “I
get bored with dull customers that do not understand what they have to do”).
Within this group, a couple of respondents reported the servicescape as causing
them to feel bored. Illustrative quotes for this issue included: “when there are
slow days at the museum, exhibitions are just standing there and you just walk
around them with no thoughts” and “I feel trapped at the cashier, just have to
wait for a customer to come and I cannot get out of there.” Thus, this study
finds initial evidence rising from qualitative insights to support the proposition
that FLEs job characteristics are related to workplace boredom perceptions.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol.XXIX Number 3 F all 2017

286 W orkplace Boredom among S e r v ic e E m p l o y e e s

Table I
Percentage of Responses Falling into each Content Category
Percentage
Category name Illustrative quotes
of total
“When there are slow days at the museum,
exhibitions are just standing there and you
1. FLEs incidents just walk around them”
related to job “My manager is very rude and never
83.80%
characteristics complements any of my actions”
dimensions “I received training that is irrelevant for my
job”
“Slow day, not customers to talk”
“I am worried about not having enough
customers, the business might be going in the
2. FLEs incidents
wrong direction and I feel no motivation”
related to job 24.30%
“There are moments where there are no
satisfaction
customers or no things to do that you just
start thinking that there might be other jobs”
3. FLEs incidents related to CPWB
“A day at work when feeling bored could be
3a. Interpersonal
explained as having a feeling of torment that
CPWB
sparks resentment towards customers”
“I am only thinking about going home and
watch TV” 48.60%
3b. Organizational “Play video games and looking at my
CPWB Instagram page”
“I walked out of the store and just hung out
with my friends”
“It was Sunday night and there were no
guests, so I started planning new things for
the restaurant”
4. FLEs incidents
“When I was feeling bored, I started
positively related 33.80%
sketching some ideas for new advertisements
to job creativity
for the business”
“ I focus on working on projects, trying to be
more analytic on things that happen”

Category 2 - FLEs job satisfaction and workplace boredom. Almost one-

quarter of the incidents reported by FLEs were related to thoughts that evaluate
the job. According to the analysis, 24.3% of the incidents belong to this
category. Illustrative quotes for this category are the following: “There are
moments where there are no customers or nothing to do that you just start
thinking that something is wrong and there might be other jobs in the market;”

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES VOL. XXIX NUMBER 3 FALL 2017

 V elasco 287

“I am worried about not having enough customers, the business might be going
in the wrong direction and I feel no motivation;” and “I am very frustrated
about the bureaucratic process we have, there is no flexibility and I feel very
bored about my job.”
Category 3 - FLEs Counter-Productive Work Behaviors CPWB related to
workplace boredom. A significant amount of boredom incidents (48.6%) are
related to CPWB. According to the sub-group analysis, 22.2% of the incidents
correspond to reacting to boredom with interpersonal CPWB. Meanwhile,
66.8% of the incidents belong to the organizational CPWB sub-group.
Examples of incidents in the interpersonal CPWB subcategory are: “a day at
work when feeling bored could be explained as having a feeling of torment that
sparks resentment towards customers;” and “when I receive repetitive
instructions from my boss, I think they are not relevant.” Examples of incidents
in the organization CPWB category are: “my mind is just thinking about going
home and watch TV;” “I am bored to death at the office, one day I felt very bad
and started applying for other jobs;” “I walked out of the store and just hung
out with my friends;” and “It was a Wednesday night at the movie theater and
there were no customers, so I left my place and went to watch a movie.”
Moreover, it was very common to find stories about FLEs accessing social
media, reading books, playing video games, doing schoolwork, and engaging
in other tasks unrelated to their jobs.
Category 4 - FLEs feeling bored could lead to positive outcomes such as job
creativity. This study’s findings report insights in which workplace boredom is
producing positive outcomes for job creativity. The content analysis of incidents
reports 25 incidents related to this category, corresponding to 33.8% of the
total number of incidents. Demonstrative examples for this type of incident
correspond to the following FLEs quotes: “It was Sunday night and there were
no guests, so I started planning new things for the restaurant;” “When I was
feeling bored I started sketching some ideas for new advertisements for the
business;” “I focus on working on projects, trying to be more analytic on things
that happen;” and “I was able to give a thought to some things that were going
wrong at my office and came up with good ideas to improve my job
performance.”

