This chapter presents the results of the data analysis. Research variables and control variables were examined in the Pearson’ correlation analysis. Moderation effects were tested through the hierarchical regression analysis. In the meantime, research questions were answered. Hypotheses and moderating effects were addressed at the end.
Correlation Analysis
Pearson’ correlation analysis was utilized for the four variables and nine demographic variables. Results were presented in Table 4.1.
About the effect of demographic factors, Gender has a negative correlation with Social Conformity (r=-.155, p<.01). This explains that female respondents have stronger social conformity to comply with others than male. Age has a negative correlation with all main variables, including LHS Aggressive (r=-.136, p<.01), LHS Jovial (r=-.130, p<.01), Social Conformity (r=-.096, p<.05), and Pleasant Climate (r=-.192, p<.01). It suggests that elder respondents have less perception towards their leader humor and the atmosphere of workplace humor. Also, they are less affected by social conformity. It indicates aging might cultivate steady mind handling an interactive relationship at workplace.
Depicting the workplace context, Leader Most is positively correlated with Colleague Most (r=.247, p<.01). It explains that respondents who work closely with leader also spend lots of time dealing with colleagues. Work Nature has a positive correlation with Weekly Contact (r=.140, p <.01). Also, both are positively correlated with LHS Jovial (r=.122, p<.01 and r=.153, p<.01, respectively) and Pleasant Climate (r=.147, p<.01 and r=.097, p<.05, respectively). It suggests that respondents of service work nature interact tightly with leaders. Thus, the feeling of leader support might affect them to evaluate better on the leader humor style and the pleasant climate. However, Tenure with Leader is positively correlated with Age (r=.594, p<.01), and negatively correlated with LHS Jovial (r=-.131,
p<.01) and Pleasant Climate (r=-.101, p<.05). Similar to Age having a negative correlation with LHS Jovial and Pleasant Climate, the outcome suggests that long years work lessens employee perception of leader jovial humor and pleasant climate. One difference is Tenure with Leader does not correlate with LHS Aggressive but Age does.
Among the main variables, Pleasant Climate negatively correlated with LHS Aggressive (r=-.142, p<.01), positively correlated with LHS Jovial (r=.337, p<.01), and Social Conformity (r=.118, p<.05). It reports two independent variables and moderator have direct correlations with the dependent variable. LHS Aggressive has a negative correlation with LHS Jovial (r=-.374, p<.01). Certainly, this correlation validated the intrinsic nature of opposite leader humor style. Social Conformity has a positive correlation with LHS Aggressive (r=.144, p<.01) and no correlation with LHS Jovial. It explains that respondents are susceptible to the uncomfortable atmosphere of leader humor usage.
Contradictorily, social conformity has little relationship with perceiving the jovial leader humor. It may be because there is no threat to force employee conforming the leader.
47 Table 4.1.
Results of Correlation Analysis
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1. Gender (self) .35 .48
2. Gender (leader) .63 .48 .257**
3. Age (self) 4.58 2.52 .102* .185**
4. Age discrepancy 4.37 2.32 -.130** -.006 -.306**
5. Education 2.17 .64 .129** .069 -.137** -.002 6. Leader most .36 .48 .097* .006 -.043 -.027 -.021 7. Colleague most .59 .49 .046 .070 -.027 -.052 .083 .247**
8. Work nature .65 .48 -.117* -.024 .029 .001 -.143** -.077 -.169**
9. Tenure with leader 5.15 6.29 .076 .130** .594** -.196** -.157** -.014 -.024 .019 10. Weekly contact 3.39 2.48 -.006 -.101* -.048 -.038 -.179** .180** .053 .140** -.004 11. LHS Aggressive 3.21 1.14 -.064 -.009 -.136** .024 .044 .060 .007 -.035 -.043 .061 (0.76) 12. LHS Jovial 4.41 1.18 -.045 -.057 -.130** -.030 -.088 .035 -.015 .122** -.131** .153** -.374** (0.91) 13. Social Conformity 4.97 .93 -.155** .006 -.096* .071 .017 -.044 -.039 .059 -.088 .076 .144** .047 (0.75) 14. Pleasant Climate 3.92 .64 -.007 -.041 -.192** -.018 .050 -.027 -.016 .147** -.101* .097* -.142** .337** .118* (0.83)
Note. Numbers in parenthesis represents Cronbach's alpha values of the research variables. Gender (self): 1=male, 0=female. Gender (leader): 1=male, 0=female. Age (self): 1≦20, 2=21-25,
3=26-30, 4=31-35, 5=36-40, 6=41-45, 6=46-50, 7≧61. Age discrepancy: 1=same year, 2=1-5, 3=6-10, 4=11-15, 5=16-20, 6=21-25, 7=26-30, 8=31-35, 9≧36. Education: 1=high school or below, 2=bachelor, 3=master, 4=PHD. Leader most: 1=most facing group, 0=second, third, fourth, and non-facing group. Colleague most: 1=most facing group, 0=second, third, fourth, non- facing group.
