wout gijsbers - managing humor in organizations

8/14/2019 Wout Gijsbers - Managing Humor in Organizations

1/40

MANAGING HUMOR

IN ORGANIZATIONSHandling the Double-Edged Sword

Wout Gijsbers


2/40

Managing Humor

Page | 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 3

Chapter 1: Theories of Humor ................................................................................................................. 5

Chapter 2: Positive Functions: the Sharp Edge ....................................................................................... 9

Positive Physical Functions .............................................................................................................. 9

Positive Psychological Functions ................................................................................................... 10

Positive Organizational Functions ................................................................................................. 12

Humor Styles ................................................................................................................................. 20

Chapter 3: Negative Functions: the Blunt Edge .................................................................................... 22

Negative Physical Functions .......................................................................................................... 23

Negative Psychological Functions ................................................................................................. 23

Negative Organizational Functions ............................................................................................... 24

Chapter 4: Joking Relationships: Putting Humor into Context .............................................................. 29

Chapter 5: Managing Humor: the ALBAC method ................................................................................ 33

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 37

Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................... 38


3/40

Introduction Managing Humor

Page | 3

INTRODUCTION

If you want to thrive and remain competitive in a world that is changing radically and

relentlessly, you need the fluidity and flexibility of humor

- C.W. Metcalf, humor consultant -

A sense of humor is part of the art of leadership, of getting along with people, of getting

things done.

- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 34th

president of the US (1890-1969) -

How can humor help me thrive in a radically and relentlessly changing world? What is so special

about the relation between humor and leadership? How can humor help me get things done?

Questions like these are likely to surface after reading the two quotes stated above. The current

paper intends to provide a number of possible answers to these answers, as well as answers to many

more questions of a comparable nature. In particular, this paper aims to show and discuss the ways

in which, as well as the extent to which managers can use humor as a tool to help them reach their

objectives. The thesis question at the heart of the current paper is therefore: How and to what

extent can humor be used as a managerial tool?. The information collection method employed for

this paper essentially consisted of a literature review of all works that were considered to be best

able to answer the main thesis question. More specifically, the articles and books that were reviewed

were chosen based on relevance to the main topic (i.e., content-wise), source (i.e., suitability and

prominence of journals and publishers), author, number of articles that referred to the article or

book under investigation, and sheer availability of the book or article (i.e., within close proximity in

time, scope, and finances). Despite the fact that the list of reviewed material is by no means final or

complete, it does provide an adequate basis for the current paper. Before moving on to the first

chapter, it is important to clarify the structure of this paper as well as to provide a definition of

humor. Starting with the letter, a definition is required that encompasses both verbal and non-verbal

(e.g., pictorial) humor, and that is most applicable to humor from a managerial perspective. In

addition, it must be able to take into account the fact that the current paper mostly focuses on the

prolonged use of humor in a managerial context, as a significant portion of the functions of humor

only work by using humor on a regular basis (as opposed to using it only on one occasion). A

definition that is able to fulfill these criteria, and that also manages to incorporate the two-sided

nature of humor, is Romero and Cruthirdss definition of organizational humor as consisting of

amusing communications that produce positive emotions and cognitions in the individual, group, or


4/40

Introduction Managing Humor

Page | 4

organization (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006, pp.59). The two-sided nature of humor is also represented

in the commonly-used metaphor around which the current paper is structured, that of humor as a

double-edged sword. To somewhat clarify this metaphor and materialize its elements, while at the

same showing the overall structure of the current paper, a graphical representation of it is shown in

Figure 1. As can be seen in this figure, this paper has been split into four chapters. The first chapter

deals with the three main theories of humor: superiority theory, relief theory and incongruity theory.

The second chapter deals with the sharp edge of the double-edged sword; the positive functions of

humor. Admittedly, referring to something positive as the sharp edge of a sword may seem quite

dubious at first. However, if one considers the goal of the sword to be the attainment of anappreciative response to humor, using the sharp edge of the sword would of course be preferable

over using the blunt edge. The third chapter will discuss this blunt edge; the negative functions of

humor, referring to the functions humor can have, if, for a variety of reasons, it fails to be

appreciated by its audience. After discussing the two edges of the sword, chapter four will address

the items making up the hilt of the sword, the context of humor. Context is represented as the hilt of

the sword because the direction in which the sword cuts (i.e., with its sharp or its blunt edge) is

largely dependent on the initiators ability to hold the sword, referring to his or her ability to read

the context of humor. Therefore, even though it is obviously the initiator of humor who is holding the

sword, the way in which he or she should hold it to use it successfully depends on the context of

humor. In particular, chapter four will focus on the role of joking relationships in the production and

evaluation of humor. The final chapter will outline the ways in which humor should be managed, in

order to be able to make effective, efficient and successful use of the double-edged sword; purely

using the sharp edge of the double-edged sword. Following the last chapter, a short summary will

provide the closing section of the current paper.

FIGURE 1 TH E DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD


5/40

Theories of Humor Managing Humor

Page | 5

CHAPTER 1

THEORIES OF HUMOR

Humor is the only test of gravity, and gravity of humor; for a subject which will not bear raillery is

suspicious, and a jest which will not bear serious examination is false wit.

- Aristotle, Philosopher, 384-322 BC -

It is a fair, even-handed, noble adjustment of things, that while there is infection in disease and

sorrow, there is nothing in the world so irresistibly contagious as laughter and good-humor

- Charles Dickens, Novelist, 1812-1870

As the two quotes above indicate, humor is everything but a recently-introduced topic of

discussion and study. From Ancient Greece to Victorian England and from philosophy to sociology;

humor seems to have been given ample attention in a wide variety of fields. Conglomerating the

most important viewpoints on and insights into humor, it can be stated that conceptualizations of

what humor essentially is can be narrowed down to three theories: superiority theory, relief theory

and incongruity theory. The current chapter will provide you with a short introduction into each of

these three theories.

Superiority theory (sometimes referred to as disparagement or dispositional theory and, to a lesser

extent, as cognitive appraisal theory) is based on the idea that humor is a tool of distinction. It is

always directed from a subject to an object with the intention of expressing superiority of the former

over the latter, of elevating the subjects position above that of the object (e.g., Cooper, 2008;

Mcllheran, 2006; Kangasharju, 2009; McIlheran, 2006). As John Morreal states: in superiority theory

all laughter is at somebody (Morreal, 1997, pp.24). According to some, this theory dates back to

medieval philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who stated that the passion of laughter and joy is nothing

else but a sudden glory arising from a sudden conception of some eminency in ourselves by

comparison with the infirmity of others, or with our own formerly (Hobbes, in Duncan, Smeltzer &

Leap, 1990, pp.259). In other words, humor offers individuals a way of self-glorification by

depreciating others. In this way, it allows them to enhance their self-esteem and protect their

identities (Greatbatch & Clark, 2003). For Hobbes, those who laugh the most are the people with the

least amount of self-esteem, and therefore with the greatest urge to elevate their own identities by

constantly focusing on the imperfections of others. In line with this argument, humor is seen as

something to be ashamed of; something to avoid using at all times. According to Pihulyk, the factthat this view on humor has been prevalent for such a long time is reflected in the suspicion people


6/40


Page | 6

often have about humor; they are not sure whether humor is or is not used as a tool of distinction at

a given moment (Pihulyk, 2002). This claim does not rest on very solid grounds, as several other

authors have indicated. For example, Morreall states that if this theory were the only theory that

accurately describes and encompasses all kinds of humor, the laughter of a baby in a game ofpeek-a-

boo would seem to indicate a striving for superiority over the initiator of the humor by the baby

(Morreal, 1997). Of course, it would be nave and simplistic to state that humor is never used as a

tool of distinction and superiority, judging by the vast amount of ethnic and sexual humor, put-down

humor and mocking, most of which consisting of a weak, inferior focus (i.e., victim) as seen through

the eyes of the initiator (Romero & Pescosolido, 2008). Nevertheless, it has to be noted that these

kinds of humor and the roles they play from a superiority theory perspective can only be considered

if they are within what Terrion & Ashforth (2002) refer to as a play frame, in which all participants

(initiator, target and focus) are aware that the remark made by the subject should be considered a

joke; that it should not be taken seriously.

