Managers’ Perceptions of Leisure Behaviors in the Workplace

Managers’ perceptions of employees’ leisure behaviors at work can be affected by many factors. Various and different views can emerge, structured by factors such as organizational culture, management approach, natural structure of work, employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Although leisure and work time have traditionally been considered separately, it can be said that they are intertwined today. Initiatives to improve working conditions in work environments and the spread of technological developments to all areas of life reinforce this situation [1]. In order to provide a suitable working environment at work and to establish a balance between the conditions required by the job and employees’ leisure behaviors, it is very important to understand how managers perceive these behaviors and how they approach or react to these behaviors. Leisure behaviors at work can be very diverse and employees can show these behaviors in different ways. There can be many types of opportunities, from planned activities during long breaks to instant social interactions during short tea/coffee breaks. Including leisure activities in the work environment can increase employees’ job satisfaction. However, it can reinforce the perception of a fun workplace, which is seen as important and valued by people who are especially in middle and upper positions [2]. This perspective contradicts the traditional perspective that sharply separates work and leisure and ignores the benefits that these two areas provide to each other [3]. Therefore, the traditional model of work-leisure selection is seen as inadequate [4]. Work and leisure are becoming more and more inseparable day by day, refuting traditional views with sharp boundaries [5]. This makes the effects of work and free time on each other and perspectives of the people involved views on these issues even more important.

It can be stated that today, business life is not limited to the physical boundaries of the workplace and the defined work tasks. The lives of both employees and managers outside of work can have an impact on their attitudes and behaviors at work and therefore on their performance. The situation that determines whether these effects are positive or negative is related to how their leisure time behaviors are. In this context, employees’ evaluation of their leisure time with constructive and supportive activities has an important role in both supporting their personal well-being and development and increasing their motivation and performance levels at work. Related studies indicate that recreational activities provide benefits in many productivity-related issues such as job satisfaction, motivation, organizational commitment, wellness level, stress, and burnout [6,7]. On the other hand, how leisure time behaviors are perceived in the workplace and especially what perspective managers have towards these behaviors is an issue that has not been sufficiently examined. As a result of in-depth evaluations to be made on the perceptions of managers, the direction and variety of this information can be determined. Managers can evaluate employees’ leisure time preferences positively or negatively [8]. Depending on the direction of this evaluation, both manager-employee relations and managers’ management styles may differ. Therefore, it can be said that revealing managers’ perceptions of employees’ leisure behaviors will fill an important gap in terms of evaluating the dynamics related to the workplace in a more holistic way. This study aims to explore managers’ perceptions of employees’ leisure activities in the workplace. It aims to reveal the potential effects of these perceptions on managerial decision-making processes and organizational attitudes. Thus, it is expected to contribute to the development of more inclusive human resources policies that will support both employee well-being and organizational efficiency.

This research was conducted to deeply examine the perceptions of managers towards employees’ leisure behaviors at work. In line with this purpose, semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with the participants to collect data. Participants were included in the study using the criterion sampling method. The condition was that the participants were managers at workplaces with 50 or more employees. Participant consents were obtained before the interviews. Open-ended questions prepared by the researcher were used in the interviews. The questions used in the interviews are listed below:

1. What does the concept of leisure mean to you?

2. What do you think about employees having free time during working hours?

3. How do leisure behaviors in the workplace affect the work environment and employees?

4. How do leisure behaviors in the workplace affect productivity?

5. In your opinion, what factors cause employees to engage in leisure behaviors in the workplace?

6. How does your corporate culture or management approach affect your approach to leisure behaviors in the workplace?

7. What are your views on leisure opportunities in the workplace?

8. Have you ever experienced a situation in which you evaluated leisure behaviors in the workplace positively or negatively?

The interview process was recorded using a voice recorder. Afterwards, the transcription process was completed and the audio files were converted into text files. After determining that the data obtained from the interviews had reached saturation point, the data collection process was completed. In this context, the research group consisted of eight managers. Participant information is provided in Table 1.

Table 1:Participants’ information.

The analysis of the obtained data was carried out using the inductive content analysis method. Inductive content analysis is a method used to analyze qualitative data by abstracting and grouping data into concepts, categories, and themes. This approach involves identifying open codes from the data, which are then grouped into categories and themes [9]. The codes that emerged from the findings obtained from the qualitative interviews were grouped in line with expert opinion and categories were created. Taking into account the relevant literature, the categories were grouped to form themes.

As a result of in-depth interviews with participants, 29 codes emerged. The codes were grouped under 6 categories, and the categories were gathered under 3 themes. The codes, categories, and themes that emerged as a result of the data analysis are presented in Table 2.

Table 2:Codes, categories and themes.

The data obtained from the in-depth interviews were presented to the participants and checked. The accuracy of the data was approved by the participants. The findings of the qualitative data analysis processes conducted by two field experts were compared in order to provide external auditing of the relevant data. As a result of this comparison, the reliability value was determined by calculating the ratio of the number of agreed codes to the total number of agreed and disagreed codes [10]. As a result of the process, the reliability coefficient between the coders was calculated as 0.91.

