4.6 Review

Work-Leisure Blending: An Integrative Conceptual Review and Framework to Guide Future Research

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY
卷 107, 期 4, 页码 560-580

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/apl0000924

关键词

work-leisure blending; organizational play; gamification; workplace fun; work breaks

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Since the industrial revolution, the traditional view of work and leisure being opposing domains has been challenged, with more organizations promoting the blending of leisure activities into the workplace. Various disciplines have conceptualized how work and leisure can coexist, leading to a fragmented theoretical account of work-leisure blending. To address this, the authors provide a comprehensive theoretical integration and develop a tripartite dimensional framework to elucidate the central dimensions of work-leisure blending.This framework serves as a theoretical foundation for discussing contextual considerations and future research directions related to work-leisure blending.
Since the industrial revolution, work and leisure have largely been considered opposing domains. A growing number of organizations, however, enable and/or promote blending leisure activities into the workplace. Similarly, several conceptualizations across different disciplines examine how work and leisure can coexist. These different conceptualizations have yielded a rich but fragmented theoretical account of work-leisure blending. To address this problem, we provide a comprehensive theoretical integration of multiple literature streams where research has explored work-leisure blending. Further, we develop a tripartite dimensional framework designed to elucidate the central dimensions of work-leisure blending (i.e., segmentation-integration, unstructured-structured, and independent-interactive) undergirding this phenomenon. Using this framework as a theoretical foundation, we then discuss important contextual considerations and future research directions related to work-leisure blending.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据