The second major humor theory is relief theory, which stems from the works of Sigmund

Freud. For Freud, the essence of humour is that one spares oneself the affects to which the

situation would naturally give rise and overrides with a jest the possibility of such an emotional

display (Freud in Cooper, 2008, pp.1096). In other words, humor stems from the pleasure that is

derived by replacing the emotions that a person would naturally feel in a specific situation by a

humorous element, thereby enabling herself to release the energy built up during the situation in the

form of laugher or any form of what can be considered as a positive response to humor.

Consequently, the potential source of stress or pain is removed and the emotion caused by the

source can be expressed in the form of a normal, socially acceptable way such as humor (Greatbatch

& Clark, 2003). In this way, according to Freud, individuals can protect themselves from the harm

that the emotions normally brought forward by certain situations and events would cause them, and

contain their deepest sexual or aggressive impulses by expressing their energies in the form of humor

(Cooper, 2008; Kangasharju, 2009; Lee, 2005). Lyttle (2007) states that the workings of relief theory

can be best seen in the positive responses to humor involving highly charged topics (pp.240);

according to Lyttle, we laugh at humor involving sex and violence because it is one of the few socially

acceptable ways we can express emotions regarding those subjects, emotions that would otherwise

need to be repressed (Lyttle, 2007). This statement contradicts with McIlherans claim that humor, as

seen from a relief theory perspective, is only used to relieve tension or grief when someone is

depressed (McIlheran, 2006, pp.269). If this were true, it would not be illogical to conclude that

every kind of humor involving sex or violence (and to a lesser extent, even ethnicity) stems from a

deep sense of depression. In other words, the majority of men in their puberty, as well as any person

able to appreciate comedy shows such as South Parkand Happy Tree Friends would, if this were true,


7/40


Page | 7

be suffering from a depression. Nevertheless, it remains hard to fully agree with the baseline of relief

theory, as humor cannot simply be fully explained by describing it as an acceptable relief from

repressed emotions. For example, if a manager tries to reconcile a disagreement between two

rivaling employees by making a humorous statement or by showing a humorous picture that is in no

way related to sex, ethnicity or aggression and all involved parties are able to appreciate the humor,

does this entail that each person involved were able to do so because it allows him or her to relieve

socially unacceptable emotions? Could this truly be the only reason for positive responses to humor?

Could it not be possible that the parties were able to appreciate the humor because it drew attention

to an incongruity within the humor? This leads into the third theory of humor, incongruity theory.

Incongruity theory revolves around perspectives and thought systems. Put simply, in

incongruity theory, humor occurs when two or more phenomena that are not particularly

interesting in separation, are brought together, causing the rules and assumptions from one

phenomena to mix with those of the others. In this way, an incongruity between the phenomena

presents itself, leading the

combination of phenomena to be

perceived as absurd, surreal, and

thereby humorous (e.g., Yarwood,

1995; Duncan, 1990). A concept at the

center of incongruity theory is

bisociation, coined by Arthur

Koestler as the merging (i.e., bi-

association) of two or more thought

systems, system herein referring to

any phenomenon that is dependent on a set of specific rules and regulations (Koestler in Yarwood,

1995, pp.82). Cooper describes incongruity (and the humor resulting from it) slightly less abstract by

stating that it can stem from a difference between the expected and the actual (e.g., a chirping dog

or a barking cat), from perceiving a situation with multiple incompatible frames of reference (e.g.

Jastrows Rabbit and Duck, shown in Figure 2), or from the multiple ways in which a word or a

combination of words can be understood (e.g., the plethora of jokes in which the normal word for

the male reproductive organ is replaced with anything from wood to sword, and from tools to

sausage) (Cooper, 2008). However, incongruity itself can only partially explain why something or

someone is regarded as funny. In addition to the incongruity itself, there needs to be what Duncan

refers to as a meaningful resolution of the incongruity. This resolution consists of two steps. The

first step consists of a violation of expectations (i.e., the incongruity itself). During the second step,

the person at the receiving end of the humor must be able to merge the parts of the humorous

FIGURE 2JOSEPH JASTROW.RABBIT AND DUC K


8/40


Page | 8

statement that are incongruous in such a way that their combination makes sense but still remains

incongruous (due to a remaining difference between the expected and the actual, a remaining

incongruity between multiple frames of reference or due to a word or a phrases multiple meanings).

In relation to this explanation of the process of incongruity humor, Robert (2005) claims that

appreciation of humor is positively correlated with the degree to which an incongruity is in conflict

with a frame of references core characteristics. This statement is quite a precarious one because it is

quite easy to think of incongruity that conflict with a frame of references core characteristics at such

a deep, abstract level that it is impossible for many individuals to enjoy the incongruity as humor. In

short, there is certainly a boundary to which incongruity can be considered enjoyable.

Having discussed each major humor theory separately, a number of conclusions can be

drawn. Firstly, it seems to be the fact that each theory discusses humor from a different perspective.

This conclusion is in agreement with Lyttle (2007), who stated that incongruity theory tries to explain

what makes something humorous, that superiority theory discusses when (i.e., under which

circumstances) we find something funny, and that relief theory tries to explain the reasons for

humors very existence. Consequently, it is difficult to claim that any one of the three discussed

theories is able to give a full account of humor on its own. It is more plausible to state that each

theory plays a role within certain aspects of humor, sometimes being more prevalent than others,

sometimes being the only theory recognizably applicable to a certain humorous event. However,

despite the apparent incompleteness of each theory by itself, a combination of the three theories

does provide a very promising basis upon which discuss humor, allowing one to approach humor in

different ways if the situation requires one to do so. As will become clear in the following chapters

this approach is very suitable to the current paper.


9/40


10/40

Positive Functions Managing Humor

Page | 10

POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS

The functions within the second category of humors positive functions, its psychological

functions, are often not as easily empirically testable as the functions making up the former category.

Because of this, research within the former category primarily relies on ethnographic and linguistic

data derived from participant observation and semi-structured interviews. Some conclusions from

research within this category are that an increase in humor is correlated with a decrease in feelings

of anger, an increase in creativity (Bolman & Deal, 1992), sense of joy and positive mood (Eisenhardt

et al., 1997), motivation (e.g., Crawford, 1994 in Avolio et al., 1999), individual productivity (Duncan

& Feisal, 1989; Johnson, n.d.), and ability to deal with unexpected (and negative) events (McLaughlin,

2001 in Lee, 2005). In addition, it has also been claimed that humor can have a positive effect on

memory, possibly due to its positive effect on attention (Duncan, Smeltzer & Leap, 1990).

The workings of some of these functions can be explained through what Morreal refers to as mental

distance. According to this author, humor allows individuals (both initiator, focus and target) to

increase the mental distance they have towards a certain event (Morreal, 1997). Figuratively

speaking, humor allows individuals to adopt the view of the eagle instead of the view of the mouse.

An effect of this can be seen in humors effect on stress, which was already touched upon in the

previous section. For Morreall, the apparent fact that humor enables individuals to effectively deal

with stressful situations is because it is the exact opposite of stress; whereas stress causes

incongruities (Morreall explains the functions of humor from an incongruity theory viewpoint) to be

perceived as threatening, humor does not. By letting individuals retain a feeling of control over the

situation and by preventing their mental distance towards the situation from decreasing, thereby

allowing them to maintain a clear perspective, humor can function as a tool for individuals to deal

with stress (Morreal, 1997). Similarly, by adopting an eagles perspective on a situation, it becomes

easier to see alternative ways of solving a problem. This in turn caters creativity and quite possiblyconsequently also performance. In addition, mental distance allows individuals to see the relativity of

Humor

Laughter

Blood flowAuto-Immune System

Hormones activated during physical exercise

Muscle tensionBlood pressure

Heart rateStress

+ -

FIGURE 3POSITIVE PHYSICAL FUNCTIONS


11/40


Page | 11

a certain stressful situation, thereby enabling them to decrease feelings of anger and increase a

sense of joy. Other authors, despite not denoting it as such, seem to see agree with the mental

distance construct. For example, Eisenhardt et al. (1997) state that humor allows people to distance

themselves from stressful events, to see themselves somewhat more from an outsiders perspective.

