Boredom at work has been shown to be a concern for individuals and organisations. At the time of this research, no validated scale was available to measure and investigate workplace boredom within the South African context.
To determine the psychometric properties of the Dutch Boredom Scale (DUBS) within the South African context.
No reliable and valid scale for workplace boredom was available in South Africa at the time of the current research. Boredom at work has been found to affect organisations negatively in other countries. Insights are needed into workplace boredom and how it affects the outcomes of organisations in South Africa.
A cross-sectional research approach was utilised. A random convenience sample (
The results showed that the one-factor structure of the DUBS could be confirmed and that this factor had acceptable reliability. In terms of convergent validity, all of the item indicators loaded significantly on the workplace boredom construct, and the relationship between workplace boredom and work underload revealed that they were positively correlated with medium effect size. Furthermore, work engagement and organisational commitment were correlated negatively in terms of practical significance with workplace boredom. A structural mediation model showed that work underload was significantly and positively associated with boredom, which in turn had significant negative relations to both work engagement and organisational commitment. No significant direct relations were found from work underload to either work engagement or organisational commitment. Instead, bootstrapping showed that there was an indirect-only relationship from work underload to work engagement and organisational commitment through workplace boredom – indicating full mediation.
Management should not neglect workplace boredom, as results indicate that it may adversely impact work engagement and organisational commitment. Therefore, workplace boredom should be a concern not only for individuals, but also for the organisation at large.
This study contributes to the limited research available on workplace boredom in South Africa by providing evidence of acceptable psychometric properties for a workplace boredom scale.
Workplace boredom is a persistent phenomenon that will continue to be experienced within organisations as the increase in the educational level of employees and continuous technological advancements result in automated work practices where individuals become overqualified for repetitive and unvarying jobs (Fisher,
Workplace boredom can be described as the experience of boredom within the context of work, where the employee feels under-challenged or under-stimulated in his or her work (Loukidou
To date, there is no thorough theory on boredom, let alone workplace boredom (Fisher,
Workplace boredom is considered a neglected topic on which no research has been conducted within the South African context, as no psychometrically validated workplace boredom scale was available at the time of the current research. The study on which this article reports aimed to validate the Dutch Boredom Scale (DUBS) (Reijseger
Fisher (
Thus,
Some researchers on workplace boredom have attributed the cause of workplace boredom to the work situation itself (Hill & Perkins,
Interest in the boredom domain has led to the development of various scales in order to measure the phenomenon. However, only a single scale (the DUBS) was available that focused specifically on the employee’s
Reijseger
Reijseger
The validity of a measuring instrument is considered important as this influences the precision, interpretation and usefulness of the findings (Foxcroft & Roodt,
Due to having too little to do, or experiencing one’s job as too simple and unchallenging, workplace boredom is experienced. Workplace boredom may therefore occur when quantitative ‘underload’ is experienced; that is, when tasks are considered to be monotonous, unchallenging or repetitive (Fisher,
When workplace boredom is prevalent, employees experience their job as dissatisfying; therefore, they are less committed to the organisation and willing to leave their jobs (Kass
Predictive validity is an alternative form of validity that can be useful in a validation study. It refers to the precision with which a measure can predict future behaviour, responses or category status (Foxcroft & Roodt,
The structural model for determining direct and indirect (mediated) relationships.
To date, no research on workplace boredom has been conducted within the South African context. South Africa is a unique multicultural nation where different cultural backgrounds, ethnicities and values are found (Foxcroft & Roodt,
For the purpose of this study, a quantitative research approach was used, which implies that the variables were measured in order to analyse and compare results. Quantitative research comprises large samples and data collection procedures that are structured (De Vos
Permission and consent to gather data were obtained from logistic and manufacturing organisations, as well as from the individuals who participated in the survey. Hard copies of the surveys were printed and handed out to participating employees by the researcher. Each survey consisted of a cover letter explaining the purpose of the research. Emphasis was placed on anonymity, confidentiality and voluntary participation with no negative repercussions.
The study sample consisted of a combination of participants from logistics and manufacturing organisations (
All of the items in the survey were presented in English only. The Cronbach’s reliability coefficient for each scale in this section was based on previous studies with the scales. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the current study are presented in
Preliminary item analysis was performed in Mplus with the TYPE=BASIC function. This provided means, standard deviations, skewness, kurtosis and minimum and maximum values. Skewness and kurtosis would be considered problematic for any values below –2.00 or above 2.00 (George & Mallery, The comparative fit index (CFI) (values of 0.90 and above). The Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) (values of 0.90 and above). The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) (values smaller than 1.0, but ideally smaller than 0.08). The square root mean residual (SRMR) (values smaller than 0.08). The Bayesian information criterion (BIC) – the lowest value indicating the better model.
Discriminant validity is established when evidence can be provided that the constructs of interest in a study can be shown to not be captured by other measures in the model (Hair, Black, Babin & Anderson,
The practical significance of correlation coefficients were set at 0.30 and above for a medium effect and at 0.50 and above for a large effect (Cohen,
To investigate the mediation model, the MODEL INDIRECT function in Mplus was used with 5000 bootstrap replications within the structural model specifications. The focus was therefore on the significance of the indirect effect and its 95% confidence interval (Rucker, Preacher, Tormala & Petty,
Descriptive statistics for the items of the workplace boredom construct.
Item | M | SD | Skewness | Kurtosis | Min value (%) | Max value (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
During work time, I daydream | 1.89 | 1.02 | 1.18 | 0.89 | 44.01 | 2.69 |
At my work, there is not so much to do | 1.77 | 1.01 | 1.46 | 1.58 | 51.66 | 2.70 |
I feel bored at my job | 2.12 | 1.14 | 0.76 | −0.30 | 35.40 | 2.69 |
I tend to do other things during my work | 2.13 | 0.94 | 0.77 | 0.44 | 26.03 | 2.07 |
At work, time goes by very slowly | 2.78 | 1.26 | 0.26 | −0.92 | 17.56 | 12.91 |
It seems as if my working day never ends | 2.95 | 1.18 | 0.13 | −0.86 | 11.13 | 12.16 |
M, mean; SD, standard deviation.