Study 2 - Survey Data

This study includes survey data, as FLEs answered a short questionnaire

after they finished the interview describing their boredom incidents. The
purpose of Study 2 is twofold. First, it provides initial evidence of direction for
the relationships of the constructs included in the model: workplace boredom,
job characteristics, job satisfaction, CPWB, and job creativity. Second, it
examines hypotheses from previous literature, including: (1) that boredom

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES VOL.XXIX NUMBER 3 F a l l 2017

288 W o rkplace B oredom am ong S e r v ic e E m p l o y e e s

correlates with lower job satisfaction; (2) that boredom increases the tendency
to engage in CPWB; and (3) that boredom discourages job creativity. All
measures were adapted from literature, utilized a seven-point scale, and were
subjected to analysis for reliability and validity. Table 2 presents descriptive
statistics and correlations.

V a ria b les

Boredom frequency: Two items were adapted from Fisher’s (1998) job
boredom scale. Items were operationalized as “I am frequently bored at work”
and “Continuously I am daydreaming during working hours.” (r= 0.68, p <
0 . 001 )
Job characteristics: Hackman and Oldham ’s (1980) JCM identifies five job
dimensions that influence affective experiences of employees during work: skill
variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. Each
dimension was operationalized with one item asking FLEs the extent to which
they agree or disagree with each statement. Examples of these statements are:
“My job gives me a chance to use my personal initiative and judgm ent in
carrying out the work;” “My job is arranged so that I can do an entire piece of
work from beginning to end;” “My job requires me to use a num ber of complex
or high-level skills;” “My job itself is very significant and important in the
broader scheme of things;” and “After 1 finish a task, I know whether I
performed well.” (a= 0.72.)
Job satisfaction: Two items measured job satisfaction. Both items were
adapted from Hackman and Oldham (1980) and Zhou and George (2001)
scales. These items specified: “Overall, how satisfied you are with your job?”
and “I like working at this company.” (r= 0.70, p < 0.001)
Counter-Productive Work Behavior (CPWB): Two items were adapted from
CPWB, following Fox and Spector (2005). These consisted of one item for
interpersonal CPWB, “When feeling bored I feel I cannot provide my best effort
to attend the customers;” and one item for organizational CPWB, “When
feeling bored I try to do silly things to entertain myself’ (r= 0.37, p < 0.001).
FLEs were asked to answer the extent to which they agree/disagree with both
statements.
Job Creativity: Six items were taken from the Zhou and George’s (2001) job
creativity scale. Items were read by FLEs as follows: “At work I suggest new ways
to achieve goals or objectives;” “I come up with new and practical ideas to
improve my performance;” “I suggest new ways to increase quality;” “I am not
afraid to take risks;” “1 often come up with creative solutions to problems;” and
“I often suggest new ways to perform work tasks” (a= 0.88). FLEs were asked
to answer the extent to which these statements describe them, from very well to
not at all, on a seven-point scale.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIX N umber 3 Fall 2017

 V e l a sc o 289

*
*
*
ca. o
r-H o
iq
di d
*
CO X-

** £9 9 1
00
CM
D

0.50

0.05
d CJ o ©

0.31
-0 w : d
0
* -X-
* *
1.0

0.34
-0.47
CO Q
CD o -O GO
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study 2 Variables