Dixon and Kahn make similar claims (Dixon, 1980 in Avolio et al., 1999; Kahn, 1989 in Thomas & Al-

Maskati, 1997). Despite the fact that mental distance has not been empirically studied up until this

day, it can certainly still function as a solid theoretical starting point for future research. For example,

mental distance can be taken as a measure of personal involvement, analyzing the extent to which

and the reasons why individuals feel or do not feel involved in a particular situation and consequently

why they do or do not appreciate a specific humorous occurrence. According to Morreall (1997),

these extents and reasons can be subsumed under four categories: distance of fiction, distance in

space, distance in time and personal distance. The first relates to the difference between reality and

fiction, explaining for example the ability to appreciate aggression and violence in cartoons. The

second relates to the spatial distance between an individual and a phenomenon. The main theorem

of this category is that the further an individual is located from a certain event, the more likely he or

she is to perceive it as being humorous. The third relates to ones mental distance to occurrences in

the past, for example partially explaining why jokes about the Second World War are more likely to

be appreciated today than they would have been directly after the event. The last category contains

the ways in which an individual may or may not be personally affected by an event, for example

explaining why events recorded in so-called Funniest Home Videos TV shows are considered to be

funny, while being personally exposed to similar events is less likely to be considered as being so. In

sum, future empirical investigations can use mental distance as a way of categorizing a persons

engagement with a certain humorous occurrence; categorizing some of the reasons why humor is or

is not considered to be funny.


12/40


Page | 12

FIGURE 4POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS

POSITIVE ORGANIZATIONAL FUNCTIONS

The third category, the organizational functions of humor are, as was pointed out at the

beginning of this chapter, closely related to the two categories discussed up until this point. They

include all of humors positive functions that concern relations between two or more individuals,

including elements such as solidarity, group cohesion and bonding, communication and group

performance, but also status differences, competition, criticism and conflict. Even though the

previous two categories are essential to being able to fully outline humor, the current category is

most important to discuss humor from a top-down managerial perspective, and was therefore also

the main focus of the literature research for the current paper. A good starting point in outlining the

many organizational functions of humor is Romero and Cruthirdss Organizational Humor Model

(OHM from this point onwards) (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). In this model (shown in Figure 5), six

desired organizational outcomes, together with five humor styles and two contextual moderators

determine how an initiator will use humor. In this section, the focus lies on the six desired

organizational outcomes, which will be discussed in a slightly different order than indicated in theoriginal OHM. More specifically, the outcomes will be discussed in a micro-to-macro-structure,

starting with organizational outcomes that are more specifically geared towards individual

employees towards the outcomes that influence the organization as a whole. Following the

discussion of the six outcomes, the last section of this chapter will provide a short outline of the

humor styles included in the OHM as well as the ways in which they are linked to the six outcomes

and the other chapters of the current paper.

Humor

CreativitySense of joy & positive mood

MotivationIndividual productivity

Ability to deal with unexpected eventsMemory Feelings of anger

+ -

Mental

Distance

+


13/40


Page | 13

Creativity

The ways in which humor can cater creativity become particularly clear when they are

approached from an incongruity theory perspective: due to the fact that a major percentage of

humor essentially consists of incongruity, providing individuals with novel ways of approaching

reality, it opens up new perspectives, thereby allowing them to think outside the box, if not in a

wholly different box altogether. This way of thinking, of seeing things from surreal, imaginative and

fantastic points of view is what adults so often envy in children. Adults often have the tendency to

stay on the beaten path whereas children have no such sense of conformity and conservativeness.

Humor offers adults a way of partly retrieving this childish (in the most possible sense) viewpoint. As

Moreall states, quoting Edward de Bono, Humor shows how perceptions set up in one way can

suddenly be reconfigured in another way. This is the essence of creativity (de Bono, in Morreall ,

1997, pp.114). Clearly, this links back to incongruity theory and the concept of bisociation discussed

earlier, which some authors most certainly seem to agree with (e.g., Robert in Klein, 2007; Robert &

Yan, 2005; Morreal, 1997). In sum, managers can employ humor and stimulate humor insubordinates as a tool to break out of conventional thought patterns, to go beyond normal

brainstorming. By doing this, they may cater subordinates abilities to deal with and incorporate the

viewpoints of their fellow employees, thereby possibly increasing the amount and effectiveness of

communication between team members. In turn, this may increase the performance of the work

groups the individuals are located in. The final chapter of this paper will deal with practical ways of

achieving this goal; of using humor to stimulate the creativity and enhance the performance of

subordinates.

FIGURE 5ORGANIZATIONAL HUMOR MODEL (ROMERO &CRUTHIRDS, 2006)

Desired Organizational Outcomes:

Group cohesiveness (5)

Communication (2)

Stress reduction (3)

Creativity (1)

Organizational culture (6)

Leadership (4)

Moderators:

Ethnicity

Gender

Humor Styles:

Affiliative

Self-enhancing

Aggressive

Mild aggressive

Self-defeating

Humor Selection

Audience

&

Initiator

Humor

Outcome:

Positive

Negative

Moderators:

Ethnicity

Gender

Humor Evaluation

Initiator


14/40


Page | 14

Communication

Humor can also function as a communication enhancer. Admittedly, the relation between

communication and humor is quite a direct one, as humor is essentially a means of communication.

However, the ways in which humor can enhance communication beyond mere verbal exchange of

ideas and knowledge are quite less evident. Firstly, a study on the use of humor in intercultural

business meetings concluded that humor was used to mark style shifts in conversations, defining a

style shift as a shift between discourse systems () to manipulate language to produce an

appropriate stylistic effect (Rogerson-Revell, 2007, pp.9). More specifically, humor was often used

to mark shifts from formal to more informal parts of the meetings (Rogerson-Revell, 2007). In

addition, humor was used strategically as an inclusionary (and exclusionary) tool to display power

relations, roles, norms and values within the meetings (Rogerson-Revell, 2007). Secondly, drawing

attention to the functions attributed to humor by Kahn in 1989, Thomas and Al-Maskati (1997)

indicated that humor enables people to deliver threatening messages in non-threatening ways.

Similar views have been adopted by various authors (e.g., Yarwood, 1995; Cruthirds, 2006). For

example, Cruthirds suggested that when delivering an essentially negative message, humor, by

adding a positive twist, and thereby a softening element to the message, makes it easier for the focus

(and the target) of the humor to be less resistant to the message itself (Cruthirds, 2006). In other

words, humor has the ability to alter the appearance of a message without changing its content.

Similarly, Duncan, Smeltzer and Leap (1990) suggest that individuals can use humor to test the

water before deciding whether or not a potentially harmful message should be delivered in a

specific situation. In addition, humor has been described as a socially acceptable, difficult-to-

challenge way of transferring aggression, dissent, critique and resistance (Greatbatch & Clark, 2003;

Holmes & Marra, 2002). In a sense, the motives an individual may have to use a specific kind of

humor in a specific situation, be it to test the water, to mark style shifts, or for an entirely different

purpose, can be seen as desired outcomes within this particular organizational outcome. In fact, the

motives probably often reside in more than one of the six desired organizational outcomes in the

OHM. For example, by using humor to enhance communication and creativity, an individual may also

aim to decrease conflict and stress within a work team.