The CFA results showed that the one-factor measurement model for workplace boredom has a good fit to the data (CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.06; SRMR = 0.03). This result supported H1.
Standardised factor loadings of the items for the latent workplace boredom variable.
Item text | Loading | SE | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
During work time, I daydream | 0.73 | 0.03 | 0.001 |
0.53 (53) |
At my work, there is not so much to do | 0.71 | 0.03 | 0.001 |
0.51 (51) |
I feel bored at my job | 0.69 | 0.03 | 0.001 |
0.48 (45) |
I tend to do other things during my work | 0.62 | 0.04 | 0.001 |
0.38 (38) |
At work, time goes by very slowly | 0.25 | 0.05 | 0.001 |
0.06 (6) |
It seems as if my working day never ends | 0.22 | 0.05 | 0.001 |
0.05 (5) |
The results of the CFA showed that all items of workplace boredom had statistically significant factor loadings (λ). The item with arguably the most face validity (‘I feel bored at my job’) had 48% of its variance explained by the latent workplace boredom variable. Furthermore, the items with the highest factor loading were item 3 (‘During work time, I daydream’;
Models were initially tested with work engagement as a one-factor model (BIC = 36962.77) and two-factor model (BIC = 37676.13). The one-factor model showed the best fit to the data and was therefore used in the final model. The final measurement model, which contained all of the study variables, showed the following fit statistics: CFI = 0.91; TLI = 0.90; RMSEA = 0.07; SRMR = 0.07. These values were considered acceptable and the interpretation of the correlation matrix was deemed appropriate.
Correlation matrix for the latent variables.
Variables | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Workplace boredom | (0.78) | - | - | - |
2. Work underload | 0.30 |
(0.77) | - | - |
3. Work engagement | −0.59 |
−0.25 | (0.91) | - |
4. Organisational commitment | −0.41 |
−0.15 | 0.60 |
(0.83) |
Notes: All correlations were statistically significant (
medium practical effect;
large practical effect.
As is evident in
Workplace boredom was statistically negatively correlated with all of the study variables, except with work underload, with which it was positively correlated (
Sufficient evidence for discriminant validity was found for the workplace boredom construct. All variables had correlations with boredom that were below the set cut-off point (i.e.
Standardised estimates for the direct relationships of the structural model.
As is evident from
The aim of the current study was to validate a workplace boredom scale by investigating its factor structure, construct validity (convergent and discriminant validity) and predictive validity using the following variables: work underload and two organisational outcomes (i.e. work engagement and organisational commitment).
Firstly, this study sought to confirm that the workplace boredom scale has a one-factor structure. The CFA results established that the proposed one-factor measurement model for workplace boredom was indeed a good fit to the data and that the EFA resulted in a one-factor model. This is in line with the original study by Reijseger
For the purpose of calculating the reliability of the constructs, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were used. All reliability values were above the threshold of 0.70. Specifically, the workplace boredom construct attained an acceptable value (
Next, convergent validity was investigated by establishing the correlation between workplace boredom and other constructs (Campbell & Fiske,
Next, workplace boredom was found to be negatively practically and significantly correlated to organisational commitment. Supporting this finding, Watt and Hargis (
For predictive validity, structural regression paths were added to the measurement model to determine whether workplace boredom is a predictor of work engagement and organisational commitment (
The current study provides evidence for the validity and reliability of a workplace boredom measure for use in South African organisations. Organisations should measure workplace boredom and consider strategies to counter its negative effects on organisational outcomes, including work engagement and organisational commitment, as illustrated in the current study. Furthermore, it was found that work underload has a positive relationship with boredom, indicating that employees that have a low workload (who are under-challenged) will probably experience more boredom (and
The present research provided valuable findings. However, it is essential to highlight the limitations of the current study as well. Firstly, a cross-sectional design was utilised, which precludes any causal interpretation. A longitudinal study should therefore be conducted to investigate the assumed or hypothesised causal order (Taris & Kompier,
These data were collected from organisations in only two sectors, the manufacturing sector and the logistics sector, so care should be taken not to generalise the findings to other contexts. Therefore, additional exploration is necessary in different economic sectors and occupations to examine the phenomenon of workplace boredom and its manifestations further. Generalisations should thus be made with caution.
Furthermore, employees with high demands or high workloads are also at risk of experiencing workplace boredom (Fisher,
The study made use of a self-report questionnaire, which is often criticised for issues of measurement bias (Spector,
This study presented evidence pertaining to the reliability and validity of a workplace boredom scale for use within the South African context. Specifically, workplace boredom was confirmed as a one-factor structure, an acceptable reliability coefficient was established and significant negative correlations and regressions were found among workplace boredom, organisational commitment and work engagement. Additionally, with the predictive validity mediation model, this study provides evidence for the full mediating role of workplace boredom between work underload and work engagement, organisational commitment. Managers should therefore not neglect workplace boredom, but consider strategies to effectively address the impact of boredom on organisational outcomes, which in turn would affect organisational success.
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
This publication is based on the master’s dissertation of S.V.W. (North-West University). L.T.d.B. (North-West University) was the study leader of the project, acted as corresponding author and performed the statistical analyses. The first and second authors contributed equally to the publication version. J.P. (North-West University) was the assistant supervisor for the dissertation. W.S. (Utrecht University & KU Leuven) acted as expert reviewer and provided important conceptual inputs on the publication.