For the purpose of the study, the literature review elaborates on leaders’ humor behavior, and focuses on the relationship of four leaders’ humor styles which may influence the employees’ engagements in workplace humor to create a pleasant climate. Following sections includes leaders’ humor behavior, pleasant climate, the relationship in leaders’
humor behavior and pleasant climate, and the moderator social conformity.
Leaders’ Humor Behavior
Possessing the guiding power in the social relationship, humor manipulates the quality of the leader-follower interaction subtly (Robert & Wilbanks, 2012). Through the leaders’
frequency of humor expressions, it promotes the willingness to collaborate, breaks down the perceived hierarchy and status with an upgraded work atmosphere and a better morale, increases similarity and liking in subordinates (Avolio, Howell, & Sosik, 1999; Martin, 2007; Napier & Ferris, 1993; Romero & Pescosolido, 2008). Thus, defusing situations with humor is a more suitable and understandable method on employees’ work-related challenges (Messmer, 2007).
Summarizing the pieces of literature, the leaders’ humor behavior is mostly interpreted from the perspectives of interpersonal, interaction and cognition aspects. Firstly, from the interpersonal perspective. The relational process model (Cooper, 2008) stated that four distinct but interrelated processes producing humor with a good relationship with others:
(1) Affective-reinforcement, which means one create the influence positively when interacting with other in-group. (2) Similarity-attraction, which allows the members to see they are the similar type of person. (3) Self-disclosure, which exposes by the individual to facilitate the group become more familiar. (4) Hierarchical Salience, which helps to melt the distance between two or more from the hierarchical distances. In this research, it is
mentioned that a unilateral relationship between humor sender and humor receiver while the humor is the only factor to affect the relationship quality.
However, in the real world, the humor activities acts like a reciprocal sharing process and people not only appreciate but are willing to extend the humor (Jourard, 1971; Holmes, 2000, p.164). This phenomenon can be explained from the cognition aspect in the processes of communicative transportation, for instance, the cognitive outcomes of humor such as identity maintenance and sensemaking (Tracy, Myers, & Scott, 2006). In Tracy et al. (2006) research, they proposed that the humor could effectively fulfill sensemaking (i.e. cognition outcomes), while it costs the relationship with newcomers simultaneously (i.e. relation outcomes). Oppositely, when the members all achieves the humor event with identity maintenance (i.e. cognition outcomes), the negative relationship might be attenuated (i.e.
relation outcomes). Wyer’s (2004) comprehension-elaboration theory also elaborated that if individuals concern more of the humor, they might think outside of the issues before taking reaction, such as the motives behind the humor sender, what is embedded in the humor and is the message appropriate for the situation (i.e. in the workplace), and whether the humor is offensive to themselves or other groups. So, as leaders, they should consider more when creating the humor events in the workplace. Because humor has a duality powers and meanings for different individuals, groups, and workplaces.
Another point from interaction, leaders’ humor is often explained in the leader-member exchange (LMX) theory. It is an approach in leadership field that addresses a dyadic relationship between leaders and followers. High level of trust, respect, and mutual obligation bring a positive relationship between leaders and followers (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Cooper (2002) highlighted a positive correlation between LMX and the frequency of leaders’ use of the positive humor. Contradicting to the focus on a humor communication, subordinates attempt to interpret humor in a positive way when they have good
relationships with leaders, even the humor seems negative for an outsider (Robert, Dunne,
& Iun, 2016).
The other standpoint was derived from affective event theory. Wheel model of humor (Robert & Wilbanks, 2012) proposed that humor events are an important driver of employee happiness and well-being. By inducing positive humorous affect, it creates a climate supporting humor use and humor events production. Successful social interaction results from individuals adapt humorous creation and/or appreciation within social contexts.
Also, humor broadens individuals’ interactive behavioral repertoire, extends individual resources in the workplace, and enhances the relationship with people purposely (Fredrickson, 2001). In other words, leading with an effective usage of humor displays lower hierarchical distance, higher level of attraction and generation of positive emotions (Yang, Kitchen, & Bacouel-Jentjens, 2017).
Besides, demonstrating the humor behavior of leaders, Robert and Wilbanks (2012) proposed an interpretation in the well-known Martin et al.’s (2003) four humor styles. It shows that the leaders’ intention and control for subordinate positive affectivity, which includes interpersonal humor (i.e. Affiliative and Aggressive leader humor styles) and intrapersonal humor (i.e. Self-enhancing and Self-defeating leader humor styles).
Table 2.1.