As a result of the analysis of the data obtained from the in-depth interviews, the themes of “perceptual positioning”, “organizational factors” and “structural causes of leisure” emerged. The categories of “opportunity” and “threat” that emerged were placed under the theme of “perceptual positioning”, the categories of “administrative process” and “organizational structure and culture” were placed under the theme of “organizational factors”, and the categories of “time” and “workflow” were placed under the theme of “structural causes of leisure”.

The findings obtained from semi-structured in-depth interviews with workplace managers indicate that there may be multi-faceted understandings about employees’ leisure behaviors. These understandings emerged within the framework of three main themes: “perceptual positioning”, “organizational factors”, and “structural causes of leisure”. The “perceptual positioning” theme includes the categories of “opportunity” and “threat”, which indicate that managers’ perceptions of leisure behaviors can be positive or negative [11]. Therefore, these behaviors can be labelled as beneficial or harmful. This perspective, which is shown based on managers’ evaluations, can shape their approaches to leisure behaviors in the workplace. This can determine how leisure activities can be incorporated into the work environment and what their effects may be. The “opportunity” perception indicates that appropriate leisure activities can improve group dynamics, increase employee morale, and have positive effects on employee creativity. In contrast, the perception of “threat” refers to the view that leisure behaviors, and leisure in general, are believed to be a factor that reduces productivity, breeds laziness, and inhibits the accomplishment of tasks [12].

The theme of “organizational factors”, which includes the categories of “administrative process” and “organizational structure and culture”, shows the situation in which organizational systems and the functioning processes of these systems adopt leisure behaviors and the critical role of the workplace in the process of shaping them. It can be said that managerial actions such as planning working hours in a way that will create opportunities for participation in activities, using the company’s existing resources for employees’ leisure activities and offering flexible working hours to employees will significantly affect the level of participation in leisure activities during working hours. An organizational structure and culture that supports useful leisure activities is also an important incentive element. Because a more flexible and employee-centered organizational culture will be easier to adopt changes in favor of the employee. On the contrary, a work environment with a serious control mechanism and high hierarchy can be deterrent to participation in leisure activities. Organizational culture and structure, together with managerial processes, create a framework that allows or limits employees to use their leisure time effectively during working hours. This framework shows the value the workplace gives to employee well-being, work-life balance and a satisfying work environment. It can be thought that this value will most likely be reciprocated by employees.

The theme of “structural causes of leisure” consists of the category’s “time” and “workflow”, which explain the limitations and opportunities arising from the natural processes of business life. Here, time characterizes the periods allocated for rest, such as breaks, which are inherent in every job, and the gaps between tasks. Workflow refers to the pauses caused by periodic fluctuations or disruptions in the intensity of work and the processes where there is an obligation to work without interruption. These processes determine the degree of autonomy that employees have while performing their tasks and the limitations required by the task [13]. In processes where task intensity increases, leisure opportunities naturally decrease. However, in environments where intensity is spread evenly over periods and the workflow is more flexible, it is more likely that employees will have opportunities to have fun, relax and get away from work for a moment. In short, the organizational structure of the job is a determining factor in the degree to which leisure activities will be included in the workplace or which activities can be implemented [14].

Balancing between employees’ autonomy and the comfort of having leisure activities at work and having a working schedule that meets corporate goals seems to be a difficult challenge for managers. Mandatory situations such as the pandemic and the natural opportunities created by technological developments have given significant momentum to remote and flexible working hours. With such trends, employees’ opportunities to move more freely in terms of working hours and places have increased. This situation has made the lines between free time and working time more blurred. The fact that many mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets are just a reach away offers employees instant access to many applications such as social media, shopping platforms, and digital games. It can be stated that these developing technological opportunities can create both difficulties and some opportunities for managers [15,16]. The decrease in working hours in post-industrial societies allows employees to realize themselves, reveal their potential, and discover their talents. Many serious leisure activities, especially amateurism, hobby activities, and career volunteering, are seen as key to self-expression, skill development, and identity formation [17]. Although these activities are considered to be independent of work because they are carried out in free time, they can have a significant impact on employees’ performance, creativity, and social ties. Knowing that work and leisure activities interact with each other and anticipating that experiences in different areas can affect processes in other areas can enable managers to approach this process in a constructive way.

This study aims to examine managers’ perceptions of employees’ leisure behaviors at work. In line with the findings obtained from the interviews, the themes of “perceptual positioning”, “organizational factors” and “structural causes of leisure” emerged. It is seen that leisure can be perceived positively or negatively by managers. This situation can be evaluated as a sign that managers can enrich or restrict employees’ leisure opportunities. It can be stated that organizational factors such as the managerial understanding and organizational culture of the workplace provide a basis for how employees will shape their leisure behaviors. In addition, break times or gaps arising from the workflow provide a natural opportunity for leisure behaviors. When planned in advance, it will be possible to manage the leisure behaviors that will arise from such time-related opportunities in a structured manner. It is considered important for managers to be informed about how employees can use their free time in a structured manner and to act in line with this understanding. In this way, both the organizations can achieve their goals and the individual development and needs of employees can be met.