CO
d d

0.30*

-0.15
3k
3k
*
*
*
X-
oa.
CM 03 1^
lO 03 m
O CM LO Cfl *
d d o *
£ o GO

910
0.16
0*3
II'O

a, © 00
O ca Cfl d
* •X- * * ai U i>
*
r— l
X- * -X-
1-0 *Cfl cn
GO
35
—<
03
r - T f*
o
«j
-0.19

CO
3.25

0.28

LO CO
di d «0 | ,D
Table 2

o
1
o “!
■g fl <U
T3
■S .2 0
H % * S
03 CM 4b> * *
CM 05
* * 13
I> CO CO CO 00 bo s CO. CO u
1 1 d o CM
CM
in V
$ •-i o >
ts o
0
•3k
■5k
O •3k
CO
o 00
0.73

0.07

©
no
s.e

*“ H1 »— 1 m O "c« GO |
c/5 d
co m JLO CO CO V CM d
CO; V
1—5
***p

*
3.10

0.59

>
-0.21

so C/5
iO
o Q -a
Note: * p < 0.05; * * p < 0.01;

T5 o
QJ
Li G
o V
c |L)
u _>
<L> 03 ,CS
Characteristics

u S-i t/} rd
B ’ -w CL)
Sample size

a Li
Predictor

<u
u
F-Score

u < /) > u
1 . Workplace

a
boredom

O -Q E r JD
O O O 0
£ ^ -o u 3 cr
Constant

cm CO d
04
2. Job

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES VOL.XXIX NUMBER 3 FALL 2 0 1 7

290 W o rkplace B oredom am ong S e r v ic e E m p l o y e e s

Study 2 Findings

Considering the high correlations between the constructs in the model

required the use of multiple regression analysis to understand the direction of
the construct relationships. Each regression model used workplace boredom
and job characteristics perceptions as predictors. Table 3 presents the
regression coefficients along with the overall statistics for each regression
model. The fact that none of the variables presented a variance inflation factor
greater than 1.301, below the recommended cut-off point, indicates rnulti-
collinearity was not a factor in any of the three models.
The first regression model tests the influence of workplace boredom and
job characteristics on job satisfaction. The regression model produced a
significant F-score (dn=2,d(2 =7S)= 32.80, p < 0.001 explaining 48% of the variance
of FLEs job satisfaction. The standardized coefficient for FLEs boredom, b =
-0.267, was statistically significant (t= -2.738, p < 0.01) confirming that when
FLEs feel bored, they report lower job satisfaction. Furthermore, the
relationship between FLEs job characteristics and job satisfaction was positive
and significant b= 0.524, p < 0.001.
The second regression model tests how workplace boredom increases the
tendency to engage in CPWB, which previous literature suggests it might. The
regression model displays a significant F-score (dn=2, ,112=73)= 6.83, p < 0.01
explaining 16% of the variance for CPWB. The standardized coefficient for
FLEs boredom was positive, b= 0.306, and statistically significant (t= 2.47, p <
0.05), confirming that when FLEs feel bored, they have an increased tendency
to engage in CPWB. Furthermore, the relationship between FLEs job
characteristics and CPWB was negative, b= -0.151, and not significant (p =
0.225).
The third regression model tests if there is a negative relationship between
FLEs feeling bored and job creativity, as previous literature suggests. The
regression model has a significant F-score (dn=2, d(2 =7s)= 16.53, p < 0.001
explaining 31% of the variance for job creativity. The standardized coefficient
for FLEs boredom was negative, b= -0.100, but was not statistically significant
(t= -0.89, p = 0.75). This finding could explain how FLEs also anticipate
positive outcomes from workplace boredom. Furthermore, the relationship
between FLEs job characteristics and job creativity was positive, b= 0.509, and
statistically significant (p < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

The results of this investigation endorse the model derived in this study.
Further, the proposed framework and its results legitimized boredom as a
relevant emotion for FLEs. Qualitative insights provide evidence that

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIX N umber 3 Fall 2017

 V elasco 291

perceptions of job characteristics of FLEs are related to workplace boredom.