Robert & Wilbanks (2012) Interpreted Humor Style
Benign Injurious
Interpersonal Affiliative Aggressive
Intrapersonal Self-enhancing Self-defeating
Pleasant Climate
Humor-related construct has been measured via self-report instruments, with an assumption that individual behalf somewhat similarly across situations. Little measure specifies humor within a particular context, namely the workplace, “an environment in which most people spend a large amount of their working hours, and in which they typically share in or are confronted with humorous communications” (Rawlings & Findlay, 2016, p.50). Cann and Kuiper (2014) indicated that the regular humor has been shifted, encouraged, and affected under different departmental leadership. He argued that differences in humor sharing and support are a part of humor’s impact and can be extended beyond personal sense of humor. Thus, workplace humor was first proposed as an element in the construct of organizational climate.
Thorson and Powell (1993) portrayed that workplace humor as a great-time social production and people become humorous in that moment, a personal ability to recognize and accept the humor, an attitude towards humor appreciations, and a utilization in situations. Lower strains including the perceived, affective, cognitive, and physical strain and better performance are found from a positive personal interaction of humor in the workplace (Sierra, 2013). Moreover, he concluded that employee who successfully paired with a humorous work partner led to higher remark on positive humor, but no negative command was given with a non-humorous confederate colleague. In short, pieces of literature have shown the workplace humor not only brings rapport, teamwork and creativity, and more importantly, creates a more enjoyable work environment to meet a greater productivity and a better bottom line for the company (Martin, 2007). It foundationally interprets a connotation of pleasant atmosphere resulting from workplace humor.
According to Equation of behavior theory (Lewin, 1951) “the perception of the situation” is composed when this psychological force induces one interacting with his or
her cognitive environment to generate behavior. It is proposed that workplace humor exists when employees working here feel comfortable about the humor usage, accept amiably with others humorous interaction, and know confidently to apply humor. This phenomenon outlines the definition of employee’s psychological climate.
Patterson et al. (2005) addressed that psychological climate is an individual level of analysis of organizational climate. It demonstrates how an employee evaluates and interprets meaning from the work environment. Briefly, it focuses on the employee’s own perception of the workplace (Litwin & Stringer, 1968). In addition, Luthans, Avolio, Avey and Norman (2007) stated that humor is positive organizational behavior oriented which fosters employees’ positive psychological capital at work. The current research follows this direction to investigate the degree of pleasant climate as a result of humorous interacting atmosphere in various workplace. It differs from the Humor Climate Scale (HCS; Cann et al., 2014), which is the only measure looking at collective constructs (i.e. positive and negative in-group humor, negative out-group humor, supervisor support of humor) of a humor climate. In short, the definition for pleasant climate used in this study is the individual perception of co-workers’ humorous interaction at work in the workplace.
Besides, Rawlings and Findlay (2016) stated measuring the workplace humor should comprise an individual’s perceptions of the types of humor used by co-workers and the types of humor elicited from the individual by the workplace influence. They developed Humor at Work (HAW; Rawlings & Findlay, 2016) for a dynamic picture of humor relationships between workers’ specific work-related behavior. It challenges the way using Humor Style Questionnaire (HSQ; Martin et al., 2003) as a measurement to study the workplace humor from distinguishing the inborn humor style. Analyzing the self-report scales relevant to humor exhibitions as the purpose to avoid the bias of self-deceptive positivity and impression management. Therefore, the present research adopts the concept
from HAW. Defining the workplace humor as the lovely time for employees’ humorous interactions at work. It is the core construct of pleasant climate.
Leaders’ Humor Behavior and Pleasant Climate
Despite personal sense of humor or humor styles are different, the type of humor used in the workplace is contagious (Rawlings & Finlay, 2016). Therefore, humor can construct and/or destruct the employment relationships (Malone, 1980). Especially the power relations or so-called ‘leader distance’ affects the quality of humor activities strongly (Cooper, 2008). Lundberg’s (1969) outlined the phenomenon includes (1) the jokes is not funny when the initiator of humor is of lower status than the target; (2) peers ranked in similar status have more fun together; (3) when the object is in lower status, the object is unlikely joking back to the initiator. It implied that the leaders’ intention of humor behavior controls the employees’ interaction styles in the workplace. Furthermore, employees’
interaction styles influences everyone’s degree of enjoyment and reaction towards humor events.
From the literature review, it exposed that subordinates and leaders had different interpretations about the influence of leaders’ benign and harmful humor styles. Good leader-subordinate relationships make the subordinates translate the negative leaders’
humor styles into positive and as an inspiration for performances (Robert et al., 2016). The high-performing leaders display more positive humor also more negative humor such as derogating colleagues and subordinates than the average leaders’ (Sala, 2000). In short, it reveals that despite the nature of leader humor style, the usage and connotation dominates the working relationship of leader and followers.
