p.161

4.2   The value of positive humor in the workplace

Enhancing work attitudes and performance

Daryl Peebles, Angela Martin, and Rob Hecker

Introduction

The purpose and value of humor as a human characteristic has been debated by philosophers for centuries. However, the use of humor in workplaces still remains a contentious issue in management theory. Some academics and philosophers praise humor and encourage its use, particularly as a coping and social cohesion mechanism; others see it as a frivolous distraction from the job at hand or as a potentially destructive form of communication.

Although the primary focus of this chapter is on the use of humor within a workplace context, the principles discussed may be applicable to many settings including families; schools (management, teaching and administrative staff and students); hospitals (medical personnel, administrative staff, patients and visitors); religious institutions; social, recreational and sports clubs; community groups, etc. Any situation in which humans congregate is a rich environment for humor use with all its potential positive benefits despite possible negative consequences.

This chapter will provide a review of the intersection between humor as a positive human attribute and its relationship to contemporary workplace management practices and outcomes. It commences with an overview of the history of humor studies and examines the potential benefits of this human attribute. It then examines the styles of humor used and discusses the appropriateness of differing humor styles within workplaces. The chapter then focuses specifically on the use of humor in workplaces, examining both the benefits and potential challenges of using humor as well as addressing in particular humor’s impact on workplace stress, leadership and fun-team climates. Finally, the chapter turns to a discussion of contemporary management and the emergence of Positive Psychology. We conclude by discussing the construct of Psychological Capital (PsyCap), a psychological resource that enhances workplace performance, its relationship with ‘positive humor,’ and research opportunities associated with understanding the potential workplace benefits that may be achieved by facilitating PsyCap and positive humor development in tandem.

Humor: an overview

Humor is an inherent human trait universally existing in all cultures and throughout history, transcending language, geography and time.¹ Despite its ubiquity as a desirable human attribute, humor tended to be ignored or downplayed by organizational scientists and, until the late 1980s, comparatively little research had been done to explore humor’s purpose in the overall realm of human experience.² Some notable exceptions to this assertion include Roy³ who, in studying boredom among employees in organizations, became aware of rituals among small groups of workers that included joking and bantering. He concluded that worker boredom and fatigue was alleviated by this ‘horseplay.’

p.162

Many theories of humor and laughter have been postulated by philosophers over the past two millennia commencing with Plato (428–348 bc) who saw humor as being one’s amusement towards relatively powerless people in a malicious manner. Following Plato, philosophers including Aristotle, Cicero, Thomas Hobbes, Rene Descartes, Francis Hutcheson, David Harley, Immanuel Kant, George Santayana and Henri Bergson, as well as psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud were amongst those adding their theories to the debate.⁴ Contemporary theories of humor have evolved over the past few decades.⁵

The human expression of laughter arises from a variety of situations or stimuli that have little in common, thus making the identification of an underlying principle extremely difficult if not impossible. It may be triggered by a pleasant surprise; being told an amusing story, anecdote or joke; or observing an incident or pictorial representation of something that leads to amusement. There are seven primary types of laughter: humorous, social, ignorance, anxiety, derision, apologetic and tickling.⁶ Laughter may be caused by various non-humorous stimuli such as embarrassment, laughing gas (nitrous oxide), and can be triggered by other people’s laughter.⁷ Humor in the form of an amusing story, image or situation, as noted above, is therefore only one of the many stimuli that may lead to laughter. It is humor that remains the focus of this chapter. However, not everybody views humor in the same way. Personal taste plays a crucial part in humor appreciation, and these tastes may change over time, even within short periods of time as moods change.⁸ Different responses to certain attempts at humor are also possible through misunderstandings, ambiguity, language differences or the lack of a common understanding of basic concepts on which the humor is based. Irony is particularly vulnerable to misunderstanding.⁹

Humor styles

Differing opinions around the use of humor in a business setting appear to stem from a lack of clarity around the ‘style’ of humor being considered in a workplace context. Research aiming to understand humor styles has considered both positive and negative forms. ‘Positive humor’ is the focus of this chapter and is regarded as humor that is inclusive and uplifting, and that satisfies definitions of the styles identified and labeled as ‘affiliative’ and ‘self-enhancing.’¹⁰ This style of humor does not target or attack others, nor does it marginalize them. It is humor that can make light of a situation or some behaviors without another person feeling compromised. This is popularly described as using humor to lift people up—not put them down.