This finding is consistent with previous literature. Additionally, this study finds
empirical evidence that not only repetitive tasks, but also other job
characteristics perceptions, are factors associated with workplace boredom.
Specifically, two factors: task significance and task identity, account for FLEs
feeling bored at work. This finding supports Loukidou et al.’s (2009)
propositions and reveals that workplace boredom has multiple facets and
determinants. Moreover, task significance and task identity dimensions have
almost the same weight for provoking perceptions of being bored at work as
the perception of repetitive tasks. Additionally, this study finds qualitative
evidence on how workplace boredom is related to FLEs affective-based
behaviors like CPWB and job creativity.
Interestingly, the CIT provides evidence for the positive effect of workplace
boredom on job creativity, as some FLEs reduced boredom by using strategies
that are of benefit to the service organization. Evidence for this positive link
between boredom and being creative is not uncommon in psychology literature
(e.g., Haager etal., 2016; Schubert, 1978).
Finally, the quantitative study using survey data confirmed the expected
relationships between FLEs boredom with three outcomes: CPWB, job
satisfaction, and job creativity.

Managerial Implications

From the managerial perspective, the findings reveal several implications.

For example, Bitner’s (1995) Services Marketing Triangle describes the
importance of internal marketing. Thus, the proposed framework could help
the development of service scripts that elevate FLEs’ motivation so they do not
perceive monotony or insignificance from their job characteristics. Moreover,
service managers might allow FLEs to go beyond service scripts to promote
creativity and assign them empowerment to promote innovations (Karlsson and
Skalen, 2015) to overcome the negative aspects of task identity and task
significance. Additionally, the study’s findings suggest that FLEs might engage
in productive activities such as job creativity when experiencing boredom at
work. Therefore, service managers could develop schemes to promote job
creativity.

Future Research and Methodology Limitations

Future research could concentrate on investigating the emotional

contagion of boredom from FLEs to customers. Since boredom is also described
as having “a phenomenological tone; often expressed physically (e.g., in
gestures, posture, facial features)” (Bagozzi et al., 1999: 184), it could be

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIX N umber 3 F all 2017

292 W o r k p l a c e B o r e d o m a m o n g S e r v ic e E m p l o y e e s

expected that customers will read employees’ bored emotional state and carry
over this negative effect when they make their service evaluations. For example,
research might show that workplace boredom has a negative effect on Service
Encounter Emotional Value, a measure of customer satisfaction (see Bailey et
al., 2001). Another insight this study reveals for future research has to do with
the role of the servicescape (see Bitner, 1992) on FLEs boredom and the negative
feelings of being trapped in a monotonous context.
Although this study follows a systematic methodology, it relies on self-
report measures (qualitative and quantitative) that may not represent enacted
behaviors. Qualitative research is often described as having limitations and by
nature is interpretative, which could limit the insights this study discovers.
Following systematic rules to categorize the workplace boredom incidents of
FLEs added assurance to the consistency of the findings of this study.