None.

No conflict of interest.

1. Meyer N L, Sundgot Borgen J, Lohman, Timothy R Ackland, Arthur D Stewart, et al. (2013) Body composition for health and performance: a survey of body composition assessment practice carried out by the Ad Hoc Research Working Group on Body Composition, Health and Performance under the auspices of the IOC Medical Commission. British Journal of Sports Medicine 47(16): 1044-1053.
2. Ackland T R, Lohman T G, Sundgot Borgen J, Ronald J Maughan, Nanna L Meyer, et al. (2012) Current Status of Body Composition Assessment in Sport. Sports Medicine 42(3): 227-249.
3. Liao T, Li L, Yong Tai Wang (2019) Effects of Functional Strength Training Program on Movement Quality and Fitness Performance Among Girls Aged 12-13 Years. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 33(6): 1534-1541.
4. Schranz N, Tomkinson G, Olds T (2013) What is the effect of resistance training on the strength, body composition and psychosocial status of overweight and obese children and adolescents? A Systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine Auckland NZ 43(9): 893-907.
5. Wang Z, Ma H, Zhang w, Yufeng Zhang, Layale Youssef, et al. (2024) Effects of Functional Strength Training Combined with Aerobic Training on Body Composition Physical Fitness, and Movement Quality in Obese Adolescents. Nutrients 16(10): 1434.
6. Lukaski H, Raymond Pope C J (2021) New Frontiers of Body Composition in Sport. International Journal of Sports Medicine 42(7): 588-601.
7. Cook G, Burton L, Hoogenboom B (2006) Pre-participation screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function - part 1. North American Journal of Sports Physical Therapy: NAJSPT 1(2): 62-72.
8. Cook G, Burton L, Hoogenboom B J, Michael Voight, et al. (2014) Functional movement screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function - part 1. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy 9(3): 396-409.
9. Nunes J P, Araújo J P M, Ribeiro A S, Campa F, Schoenfeld B J, et al. (2022) Changes in Intra-to-Extra-Cellular Water Ratio and Bioelectrical Parameters from Day-Before to Day-Of Competition in Bodybuilders: A Pilot Study. Sports 10(2): 23.
10. Kyle U G, Bosaeus I, Antonio D De Lorenzo, Deurenberg P, Elia M, et al. (2004) Bioelectrical impedance analysis--part I: a review of principles and methods. Clinical Nutrition Edinburgh, Scotland 23(5): 1226-1243.
11. Schoeller D A (2000) Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis What Does It Measure? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 904: 159-162.
12. Kyle U G, Bosaeus I, Antonio D De Lorenzo, Deurenberg P, Elia M, et al. (2004) Bioelectrical impedance analysis—part II: utilization in clinical practice. Clinical Nutrition 23(6): 1430-1453.
13. Nóbrega A C L, Paula K C, Carvalho A C G (2005) Interaction between resistance training and flexibility training in healthy young adults. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 19(4): 842-846.
14. Witard O C, Bannock L Tipton K D (2022) Making Sense of Muscle Protein Synthesis: A Focus on Muscle Growth During Resistance Training. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism 32(1): 49-61.
15. Riccardi, Pacioni, Giacco, Rivellese (2015) Manuale di Nutrizione Applicata - Quarta Edizione Idelson & Gnocchi, Eds.
16. (1995) WHO Expert Committee. Physical status: the use and interpretation of anthropometry. Report of a WHO Expert Committee 854: 1-452.
17. Francisco R, Matias C N, Santos D A, Campa F, Minderico C S, et al. (2020) The Predictive Role of Raw Bioelectrical Impedance Parameters in Water Compartments and Fluid Distribution Assessed by Dilution Techniques in Athletes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(3): 759.
18. Alessio Matarazzo, Ruggero D’Anastasio (2022) Anthropometric linear measurements of female athletes in the Italian national athletic teams. International Journal of Morphology 40(3): 657-661.
19. Dittmar M (2003) Reliability and variability of bioimpedance measures in normal adults: Effects of age, gender, and body mass. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 122(4): 361-370.
20. Lorenzo I, Serra Prat M, Yébenes J C (2019) The Role of Water Homeostasis in Muscle Function and Frailty: A Review. Nutrients 11(8): 1857.
21. Moon J R (2013) Body composition in athletes and sports nutrition: an examination of the bioimpedance analysis technique. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 67(S1): S54-S59.
22. Carneiro M A S, Nunes P R P, Souza M V C, Assumpção C O, Orsatti F L (2024) Full‐body resistance training promotes greater fat mass loss than a split‐body routine in well‐trained males: A randomized trial. European Journal of Sport Science 24(6): 846-854.