15/40


Page | 15

Stress

Apart from enhancing creativity and stimulating communication, humor can also function as

a natural stress reliever, as was already touched upon at various points in this paper. Relating this

function to its organizational functions, it can be argued that humor provides individuals with socially

acceptable ways of emitting stress and anxiety, not only through laughter (and all other physical

manifestations of humor), but also by functioning as a socially acceptable tool to show dissent, anger

and resistance. By allowing an initiator of humor to encapsulate essentially negative messages in

socially acceptable gift-wrapping, stress can be reduced without severely affecting the situation, the

initiator, the focus and the target of the humor in any possible detrimental way. In relation to this

outcome, Eisenhardt et al. (1997) concluded that, by injecting humor into a decision process,

management team members are much better able to minimize interpersonal conflict and to

distinguish between issues stemming from differing personalities that will mostly affect individual

employees and issues stemming from and affecting the organization as a whole. In addition, by using

humor, management team members were shown to be better able to distinguish between facts and

opinions, to relieve their tension in a socially acceptable way and consequently to positively affect

communication within the management team.

Leadership

In addition to, and partially based on the functions discussed up until this point, humor also

has the ability to strengthen a managers leadership position. Most importantly, it can function as a

tool to maintain and reinforce social control. Please note that social control should not be

understood in a purely negative, Orwellian sense as it also includes normal, harmless ways of control

such as using humor to explain to a subordinate that the large majority of working time should be

allocated to work instead of socializing, or to explain the norms and values of an organization by

means of a humorous picture or video. Firstly, whether or not a manager allows humor in the first

place can have a major impact on the amount of control he or she has over subordinates. Collinson

(2002) draws attention to this by distinguishing between managers aiming to suppress and thoseaiming to manufacture humor; in other words taxing or subsidizing humor. According to Collinson

both these ways of controlling humor often lead to the opposite of the initially intended effect. As he

states, in seeking to manufacture humour, managers might actually suppress it. Conversely, in

attempting to suppress humour, those in power may unintentionally provok e it (Collinson, 2002,

pp.282). Both of these consequences stem from the artificiality of the two strategies. Manufacturing

humor can easily lead to an insincere, bland, superficiality; just like a fake Rolex, it looks real but

seems to be missing some kind of magic or mystique. Suppressing humor on the other hand can, as

any other form of suppression lead to revolt, in this case for example in the form of a transformation


16/40


Page | 16

of humor into a more subversive, sly version of itself. Clearly, the best approach does not lie in pure

suppression or pure manufacture of humor. In addition to these two ways of social control through

humor, humor is also often used by leaders to express their superiority over subordinates, so as to

maintain their status towards them (Collinson, 2002; Holmes & Marra, 2002; Hughes & Avey, 2009).

Firstly, it has been claimed that managers and others in leadership positions often see themselves as

having a monopoly on humor (Collinson, 2002; Cooper, 2008). This claim was for example brought

into focus by Lundberg who, from a study conducted in a motor repair shop, concluded that jokes are

only considered funny when the initiator is of higher status than the focus, when the initiator and the

focus are of equal rank and that if the focus is of lower rank than the initiator, a reply-joke to a joke

made by the initiator is unlikely to be made (Lundberg, 1969 in Cooper, 2008). Conversely, from

various surveys in small task-oriented groups, Duncan and Feisal concluded that the actual existence

of a joking monopoly is highly debatable and that ones formal status is not a major determinant of

ones position in the joking pattern in an organization (Duncan & Feisal, 1989). Duncan in turn

argues that, instead of maintaining the humor balance that arises out of the monopoly managers

often claim to have on humor, a climate of reciprocal humor should be created to allow humor to be

used as a tension-reliever by employees on all hierarchical levels (Duncan, 1982). In short, according

to Duncan, humor should not be monopolized to enable the usage of the wide array of positive

functions it can have. Secondly, when managers refrain from claiming ownership rights over humor,

their striving for status maintenance is often represented in the actual humor style employed by a

manager. For example, Cruthirds argues that aggressive humor, describable as humor used from a

superiority theory perspective, indicates a users power over others. Consequently, it can be used to

maintain a position of leadership (Cruthirds, 2006). However, aggressive humor, by its very nature,

often goes at the expense of an external party, because superiority can only be expressed in relation

to another, inferior party. Consequently, as Duncan argues, despite being able to contribute a

groups cohesiveness, this cohesiveness arises only from a threat and will not favorably influence

performance (Duncan, 1982, pp.140). In other words, aggressive humor includes some at the

expense of excluding others; it increases the superiority of some at the expense of making others

inferior. Choosing aggressive humor as a tool to maintain superiority and control may therefore not

be the right decision. Focusing on another humor style, Duncan, once again based on research by

Lundberg, pointed out that leaders often refrain from self-depreciating humor to avoid a risk of

superiority and control (Duncan, 1982). However, self-depreciating humor can prove to be a good

social equalizer, by showing subordinates a managers imperfections and weaknesses. In other

words, self-depreciating humor can show subordinates that their manager is in fact just as human as

any other employee (Johnston, n.d.; Johansson & Woodilla, 2005). Despite losing some absolute

superiority over their employees by using this type of humor, managers may in fact increase control


17/40


Page | 17

over their subordinates based on mutual respect, trust and amiability. By creating an environment in

which there is no ownership claim over humor nor a focus on aggressive humor to maintain

superiority but instead a focus on the enhancement of respect, trust and friendliness through humor,

managers may be able to increase the cohesiveness of a group, as will be discussed next.

Cohesiveness

One of the first to describe the relation between humor and group cohesiveness in a work-

context was W. Jack Duncan, who stated that, using ethnic humor as an example, humor can

stimulate group cohesiveness through a comparison with other individuals or groups of individuals

(Duncan, 1982). By means of this comparison, the ways in which the ingroup (i.e., the initiator and

her target) and outgroup (i.e., the focus of the ethnic humor) differ from each other can be clarified,

thereby at the same time showing the commonalities of the members of the ingroup, and thereby

often also the ways in which the ingroup is superior to the outgroup (e.g., Yarwood, 1995). By using

humor in this way, the members of the ingroup are able to construct a sense of belonging and shared

identity; a sense of inclusion (e.g., Cruthirds, 2006; Duncan & Feisal, 1989; Hughes & Avey, 2009;

Morreall, 1997). Paul McGee (2001, in Cruthirds, 2006, pp.36) describes this function of humor by

stating that shared laughter and the spirit of fun form an emotional glue *that+ enables team

members to stick together on the tough days, when members of the team need each other.

Similarly, drawing on information from a study done by Coughlin in 2002, Robert and Yan (2005)

state that humor can prove to be a powerful and justified tool to build and sustain cohesiveness by

linking the humor to a positive or negative event shared by all members of the humors focus.

However, as was already pointed out in the previous section, what is an emotional glue for the

members of the ingroup is the exact opposite (i.e., an emotional excluder) for the individuals on the

other side of humor, the members of the outgroup. This dark side of using humor as a tool to

increase group cohesiveness, which has often been linked to the earlier discussed superiority theory

(e.g., Rogerson-Revell, 2007), will be brought into focus in the following chapter. Research on group

cohesion and humor draws attention to an aspect that seems to be quite important for groupcohesion and humor to have a positive influence on a groups effectiveness and productivity: time. In

a study on joint (i.e. shared and team-constructed) laughter, Kangasharju and Nikko (2009)

concluded that humor was often used (strategically or non-strategically) by managers to add to the

collegiality and thereby to the cohesiveness of a working team. They argued that, in this way,

managers were able to increase the effectiveness of meetings and each of the individual participants

task performance. Nevertheless, another study concluded that humor does not increase a work

groups effectivity if this work group has not had the time to develop certain group norms and values

and a certain amount of interpersonal trust (Romero, 2004).