References

Ashforth, B. E., and R. H. Humphrey. 1995. “Emotion in the Workplace: A

Reappraisal.” Human Relations 48: 97-125.
Bagozzi, R. P., M. Gopinath, and P. U. Nyer. 1999. “The Role of Emotions in
Marked n g. ” / ournal of the Academy of Marketing Science 27: 184-206.
Bailey, J. J„ D. D. Gremler, and M. A. McCollough. 2001. “Service Encounter
Emotional Value.” Services Marketing Qiiarterly 23: 1-24.
Belton, T., and E. Priyadharshini. 2007. “Boredom and Schooling: A Cross-
Disciplinary Exploration.” CambridgeJournal of Education 37: 579-595.
Bitner, M. J. 1992. “Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on
Customers and Employees. "Journal of Marketing 56: 57-71.
----------- . 1995. “Building Service Relationships: It’s All About Promises.”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 23: 246-251.
Bruursema, K., S. R. Kessler, and P. E. Spector. 2011. “Bored Employees
Misbehaving: The Relationship between Boredom and Counterproductive
Work Behavior.” Work & Stress 25: 93-107.
Deshpande, R. 1983. ““Paradigms Lost”: On Theory and Method in Research
in Marketing. "Journal of Marketing 47: 101-110.
Di Mascio, R. 2010. “The Service Models of Frontline Employees.” Journal of
Marketing 74: 63-80.
Donavan, D. T., T. J. Brown, and J. C. Mowen. 2004. “Internal Benefits of
Service-Worker Customer Orientation: fob Satisfaction, Commitment, and
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors ."Journal of Marketing 68: 128-146.
Fineman, S. 2000. Emotion in Organizations 2nd ed. London: Sage.
Fisher, C. D. 1998. “Effects of External and Internal Interruptions on Boredom
at Work: Two Studies ."Journal of Organizational Behavior 19: 503-522.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol.XXIX N umber 3 Fall 2017

 V elasco 293

Flanagan, J. C. 1954. “The Critical Incident Technique.” Psychological Bulletin

51: 327-358.
Fox, S., and P. E. Spector. 2005. The Stressor-Emotion Model of Counterproductive
Work Behavior. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Game, A. 2007. “Workplace Boredom Coping: Health, Safety, and HR
Implications.” Personnel Review 36: 701-721.
Glaser, B. G., and A. L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies
for Qiialitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Pub. Co.
Gremler, D. D. 2004. “The Critical Incident Technique in Service Research.”
Journal of Service Research 7: 65-89.
Haager, J. S., C. Kuhbandner, and R. Pekrun. 2016. “To Be Bored or Not To
Be Bored—Flow Task-Related Boredom Influences Creative
Performance.” The Journal of Creative Behavior 1: 1-10.
Hackman J. R., and G. R. Oldham. 1980. Work Redesign. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Karlsson, J., and P. Per Skalen. 2015. “Exploring Front-line Employee
Contributions to Service Innovation.” European Journal of Marketing 49:
1346-1365.
Loukidou, L., J. Loan-Clarke, and K. Daniels. 2009. “Boredom in the
Workplace: More than Monotonous Tasks.” International Journal of
Management Reviews 11: 381-405.
Mael, F., and S. Jex. 2015. “Workplace Boredom: An Integrative Model of
Traditional and Contemporary Approaches.” Group & Organization
Management 40: 131-159.
O’Hanlon, J. F. 1981. “Boredom: Practical Consequences and a Theory.” Tcto
Psychologica 49: 53-82.
Pooja, G., and R. Rastogi. 2006. “New Model of Job Design: Motivating
Employees’ Performance."Journal of Management Development 25: 572-587.
Schaufeli, W., and M. Salanova. 2013. “Burnout, Boredom and Engagement at
the Workplace.” In An Introduction to Contemporary Work Psychology. Ed. M.
C. Peeters, J. de Jonge, and T. W. Taris. John Wiley & Sons.
Schubert, D. S. P. 1978. “Creativity and Coping With Boredom.” Psychiatric
Annals 8: 46.
Schuessler, J. 2010. “Our Boredom, Ourselves.” The New York Times: 23-23.
Stock, R. M. 2015. “Is Boreout a Threat to Frontline Employees’ Innovative
Work Behavior Y ’Journal of Product Innovation Management 32: 574-592.
----------- . 2016. “Understanding the Relationship Between Frontline
Employee Boreout and Customer Orientation.”Journal of Business Research
69: 4259-4268.
Zhou, J., andj. M. George. 2001. “W henjob Dissatisfaction Leads to Creativity:
Encouraging the Expression of Voice.” Academy of Management Journal 44:
682-696.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES VOL.XXIX NUMBER 3 Fall 2017

Copyright of Journal of Managerial Issues is the property of Journal of Managerial Issues /
PSU and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.