However, scholars also argue that a warm and humorous conduct is the requirement for an effective good leader to deliver guidance and direction (task behavior) and socio-emotional support (relationship behavior) when confronting various situations (Hersey, Blanchard & Johnson, 1996; Priest & Swain, 2002). It shows that the positive humor
leading behaviors are the normative and acceptable way to link people with a more comfortable feeling in interpersonal humorous interactions (Robert et al., 2016). Therefore, the researcher proposes that it is more likely for leaders to create a pleasant climate in the workplace when employees perceive the leaders’ humor behavior.
Hypothesis 1. Employees’ perception of leaders’ humor behavior is related to the pleasant climate.
Affiliative Leader Humor Style
Affiliative humor is a friendly behavior to create a positive atmosphere in social interactions (Kuiper & Leite, 2010). The intention is usually trying to put people together and reduce social distance, increase group cohesiveness, enhance employee morale and create positive work environment (Pundt & Herrmann, 2015; Ünal, 2014). It can be expected that leaders express affiliative humor in the messages tends to be easily accepted and liked by the followers, also builds group setting positively (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006).
Due to the non-threatening and inside-joke nature, employees comfortably join the humor activities and share the jokes with others (Robert et al., 2016). Briefly, affiliative humor is like a social lubricant facilitating the relationship and work cohesion between leaders and followers. Also, people become positive in thinking, creative in problem-solving, responsive and productive at work (Amjed & Tirmzi, 2016). In sum, the affiliative leader humor appears more attractive to followers and creates a harmonious pleasant climate in the workplace. Therefore, a hypothesis is proposed as follows.
Hypothesis 1a. Employees’ perception of leaders’ affiliative humor is positively related to the pleasant climate.
Aggressive Leader Humor Style
Aggressive humor is a detrimental behavior at others’ expenses (Martin et al., 2003) and often produced from a superiority state (De Koning & Weiss, 2002). In earlier research, this kind of humor style has been predominated with negative outcomes such as poor work attitudes, decreased morale, and damaged interpersonal relationship (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). With regard to workplace humor, it has been suggested not to apply aggressive humor when an individual is eager to maintain a supportive environment (Tarvin, 2012).
However, aggressive humor benefits employees’ work performance and job satisfaction when a good leader-subordinate relationship exist and stimulates the employees in the context of leader’s manipulation (Cooper, 2008; Robert et al., 2016). Vinson (2006) argued a polarization of workplace atmosphere may be steered: improving/decreasing work behavior or morale, lose respect for supervisor or gain relationship with supervisor, feels uncomfortable, and harm for an organization. Thus, some literature has suggested that leaders should carefully apply aggressive humor in today’s workplace. Because the target employee may suffer more strain at that moment, it is possible to induce the long-term additive behaviors than when the entire team is targeted (Huo, Lam, & Chen, 2012). And leaders may not even be sure about the usefulness of humor in leadership (Pundt &
Herrmann, 2015). So, a hypothesis is proposed as follows.
Hypothesis 1b. Employees’ perception of leaders’ aggressive humor is negatively related to the pleasant climate.
Self-enhancing Leader Humor Style
Self-enhancing humor is a communicator-focused style which enhances own image by holding and sharing an attractive perspective (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). People with this humor are not overly distressed and are willing to face ambiguous events (Gkorezis,
Hatzithomas, & Petridou, 2011). Leaders with this humor styles are expected to relieve the tension through creating laughter including amusing him-/her-self (Lynch, 2002). It can significantly promote employees job-related affective well-being, and improve employees’
confidence and creativity when confronting stress and anxiety (Ünal, 2014; Tang, 2008).
Also, leaders’ self-enhancing humor has a positive effect on the organizational environment and broadens people’s thought process (Al Obthani & Omar, 2012). It eases the superior power through rising up the leader’s appeal, wins leader-subordinate relationship, and motivates the employees’ ability to deal with task problems (Ünal, 2014).
In sum, the self-enhancing leader humor creates a great working atmosphere upgrading the employees’ attitudes and behaviors in the workplace, and promoting the exchange of bright ideas in the workplace. Therefore, a hypothesis is proposed as follows.
Hypothesis 1c. Employees’ perception of leaders’ self-enhancing humor is positively related to the pleasant climate.
Self-defeating Leader Humor Style
Self-defeating humor is known as a self-disapproving behavior that individuals attempt to impress others by ridiculing and making fun of themselves (Amjed & Tirmzi, 2016;
Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). Going along with others and being recognized as in-group may be the main purposes for leaders to apply this humor style (Ünal, 2014). Because it reduces bad feelings of punishment or blame from followers (Romero & Pescosolido, 2008).
However, self-defeating humor has the power to weaken leaders’ credibility and create undesirable outcomes, such as making the employees underestimate leaders’ capabilities, diminish their own innovation, lose motivation towards tasks and more likely be bored, depressed and discouraged (Janes & Olsen, 2000; Lyttle, 2007).