18/40


Page | 18

The ability of humor to function as a social lubricant, in turn enhancing group performance, is, apart

from time, as was just pointed out, dependent on another factor. This conclusion can be drawn from

a study by Avolio, Howell and Sosik (1999) on the relation between humor and individual and group

performance, who concluded that humor was significantly positively related to individual and group

(i.e., unit) performance but that this positive relation was often moderated by the leadership style

(i.e., transformational, contingent reward and laissez-faire leadership) of the groups leader. More

specifically, whereas transformational (motivation-focused) leadership was positively related to both

humor and performance, contingent reward (task-focused) leadership was merely positively related

to humor (i.e., a higher likelihood of using it) but negatively related to both individual and group

performance. The case was even worse for laissez-faire (avoidance-focused) leadership, which was

found to be negatively related to both humor and performance. Despite these quite clear results,

many factors might have influenced them, most of which, as the authors themselves also state, were

not taken into account in the study. For example, potential influences of humor style, organizational

culture, group culture, and gender of the leader were not taken into consideration. Taken together,

these conflicting, overlapping and quite inconclusive research results lead one to conclude that the

complexity of the role that humor plays in cohesiveness and performance is far greater and far less

stable than one would reasonably expect.

Organizational Culture

As was pointed out in the previous section, organizational culture may play a role in the

relation between leader style and group cohesiveness. Similarly, it might also have a profound effect

on the other organizational functions of humor discussed up until this point, as an organizations

culture represents a central part of the organizational context of humor. According to George, Sleeth

and Siders (1999), an organizational culture generally consists of two elements: a philosophy about

the organization orientation towards its social environment and a set of written and unwritten rules

that constitute normal and appropriate behavior within the organization. In other words, it mostly

consists oforganizational values and norms and other tricks of the organizational trade.Duncan, Smeltzer and Leap (1990) draw attention to the fact that humor has proven to be a good

way of outlining an organizations culture. For example, through humor, individuals can show what is

considered acceptable and non-acceptable humor in a specific organization. In addition, Romero and

Cruthirds state that, as different types of organizations employ different types and amounts of

humor, humor also indicates an organizations uniqueness (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). Further

supporting humors ability to visualize and reinforce an organizations culture, some authors have

stated that humor is an important way of communicating important cultural factors, and that joking

and teasing play an important role in founding and maintaining group cultures (Romero & Pearson,


19/40


20/40


Page | 20

HUMOR STYLES

Having discussed each of the six desired organizational outcomes as included in Romero and

Cruthirds OHM, it is now time to focus on another section of this particular model, humor styles (as

shown in Figure 5). Before doing so and discussing the five humor styles incorporated in this model,

two somewhat different categorizations must be outlined. Firstly, in a study on conjoint humor,

referring to humor constructed and reinforced by two or more individuals, Janet Holmes (2006)

distinguishes between supportive and contestive humor, the former referring to humorous

statements intended to support and/or elaborate upon previous humorous statements, and the

latter referring to humor statements intended to challenge and/or debunk previous humorous

statements. Secondly, Cecily Cooper (2008) draws a distinction between maximally collaborative

humor, referring to humor intended to stimulate integration and cohesiveness among the individuals

taking part in the humorous exchange, and minimally collaborative (or competitive) humor, in which

the initiators aim is to produce the most witty statement of the entire humorous exchange. Holmes

FIGURE 6POSITIVE ORGANIZATIONAL FUNCTIONS

Creativity

(1)

Communication

(2)

Stress reduction

(3)

Leadership

(4)

Group

cohesiveness

(5)

Organizational

culture (6)

(Openness to)

novel

perspectives &

insights

Style Shifting InclusionMasking

Social control

Memory

Inclusion

Masking

Performance

(Opennes to)

novel

perspectives &

insights

Social control

HUMOR +

Inclusion

(Hypothetical) relation between desiredorganizational outcome and concept not

discussed

Relation between desired

organizational outcomeand concept discussed

(Hypothetical) relationbetween desiredorganizational outcomes

Superiority

Organizational

uniqueness


21/40


Page | 21

and Marra (2002) outline similar distinctions, describing the first, between supportive and contestive

humor as a distinction in humor type (i.e., content) and the second, between minimally collaborative

and maximally collaborative humor as a distinction in humor styles. As will hopefully become clear

during the remainder of the current section, these two kinds of distinctions can be easily linked to

the Romero and Cruthirdss five humor styles and show that humor styles are not as clearly

delineable or strict as one might conclude from the OHM. As can be deducted from the OHM, the

decision as to which humor style to use in a given situation is dependent on the desired

organizational outcome of the situation, moderated by the initiators gender and ethnicity (Romero

& Cruthirds, 2006). The first humor style, affiliative humor, is humor that aims to enhance social

interaction, relationship building and create a positive, non-hostile environment. The second, self-

enhancing humor is intended to boost ones image relative to others. In comparison to affiliative

humor, this humor style is more geared towards the individual and often contains an element of

comparison. Thirdly, aggressive humor is humor as perceived from a superiority theory perspective,

meaning that it is at the expense of another party, thereby showing the initiators superiority over

that particular party. The fourth humor style, mild-aggressive humor is not so much a humor style by

itself, but a moderate version of the third; one that stays within the boundaries of positivity as

outlined in the current chapter. Linking back to Figure 5, this humor style is mostly related to

masking, social control, and, albeit to a somewhat smaller extent, inclusion. Lastly, self-defeating

humor, also referred to as self-depreciating (e.g., Johansson & Woodilla, 2005) or self-denigrating

(Cruthirds, 2006) humor is, apart from mere amusement, mostly employed to seek others

recognition and reduce status differences. This humor style relates to an argument that was already

touched upon previously, namely the idea that, by using self-defeating humor, a manager can cater

to a groups cohesiveness as well as perceptions of the managers social and relational stance

towards the other, lower-ranked individuals in the group.

As was already stressed earlier, the distinctions between humor styles provided in the OHM are in no

way final. For example, one can use aggressive humor just as easily to denigrate another initiator

within the same humorous exchange as to add to previously stated denigrating humor of external

parties. Similarly, self-defeating humor can just as easily be employed to support previous humorous

utterances as to challenge them. Once again, this reifies the versatile, flexible and fluid nature of

humor. In another effort to deal with its complexity, so as to make another step towards providing

the tips and guidelines in the fifth chapter of the current paper, the following chapter will deal with

the blunt, negative side of humor.


22/40

Negative Functions Managing Humor

Page | 22

CHAPTER 3

NEGATIVE FUNCTIONS : THE BLUNT EDGE

Even though humor can have a wide variety of positive effects, as can quite justly be

concluded from the previous chapter, the line between these effects and their negative counterparts

is extremely thin. In other words, even if an initiator aims to cut with the sharp edge, variables

residing in the focus and target of humor, as well as in the situation in which the humor takes place,

may cause the sword to cut with its blunt edge. For example, whereas sexually tinted humor in front

of an all-male audience may be considered funny, it is likely to have the opposite effect on all-female

audience. Similarly, humor based on a certain negative event is likely to be considered as offensive

and disrespectful if the audience or a part of it has a personal connection with the negative event.

Therefore, if managers are not aware of the boundaries of humor and the points at which valuable

turns into detrimental, at which the sword cuts with its blunt side, using humor as a good (i.e.,

effective, efficient, contributive) managerial tool is likely to become an impossible task. This chapter

will discuss the elements making up humors blunt edge, thereby outlining the boundaries of humor.

Before moving on to the elements, one crucial side note must be made. Throughout most of the

literature reviewed for the current paper, the negative functions of humor seemed to be not as

clearly and certainly not as minutely discussed as its positive counterpart. Consequently, while it is

quite manageable to provide an overview of the latter, doing so for the former turned out to be

much more of a challenge. There is thus ample room for future research to be done on the dark side

of organizational humor. Bearing this side note in mind, let us move on to the elements of the blunt

edge, all of which will be discussed in a similar fashion as the previous chapter, once again adopting a

micro-to-macro approach, starting with the physical functions of humor, followed by its psychological

and organizational functions. Before moving on to the first of these three function categories

however, it is important to clarify a number of concepts. Firstly, negative humor refers to humor that

aims to put down others; to disdain and depreciate a focus. Secondly, negatively appreciated humor

refers to humor that fails to elicit an appreciative response in the target (and, to a lesser extent, the

focus) of the humor, because one or more conflicting variables (e.g., gender, age, personality, etc.).