Work nature: 1=service, 0=nonservice. Tenure with leader: years + months/12. Weekly contact: 1=1-5, 2=6-10, 3=11-15, 4=16-20, 5=21-25, 6=26-30, 7=31-35, 8≧36.
P*<.05. **p<.01.
Regression Analysis
Hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to test the hypotheses. Table 4.2 reports the results relevant to perceived aggressive leader humor style. Table 4.3 shows the results of perceived jovial leader humor style. Furthermore, Table 4.4 presents the results of a combination of humor styles. It provides more insights for practical implications.
Each table contains four regression models. Each model was tested with Pleasant Climate as the dependent variable. Control variables were entered as the first model, due to their importance and relevance to this research. Independent variable Aggressive Leader Humor Style and Jovial Leader Humor Style were entered in the second model respectively, depending on the hypothesis. The moderator, Social Conformity, was added into the third model. The interaction term of the independent variables and the moderator was entered into the last model to test the proposed moderating effect.
Effect of Aggressive Leader Humor Style
Table 4.2 shows Aggressive Leader Humor Style has a significant negative effect on Pleasant Climate. Model 2 reports the direct effect (β=-.19, p<.001). Therefore, hypothesis 1 is supported. The result of Model 3 exposes a positive direct effect of the moderator Social Conformity on Pleasant Climate (β=.12, p<.05). No moderating effect is found in the result of model 4 (β=.10, n.s.). Thus, hypothesis 3 is rejected. In addition, two control variables, Age (self) and Work Nature, show significant effect on Pleasant Climate. Model 1 reports the direct effect respectively (β=-.23, p<.001) (β=.15, p<.01).
The result of R square change shows that Aggressive Leader Humor Style made the model increases 3% of the variances (△R2=.03, △F=14.34, p<.001). Social Conformity added an extra 1% of the variance (△R2=.01, △F=6.35, p<.05). However, the interaction term does not add any additional explanation in the variance. In short, it suggests that
49
employees’ perception of aggressive leader humor style weakly impacts Pleasant Climate.
Personal nature of social conformity may not be a moderator but rather a predictor.
Table 4.2.
Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis - Aggressive Leader Humor Style β
Effect of Jovial Leader Humor Style
Table 4.3 shows that Jovial Leader Humor Style is significantly and positively influencing Pleasant Climate. Model 2 reports the direct effect (β=.31, p<.001). Therefore, hypothesis 2 is supported. The result of model 4 does not support Social Conformity as a moderator between employees’ perception of jovial leader humor style and pleasant climate (β=-.27, n.s.). Thus, hypothesis 4 is rejected. Additionally, once the threshold of p-value is lessoned to .1, Social Conformity again displays a direct effect on Pleasant Climate. Model 3 and 4 show the direct effects (β=.09, p<.1 and β=.23, p<.1, respectively). Again, two control variables, Age (self) and Work Nature, are significantly related to Pleasant Climate.
Model 1 reports the direct effect respectively (β=-.23, p<.001) (β=.15, p<.01).
The result of R square change shows that Jovial Leader Humor Style increases 9% of the variances (△R2=.09, △F=15.16, p<.001). Social Conformity and its moderating effect added no significant explanation of the variances. In sum, it suggests that employees’
perception of jovial leader humor style strongly influences the Pleasant Climate. Personal nature of social conformity contributes a little to Pleasant Climate as a direct effect.
51 Table 4.3.
Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis - Jovial Leader Humor Style β
Overall Effect of Leader Humor Styles
Table 4.4 reports the result of hierarchical regression with the two specific styles of leader humor entered in the same regression equation. The result shows that only Jovial Leader Humor Style has a significant positive impact on Pleasant Climate. Model 2 shows the significant effect (β=.28, p<.001). However, Aggressive Leader Humor Style has no effect on Pleasant Climate (β=-.06, n.s.). It suggests that when Jovial Leader Humor Style is perceived in the workplace, Aggressive Leader Humor Style is not relevant to Pleasant Climate. Moreover, model 3 shows that Social Conformity directly impacts the Pleasant Climate (β=.10, p<.05), while model 4 reveals no moderating effect between the employees’
perception of aggressive or jovial leader humor styles and the perception of pleasant climate (β=-.11, n.s. and β=-.33, n.s., respectively). Again, two control variables, Age (self) and Work Nature, were found to be significantly related to Pleasant Climate. Model 1 reports the effects respectively (β=-.23, p<.001) (β=.15, p<.01).