Contrary to Western culture, this leading humor style has the same meaning with self-enhancing style in the collectivistic environment (Ünal, 2014). Chan, Chen, Cho and Martin (2011) argued that the Taiwanese may not see self-defeating as a negative characteristic.
Therefore, the reciprocal effects need to be carefully considered. In short, the researcher proposes that self-defeating leader humor style may promote a harmonious atmosphere of collaboration. When employees have the feeling that the leader is on their side, they develop comradery with leader for working toward the same goal, and lower their psychological distance with the leader. So, a hypothesis is proposed as follows.
Hypothesis 1d. Employees’ perception of leaders’ self-defeating humor is positively related to the pleasant climate.
Social Conformity
In social networks, social conformity is the inclination of a person to change the behavior or belief by others by yielding to perceived majority pressure and also having a desire to ‘fit in’ or to be ‘liked’ in a group (Zhang, Tang, Zhuang, Leung, & Li, 2014). Asch (1951) defined that conformity is a phenomenon of goal-directed and influence-related behavior, but sometimes it serves more than a single, automatic and assimilated personal performance. Moreover, the goal of the people’s influence is to infiltrate the insights into the circumstances and inspire others motivations, namely, facilitates the interpersonal influence among people. Briefly, it is a type of social influence for an individual to match the group standard and be recognized (Allen, 1965; Cialdini & Trost, 1998).
Asch (1951, 1952, 1956) conducted a series of famous and criticized line-judgment experiments; on social conformity and showed that personal judgment may switch under peer pressure (Asch, 1951, 1952), which supported the earliest researchers from the 1930’s.
Allen (1965) concluded that social conformity performs in two ways. The first is the Public
Compliance, which refers to the behavior change under surveillance that differs from personal characteristics. The second is Private Acceptance, which implies the real change in personal thoughts or opinions while the person pursuits the knowledge and feels to become a confederate may be wiser.
Deutsch and Gerard (1955) proposed another famous dichotomy. They outlined the influence of peers within a group. Normative Influence occurs when a person tries hard to gain social rewards and acceptance by the group. Social costs such as humiliation and ostracism are strived to avoid. Next, Informational Influence happens when a person follows the others who seem correct when appraising the opinion with those of others.
Moreover, following scholars have extended the content of Deutsch and Gerard’ dichotomy:
Normative Influence consists of Compliance for others’ approval and Identification for a great relationship within the team; Informational Influence generated from Internalization of the majority effect (Kelman, 1958; Smith & Machie, 2007).
In short, the above-mentioned mainstream of perspectives all emphasize the majority effect and reference advice to produce the social conformity. More simply put, social conformity is a personal behavior of social influence. Additionally, the work of social influence absorbs all perspectives. Private Acceptance is caused by the Informational/Cognitive process and Public Compliance is formed from the Normative/Social process (Holzhausen & McGlynn, 2001; Manstead & Hewstone, 1996.
p.564). The current research adopts Allen’s (1965) dichotomy and embodies two processes of social influence in definition.
Social Conformity as Moderator
The workplace is a professional organization which requires people shared the space, knowledge, and consensus. For an employee, the first-hand information is probably from work partners or colleagues (i.e. the Normative source) and leaders (i.e. the Informative
to achieve the satisfaction need. When being recognized and accepted by others members, work benefits and relevant opportunities would increase. Better work relationships are also created (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). Moreover, Owen (2009) stated that social conformity can be viewed as a social control strategy moderating members to generate and participate the humor; especially in the workplace the effect can pervade from group to the whole organization. Employees may observe others’ reactions before showing behavior in the workplace and create the humorous climate together, for instance, by displaying laughing.
Contemporary researchers have argued inconsistent outcomes about responding to the leader humor. The reasons include the employees’ perspective of leaders, delivery trails of noted person and social processes, and the feelings and understanding towards the humor source (Cooper, 2008). Therefore, the shared humor such as nonsense (incongruity), teasing (aggressive), self-deprecating (self-defeating), clowning (affiliative), sarcastic (aggressive), etc. can be equally enjoyable or offensive from person to person (Ackroyd & Thompson, 1999; Cooper, 2008). However, the social conformity may prompt employees to react to humor events similarly. Make people being comfortable and ease at the workplace humor.
Thus, it can be proposed that the tendency of social conformity sways employees’
willingness of joining the humor event and the extent of appreciation of the leader’s humor.
The pleasant atmosphere of humor workplace would consequently be cultivated.
Furthermore, level of pleasant climate is improved.
In this study, the researcher stresses on the leader’s effects. Hierarchical salience enlarges the psychological distance between employees and leaders (Cooper, 2008).
Especially, leaders are respected as role models. So, an employee has higher tendency considering the leader’s humor style as the reference to follow and imitate in the workplace.
Especially, leaders are respected as role models. So, an employee has higher tendency considering the leader’s humor style as the reference to follow and imitate in the workplace.