In other words, one or more factors cause the target or the focus to interpret the humor as being not

humorous.


23/40


Page | 23

NEGATIVE PHYSICAL FUNCTIONS

Due to the scope, aim and focus area of the current literature review, the reviewed sources

did not provide detailed accounts of negative physical effects of humor. Nevertheless, Johnston (n.d.)

did touch upon one negative (i.e., detrimental) physiological effect (or function) of humor by stating

that negative (i.e., aggressive, exclusive, offensive) humor has the opposite physiological effect of

positive humor, causing the body to respond if it is under physical attack. It can therefore be justly

argued that, in the case of negatively appreciated negative humor, and negatively appreciated humor

in general, the body behaves as if under physical stress, thereby eliciting the exact opposite of the

physical effects discussed in the previous chapter.

NEGATIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS

The previous section already touched upon negative humor and the effects it has on thehuman body for the individuals on the receiving end of humor; the focus (i.e., the victim of humor),

and maybe also, albeit expectedly to a lesser extent, the target. Morreal draws attention to the party

on the other end of the negative humor, the initiator, and links this party to superiority as well as

relief theory. Related to the former, he states that negative humor comes from fear, distrust, or

outright hostility (Morreall, 1997, pp.230) and that it is in fact a way of covering up these negativ e

emotions. Related to the latter, he states that negative humor, more specifically negative humor

with denigrating content, comes from a sense of inadequacy of the initiator; from feelings of

insecurity and inferiority, and a self-perceived lack of control (Morreall, 1997). Admittedly, hiding

ones insecurity through humor is not a negative function per se. However, if it i s used as a tool to

ridicule and denigrate others, especially when these individuals are situated within the group

boundaries of the initiator, it may negatively affect interpersonal as well as in-group trust (No

Author, 1997). However, this may not always be case, as Schnurr notes. From a study on the relation

between teasing and the construction of leader identities, she concluded that a biting teasing style,

referring to relatively aggressive teasing statements that are mostly employed to disparage an

object, may work in certain contexts (Schnurr, 2009). For example, in the study this teasing style was

most often employed in the senior management team of a large IT company. Nevertheless, whether

or not aggressive humor is trust-impairing in an organizational environment is outside of the scope of

the current section; it will be discussed in full detail in chapter four of this paper.


24/40


Page | 24

NEGATIVE ORGANIZATIONAL FUNCTIONS

In a largely identical manner as the similarly-named section in the previous chapter, this

section will explain the negative organizational functions of humor; the ways in which humor can

have a detrimental effect on an organizations operation. As in the previous chapter, this entails the

application ofthe six desired organizational outcomes as adopted from Romero and Cruthirds OHM:

creativity, communication, stress reduction, leadership, group cohesiveness, and organizational

culture (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). However, in the current case the initiator negatively affects

these six outcomes through humor, intentionally or unintentionally.

Creativity

Linking creativity to negative humor, Morreall states that negative humor comes from as well

as reinforces the tendency to reject novelty and innovation (Morreall, 1997). Instead of opening up

novel perspectives, as is the case in the earlier-discussed positive humor, it is employed to close

novel perspectives and to try and maintain a conservative, narrow viewpoint. From this it logically

follows that negative humor can obstruct creativity, in the initiator, the target and, through the

negative physical and psychological effects of negative humor mentioned earlier, in the focus.

Secondly, creativity can be obstructed if one fails to use humors power in a sufficiently balanced

manner. This statement can be best described by Dewitte and Verguts tri-partite classification of

jokes, which has been re-introduced and extended by Romero and Pescosolido to apply to all

attempts at organizational humor (i.e., humor used in an organizational context) (Romero &

Pescosolido, 2008). To visualize the classification, an organizational humor continuum has been

created, as shown in Figure 7.

The first, class one humor, includes all humorous attempts that do not bring forth appreciative

responses from the focus because they contain premises that the focus considers too commonplace

or dull. Class three humor, at the other end of the continuum, contains utterances that are not

successful at eliciting appreciative responses from the focus because they are considered to be too

distasteful or absurd. Class two humor strikes the right balance between mundane and absurd, and

between acceptability and novelty. To link back the organizational humor continuum to the previous

discussion, it can be argued that class three humor includes negative humor and that class two

mostly consists of successful attempts at the more positive kinds of humor. Despite the fact that

Class 1

Class 2

Class 3Mundane Absurd

FIGURE 7ORGANIZATIONAL HUMOR CONTINUUM


25/40


Page | 25

class two humor is the most desirable category of organizational humor, it too has its boundaries and

downsides, especially when one takes into consideration the negative effects of humor on

communication.

Communication

Humor can negatively affect communication, the second desired organizational outcome, in

a variety of ways. Firstly, it can lead to distraction. It can distract individuals from tasks, goals and

objectives, thereby possibly negatively affecting individual as well as group performance (Bing, 2009;

Romero & Pescosolido, 2007; Vuorela, 2004). Secondly, humor can function as a wedge between

individuals, as it can distract individuals from a teams or organizations norms and values, in which

case it can lead them of the beaten path, towards class three humor; beyond the boundaries of what

is deemed acceptable, normative humor. This effect is most easily seen in the case of teasing and

putdown humor. Terrion and Ashforth draw attention to this by stating that if the players are not

within the same play frame (as discussed in chapter one), teasing and putdown humor can easily be

negatively appreciated (e.g., as being offensive) thereby possibly negatively affecting group

development (Terrion & Ashforth, 2002). However, the authors concluded that this negative effect is

certainly not always prevalent. In fact, they concluded that putdown humor has both the potential of

functioning as a bridge (i.e., facilitating inclusion) as well as a wedge (i.e., facilitating exclusion)

(Terrion & Ashforth, 2002).

Stress

As was discussed in the previous chapter and at various points throughout this paper, humor

can alleviate stress in numerous ways. However, it seems to be the case that it can just as easily have

the opposite effect. Judging from the literature, a profound amount of this opposite effect stems

from humors masking function, referring to humor as a socially acceptable disguise for criticism,

aggression, discontent, punishment, stress and anxiety. If this masking function is taken too far, it can

in fact lead to the opposite of the initially intended effect, causing it to blow a messages cover and

show its true, potentially offensive colors. Admittedly, it can be argued that as long as the cover is

not blown, it is perfectly acceptable to use humors masking capability. Nevertheless, one has to

keep in mind that the line separating humors two edges is precariously thin; it is best and certainly

safest to stay well within the periphery of humors positive side . Failure to do so may result in

nothing less than psychological, social, political, organizational and often financial catastrophe; from

managing directors who were forced to give up their positions because of a careless use of humor

(e.g., Collinson, 2002) to costly law suits dealing with harassment due to sexual and racially tinted

humor (e.g., Collinson, 2002; Duncan, Smeltzer, & Leap, 1990; Yarwood, 1995). Lyttle, in referring to

research done by Quinn in 2000, draws attention to a fairly obvious but extremely important finding,


26/40


Page | 26

namely that the chances of offending someone in an organization increase with the amount of

diversity in the organization (Lyttle, 2007). As more and more organizations consist of people from

various social and cultural backgrounds, and the ratio of women to men in organizations is also

growing ever larger with ever-increasing pace (albeit primarily in westernized societies), this finding

is a crucial one to bear in mind when considering the more aggressive, depreciating kinds of humor;

failing to do so will quite easily fail to allow individuals to relieve their stress. In fact, it may even

increase their stress and anxiety levels.