The result of R square change shows that Aggressive Leader Humor Style and Jovial Leader Humor Style together increase 9% of the variances explained (△R2=.09, △F=23.39, p<.001). Social Conformity added an extra 1% of the variances (△R2=.01, △F=4.67, p<.05). However, model 4 shows no additional explanation by the two interaction terms. It suggests that employees’ perception of overall leader humor styles weakly influences Pleasant Climate. Personal nature of social conformity is not a moderator for this sample.
It performs as an independent variable and weakly impacts the level of perceived pleasant climate at a workplace.
53 Table 4.4.
Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis - Overall Leader Humor Styles β
Summary and Discussions
The research questions and hypothesis were answered via the interpretation of Pearson’s correlation and hierarchical regression. Table 4.5 summarizes the result of the hypothesis.
Firstly, the R square change index from hierarchical regression in overall leader humor conduct uncovered that the perceptions of leader humor behavior only caused weak influence on the pleasant degree of humorous interacting climate at work. It answered the first research question that employees’ perception of leaders’ humor behavior partially dominates the pleasant climate. It suggests that there are other important factors that may produce a Pleasant Climate more than the influences of leader humor styles. Nevertheless, two leader humor styles still contribute some understandings for leaders to usher employees’
perception of a benign humor climate at work.
Aggressive Leader Humor Style has a negative correlation and negative effect on Pleasant Climate (H1 was supported), while its influence is suppressed when examined together with Jovial Leader Humor Style. The result is an indication that employees disagree with aggressive leader humor style as an element that contributes to a positive psychological humor climate at work. Chan et al. (2011) reported that aggressive humor was positively correlated with instrumental and reactive aggression among Taiwanese universities students. This phenomenon may be the same in the workplace. So employees will abandon this leader humor style for a pleasant climate. Hence, even employees do not consider aggressive leader humor style as a source of a pleasant climate. This leading style would be a problem in a workplace or overall organizational climate.
Jovial Leader Humor Style has a positive correlation and influence on Pleasant Climate (H2 was supported). Employees rated Jovial Leader Humor Style highly in relation to Pleasant Climate in specific and overall regression analysis. This is an indication that
55
employees appreciate jovial humorous leading behavior. Relational process model (Cooper, 2008) demonstrates how affective-reinforcement, similar-attraction, self-disclosure, and hierarchical salience assist a humor message sender to enhance a relationship with others.
It can be extrapolated that a likable humor environment is expected to establish and remain when leaders deliver more jovial humor behavior.
Secondly, the hierarchical regressions report that Social Conformity has no moderating effect on the relationship between leader’s humor style and pleasant climate (H3 and H4 were rejected). This result also answered the second research question.
However, a positive correlation and direct effect emerged. In short, the analysis findings validated Asch’s (1951) definition that social conformity is a passive behavior, which is generated by the interpersonal and environmental repeated simulations. This might be the reason that social conformity weakly sways employees having the pleasant climate in current research finding.
Moreover, the Pearson’s correlation finding exposed that context of workplace didn’t impact social conformity. Briefly, the work nature, mostly facing the leader or colleague groups, tenure with leader, weekly contact with leader does not affect an employee’s level of social conformity at work. Social conformity exists negative correlation with perceived leader aggressive humor styles, while no correlated effect with perceived jovial leader humor styles. It indicates that subtle and delicate connotation in Chinese humor (Yue, 2010) and serious work value (Ko, Yeh, Yang, 2017) may be the reason that makes employees not naturally affect with the jovial leader humor but sensitive towards aggressive leader humor.
Also, younger employees have higher social conformity than senior. It suggests that younger employees are eager to be qualified for work or be accepted in the work unit, so they easily conform to any seemingly accurate events or person at the workplace.
Besides, two control variables emerged to influence the perception of pleasant climate at a workplace. Pleasant Climate shirks with growing age of employees. It indicates the work experiences and work value of different generations may be the reasons. Also, employees in service work nature show more appreciation on Pleasant Climate than non-service work nature group. It suggests that pleasant climate exists in a group which needs frequent interpersonal interaction and members have the intrinsic consensus of working in and maintaining a pleasant work relationship.
Table 4.5.
Hypothesis Testing Results Summary
Hypothesis Result
H1 Employees’ perception of leaders’ aggressive humor is
negatively related to the pleasant climate. Supported H2 Employees’ perception of leaders’ jovial humor is positively
related to the pleasant climate. Supported
H3 Employee’s social conformity has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between perceived leader’s aggressive humor and pleasant climate.
Not Supported
H4 Employee’s social conformity has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between perceived leader’s jovial humor and pleasant climate.
Not Supported
57