This 6 page paper looks at two articles assessing the impact of boredom on employees and their behavior in the workplace. The methodology of the two articles is compared and contrasted. The bibliography cites 5 sources.
Name of Research Paper File: TS65_TEborework.doc
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
of motivation and the highest level of engagement (Cook, 2008, p11). This is seen in a wide range of literature, it is aligned with the human relations school of thought.
Many studies look at the positive aspects of motivation; fewer have considered the role and impact of boredom. Bruursema (et al, 2010, p93) argue that this is an area where
specific research has been lacking. In their research the impact boredom has on the emergence of counterproductive workplace behaviour is examined. Watt and Hargis (2010, p163) also look at the
impact of boredom, and job performance, including underemployment. Both find positive correlations between boredom and negative behavioural traits of employees. However, the research methodology for the two different investigations was
different. Looking at these two research articles the methods employed may be compared and contrasted. Bruursema (et al, 2010, p94) look specifically at the presence of counterproductive work behaviour and
the association with boredom. The article defines counter-productive work behaviour according to 6 categories; these include abusive behaviour to others, deviations in production, sabotage, withdrawal, theft and horseplay. The categorisation
of counter-productive workplace behaviour was based on former research by Spector et al. (2006, quoted Bruursema et al, 2010, p94). This research identified the first five categories that are used
by Bruursema, but it is adjusted with the addition of the horseplay category. Interestingly, although horseplay is included as a six category, the authors do not explain how or why
inspiration for this additional category was gained. Prior to undertaking research there is also clear definition of boredom provided (Bruursema et al, 2010, p95). However, there is an interesting approach
adopted, where there is a diverging from mainstream research. Instead of seeing boredom only as a function or outcome as a result of the tediously boring job, the potential for