Leadership

Humor can also have a negative impact on leadership, the fourth desired organizational

outcome. The main way it can have such an effect is due to what can be referred to as status erosion,

referring to the ways in which the status subordinates attribute to a manager erodes due to over- or

misuse of humor. Firstly, if a manager engages in an overly large amount of self-depreciating humor,

the increase in approachability and equality through the reduction of status differences that this kind

of humor is mostly used to achieve may become too large. This may potentially lead to a status

difference reduction that is so significant that subordinates can start considering the superordinate

as a subordinate (Lyttle, 2007). This potentiality is especially prevalent in situations in which

credibility is essential (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). Think of a senior manager or CEO, who, in a

speech to all members of his or her organization, engages in a vast amount of self-depreciating

humor when presenting the organizations fairly negative annual report. Is it likely that he or she will

be perceived as a knowledgeable, powerful and good leader? Or will employees attribute some of

the negative results of the organization to the leaders lack of competence?

Secondly, if managers put too much emphasis on humor in general and give it a role that is too

central in the organization, it may lead to a wide variety of detrimental effects, of which a decrease

in power and status only represent a small portion. In support of this statement, Collinson states, as

was already pointed out earlier, that in seeking to manufacture humor, managers may actually

suppress it (Collinson, 2002, pp.279). This is most likely to be the case because it strikes employeesas artificial and insincere. In a similar train of thought, Samanta Warren concluded that structured

fun, defined as the myriad activities and ideas suggested as ways of injecting fun into the

workplace (Warren, in Johansson & Woodilla, 2005, pp.177), and which logically also includes

humor, may in fact have the quite the opposite effect of fun. In her words, the artificial employment

of humor can potentially cause a variety of moral, ethical and potentially inhumane consequences

for the employee and have damaging effects for the organization in the form of litigation and/or a

workforce that views management with contempt and distrust (Warren, in Johansson & Woodilla,

2005, pp.197). In addition, as was already pointed out earlier in this paper, artificially manufacturing


27/40


Page | 27

humor does not solve the issues or problems at the heart of an organization; it can merely mitigate

them somewhat and cover them up. In other words, humor is not a cure; it can merely somewhat

decrease the intensity of symptoms.

Group Cohesiveness

Just as much as humor can enhance a groups cohesiveness through inclusionary statements,

in a very similar way it can also decrease a groups cohesiveness through exclusionary, depreciating,

and aggressive statements (Rogerson-Revell, 2007). For example, ridicule, despite the fact that it

caters a release of laughter, can also close down trust (No Author, 1997). As a groups cohesiveness

largely depends on inter-individual trust, overuse of ridicule, as well as any other form of humor that

contains an element of depreciation or putdown (e.g., teasing), can seriously hinder the

construction and reinforcement of group cohesiveness (Duncan, Smeltzer & Leap, 1990; Terrion &

Ashforth, 2002). This possible effect of humor was already touched upon in the previous section, and

once again shows that the boundaries between the six desired organizational outcomes often seem

non-existent and very thin to say the least. Clearly, the majority of the factors, variables, and

processes making up humor in a work-context have multiple interconnections.

Organizational Culture

The negative effect humor can have on organizational culture seems to be quite similar to its

potentially negative effect on group cohesiveness. As can be seen in the upper part of Figure 8,

organizational culture is closely linked to communication, which is then again closely linked to

leadership and group cohesiveness. In assessing the negative effects of humor on organizational

culture, the following conclusion can be drawn from the literature: if humor is taken too far, if it

crosses the boundaries of the sharp side onto the blunt side of the double-edged sword, it may,

instead of reaffirming and strengthening the elements of an organizations culture (as was discussed

in the previous chapter), harm them and even destroy them. For example, if one of the values of an

organization is a strong hierarchy and a prominent role of status, leaders who engage in too much

self-depreciating humor may, by doing so, lose some of their leadership and status power; they may

fall of their organizational pedestal. In a similar way, by manufacturing humor without showing the

boundaries of humor, subordinates may be led to believe that depreciating humor towards managers

is justified, as it may seem to them to be a way of creating a fun working environment. On the other

hand, by suppressing humor in order to maintain a leadership position, as was already pointed out

earlier, managers may in fact cause it to chance into a more subversive, below-the-belt version of

itself. It is easy to come up with many more examples of ways in which humor should not be used, of

how it can have catastrophic consequences to both individuals and organizations. Nevertheless, it is


28/40


Page | 28

all the more difficult to show the ways in which it can have a positive effect, in which it can truly

flourish, if one crucial dimension of humor is not discussed: context.

Creativity

(1)

Communication

(2)

Stress reduction

(3)

Leadership

(4)

Group

cohesiveness

(5)

Organizational

culture (6)

Reject novel

perspectives &

insights

Distraction

Masking

(blowing

your

cover)

Task-oriented

communication

Performance

Status erosion

HUMOR -

Exclusion

(Hypothetical) relation between desired

organizational outcome and concept not

discussed

Relation between desired organizational

outcome and concept or betweenconcept and concept discussed

(Hypothetical) relation

between desiredorganizational outcomes

Suppression

through

manufacture

Unbalanced

use of humor

(boundaries)

Unbalanced

use of humor

(class 1 and

class 3)

Suppression

through

manufacture

Manufacture

through

suppression

FIGURE 8NEGATIVE ORGANIZATIONAL FUNCTIONS


29/40

Joking Relationships Managing Humor

Page | 29

CHAPTER 4

JOKING RELATIONSHIPS : PUTTING HUMOR INTO CONTEXT

Up until this point, several attempts have been made to refrain from drawing context into

the discussion so as to maintain clarity in outlining the two edges of the double-edged sword and the

theories forming its basis. However, not discussing it at all would not do justice to the concept and its

centrality in humor. As Mary Jo Hatch stated, words do not derive their meaning from objects in, or

objective properties of, the real world to which they refer and which they represent, rather words

form a system of relationships among themselves and these relationships constitute meaning

(Hatch, 1997, pp.276). In other words, what humor is and is not is all in the eye of the beholder;

largely dependent on his or her interpretation. With regards to the current paper, context should be

seen as the combination of the variables that affect an individuals interpretation in a specific

situation; whatever causes his or her point of view to be different from the other individuals present

in the situation. Knowledge about these contextual variables is evidently vital to individuals

engaging in humor. However, gathering this knowledge in its entirety is an extremely difficult task.

Firstly, variations between the situational actors (i.e., the initiator, target and focus of humor) in

terms of gender, nationality, ethnicity and religion, but also in terms of intelligence, moods, family

backgrounds and personalities play an important role in the success of humor (e.g., Bell, 2009;

Collinson, 2002; Duncan, 1982; Holmes, 2006; Mcllheran, 2006; Robert & Yan, 2005); differences

within these variables may lead to very different interpretations of humor. Secondly, the situation

itself is also linked to specific rules of conduct. For example, would you make the same jokes during

a job interview as you would during a business meeting? Would you initiate similar humor at a

funeral as you would at your companys Christmas party? Clearly, the amount of variation between

situations can be so vast and is so fluid that any summary of the factors at play within a specific

situation will be grossly incomplete. However, there is one concept which incorporates many of the

aforementioned variables and which often plays a particularly important role within organizations:

joking relationships. The remainder of this chapter will focus on discussing this concept, for a number

of reasons. Firstly, it provides a good introduction into the many roles context can play in the

appreciation and production of humor, as joking relationships can be based on differences in age,

gender, nationality, intelligence and culture. Variables such as these play an important role in

individuals ability to produce and appreciate certain kinds of humor. Joking relationships, by their

ability to override these variables, therefore provide a good way of approaching and discussing these

variables. Secondly, joking relationships allow an initiator to be better able to make efficient use of

the positive functions of humor, as will be discussed in this section. With regards to the perspective


30/40


Page | 30

and the goals of the current paper, putting specific emphasis on them is therefore particularly

important.

A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, who coined the term, defined a joking relationship as a relation

between two persons in which it is by custom permitted, and in some instances required, to tease or

make fun of the other, who in turn, is required to take no offence (Radcliffe-Brown, 1952, pp.90 in

Yarwood 1995). Thomas and Al-Maskati outlined two main reasons for the emergence of joking

relationships in a business context, both of which are strongly linked to the functions of humor

discussed in the previous two chapters. The first is that joking relationships can provide individuals

with a tool with which to manage conflict and alleviate interpersonal tension, thereby maintaining an

equilibrium in what Thomas and Al-Maskati refer to as being awkward relationships (Thomas & Al-

Maskati, 1997, p.521). In a business context, these awkward relationships mostly result from the fact

that employees share a number of interests (e.g., team or department targets to be met) but are also

exposed to a certain degree of interpersonal tension and conflict (e.g., resulting from differing

personal opinions, priorities and interests). Consequently, individuals find themselves in a state of

independent dependence, constantly in a need to maintain a balance between personal and

communal interests. Taking a step back to the previous two chapters, the ways in which joking

relationships can help individuals in doing so become clear. Firstly, joking relationships can mask

negative messages that, without a humorous cover, would be very likely to be considered offensive

or overly aggressive. If the initiator, target, and focus of humor are aware of the fact that they are in

joking relationships with each other, the focus and target know that the humor aimed at the focus

should not be taken as an offense or an insult. In this way, joking relationships allow an initiator to go

somewhat beyond the boundaries of what would be considered acceptable in the absence of joking

relationships. Consequently, he or she is able to vent stress and tension without causing an offense

or insulting his or her focus. Secondly, joking relationships open up new ways of inclusion and social

control through humor. By enabling an initiator to take humor somewhat further without offending

the individuals at the receiving end, joking relationships can help to clearly outline the norms and

values, as well as the boundaries of acceptability of the team or the organization. This however

highlights a gap in the current research on this particular topic. Whereas the existence of joking

relationships seems to be commonly accepted, the requirements for their development are much

less clear. The only requirement found in the literature is the existence of awkward relationships,

indicating that a certain degree of conflict (potential or actual) between individuals is necessary for

joking relationships to emerge. However, no indication was provided as to the nature of these

conflicts (e.g., their bases and durations), nor any account of the influence of contextual variables

such as age, gender and nationality on the emergence of joking relationships. For example, if two

individuals are of equal age or of equal gender, joking relationships may develop faster (due to a


31/40


Page | 31

shared elements of identity) than if the individuals were to reside in different age groups or were of

differing genders. On the other hand, if two individuals, who are dependent on each other for the

performance of certain tasks, are of different genders or ages, awkward relationships may be more

likely to develop due to conflicts stemming from these differing variables. This entails that the exact

same variable, in this case gender or age, may have quite opposite effects in different situations. This

is something which, judging by the literature, has not received sufficient, if any attention up until this

point in time. Nevertheless, one element that the literature does discuss is the connection between

joking relationships and status maintenance, forming the second reason for the emergence of joking

relationships. With regards to this reason, it is important to point out that joking relationships can

either take a symmetrical (i.e., reciprocal, circular) or an asymmetrical (i.e., one-way, linear) form

(Yarwood, 1995; Thomas & Al-Maskati, 1997; Vuorela, 2005). The latter is commonly employed when

those at the initiating end of the joking relationship strive to maintain a position of power, and is

consequently primarily used in a top-down fashion (from individuals on high formal authority levels

to individuals on lower formal authority levels). Through this kind of joking relationship, managers

can maintain a sense of superiority and social control over their subordinates by being allowed to

engage in humor that would normally be regarded as offensive, but which, given the existence of the

joking relationship, is not regarded as being so. The individual (or individuals) at the other end of the

joking relationship however, even though allowed to respond to the humor of the initiator, are only

allowed to do so to a smaller degree (i.e., adhering to lower boundaries of acceptability than those at

the upper level of the relationship) (Vuorela, 2005). What is important to note at this point is that

whereas some authors claim that asymmetrical joking relationships only exist in the form just

mentioned (i.e., top-down) (e.g., Coser in Yarwood, 1995), others seem to conclude the opposite. For

example, Duncan (1985, in Yarwood, 1995) asserted that asymmetrical joking relationships are only

top-down if the individuals with a formal authority position are also bestowed with an informal

authority position by subordinates. If this is not the case, Duncan states, the resulting joking

relationships are either asymmetrical joking relationships directed bottom-up or symmetrical joking

relationships. This introduces the second general form of joking relationships: symmetrical joking

relationships. Unlike their asymmetrical counterpart, these joking relationships are most often used

to decrease class and status differences, up until the extent that the individuals of higher status

perceive this to be suitable. As was discussed in chapter two, a climate of reciprocal humor, in which

all engaged individuals are allowed to joke at and about each other, can enhance a groups

cohesiveness, a managers informal authority, can cater to the strength of an organizations culture,

and can consequently enhance the performance of both individual employees and work teams.

Symmetrical joking relationships are particularly effective at reaching these goals because they, by

nature, cater to the intimacy between individuals. This increase in intimacy has a direct impact on the


32/40


Page | 32

ways in which individuals are likely to respond to each others humor, thereby again catering to the

intimacy between the involved individuals, etcetera. In support of this statement, a study on

responses to failed humor concluded that the more intimate the relationship between two

individuals, the more individuals on the receiving end of humor are likely to respond negatively to

humorously-intended statements that fail to elicit a positive response (Bell, 2009). Consequently, it

can be stated that joking relationships enhance honesty and transparency between individuals. A

reason for this may lie in the fact that, as individuals in a joking relationship know that they can joke

without quickly running the risk of causing an offense, there is more opportunity to truly speak ones

mind than there would be in the absence of a joking relationship. Therefore, a (symmetrical) joking

relationship caters to an individuals ability to make more efficient use of the positive functions of

humor. A number of caveats must be given however, especially with regards to a managers position

in a joking relationship. As was already discussed, some authors claim that asymmetrical joking

relationships are often directed top-down. In addition, symmetrical joking relationships have been

claimed to mostly exist between peers (i.e., individuals on equal hierarchical levels) (e.g., Bradney

1957, in Thomas & Al-Maskati, 1997). Given the concepts, processes and theories touched upon in

this paper, it can be concluded that the actual case lies somewhere in between these two claims.

Managers, constantly in need to retain a certain amount of status and superiority over their

subordinates, as well as to motivate and guide subordinates on a more personal level, always find

themselves in a balancing act between buddy and boss. Humor, unfortunately, is no exception in

this: if managers employ a too high amount of self-depreciating humor, they may harm their status

and power over their subordinates; using a too high amount of aggressive humor may lead to anger,

frustration and discontent, thereby harming the cohesiveness between a manager and his or her

subordinates; putting too much of an emphasis on manufacture of humor may lead to its

suppression, while putting too much of an emphasis on suppression of humor may lead to its

manufacture. Joking relationships can alleviate some of the burdens this balancing act brings onto

the work floor by allowing a manager to somewhat broaden the boundaries of acceptability, giving

him or her more freedom of action; enlarging the sharp edge of the double-edged sword and quite

possibly making the blunt edge somewhat less blunt. Nevertheless, the balancing act, which is

admittedly a precarious one, always remains present. Consequently, it may lead a manager to

conclude that it is best to refrain from using any humor at all, for the sheer sake of safety. In doing

so, however, he or she also loses all of the positive functions of humor that have been outlined in the

current paper. As a way to try and help to overcome this dilemma, the following section of this paper

provides a small set of guidelines that will enable the use of humor in a safe, responsible and

effective manner.


33/40

the ALBAC Method Managing Humor

Page | 33

CHAPTER 5

MANAGING HUMOR: THE ALBAC METHOD

The preceding chapters outlined the elements of the double-edged sword: its theoretical basis,

its blunt and sharp edge and its hilt. Based on what has been discussed in these chapters, the current

chapter outlines what can be referred to as the ALBAC method. This method essentially consists of

five general guidelines (abbreviated into A.L.B.A.C.) which, in combination, allow for a positive use of

humor in a managerial context. Before moving on to the elements of the method, some concep

wout gijsbers - managing humor in organizations

Documents