A Humor Style Questionnaire developed by Martin et al.¹¹ provided a tool for researchers to differentiate the four humor style preferences being displayed in workplaces. This enabled more targeted and meaningful research to be undertaken. Researchers were now able to specifically examine the style of humor used and determine whether it is predominantly affiliative, inclusive and uplifting. This enabled organizational research regarding whether or not this positive style of humor is of value in terms of enhanced worker attitude and workplace performance leading to improvements in productivity.

The four ‘styles’ of humor identified are:

Affiliative and self-enhancing humor styles are described as being relatively healthy or adaptive, whilst aggressive and self-defeating humor styles are relatively unhealthy or maladaptive and potentially detrimental.¹² This chapter labels the two style groupings as ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ respectively, to align with the emphasis on positivity promoted through Positive Psychology which is discussed later in the chapter.

A common mistake made when trying to find universality in theories of humor and laughter is the expectation that an ‘ontology of humor’ exists—that is, that humor and laughter can easily cross all boundaries including cultural, generational and gender, etc.

This is clearly impractical as, for example, word-plays and puns do not translate easily across languages or jokes made within the context of cultural norms may not be understood by people with no knowledge of those cultures. However, the Humor Styles Questionnaire has been used extensively in North America, Europe and Australasia including versions being translated into other languages and successfully used within other cultures including Lebanese Armenian and Italian.¹³

Taking humor a little more seriously: a growing awareness of humor as a beneficial human attribute

Until mid-last century little research had been done in the area of workplace humor as very few organizational scientists, academics and students took the topic seriously. Despite its ubiquity as a desirable human attribute, humor tended to be ignored or downplayed as a useful organizational tool.¹⁴ Most of the books and journal articles written about human emotion up until the 1980s tended to focus on ‘negative’ emotions.

Prior to studies supporting the use of humor in workplaces, the study of ‘laughter’ as a phenomenon may have been viewed as frivolous because laughter was not considered a serious activity. Morreall observed that ‘although thousands of books and articles have appeared in our century dealing with human emotions and related phenomena, by far the greater number of these has been concerned with such things as fear and anger and anxiety.’ He noted that, by comparison, little had been published about more positive phenomena such as laughter.¹⁵

Workplace humor usually attracted criticism as potentially being offensive, counter-productive and a waste of time. Some organizations held the view that humorous people could not be taken seriously and that if a worker was being playful he/she could not be taking the work seriously enough to actually be productive.¹⁶ It was found that inappropriate humor, especially if used by managers, could have a detrimental effect on employee job satisfaction.¹⁷ There were other arguments against encouraging humor in workplaces based on perceptions of reduced respect for managers;¹⁸ the promotion of sexual harassment, especially if jokes are aimed against women;¹⁹ and the potential for jokes to be made at the expense of any minority group.²⁰ Significant problems may arise should offensive humor be evident within a workplace. This is a dangerous situation for any workplace given the contemporary ramifications for employers in regard to bullying and sexual harassment.²¹

p.164

The opposing perspective suggests that humor can have a positive impact on groups of people including organizations and workplaces as long as the humor is appropriate.

The positive impacts of humor in the workplace: from anecdotal reports to scholarly evidence

In an organizational context, the value of positive humor in human resource development has begun to be recognized. Within contemporary management practices, humor and laughter, once perceived as detrimental to organizational effectiveness, are now being viewed as a potentially positive organizational attributes.²² Humor is an effective way to promote a healthy work life and improved workplace harmony, and is an effective form of communication cutting across hierarchical boundaries by being multidirectional throughout the organization. A good indicator of an organization’s culture is the shared workplace humor and joking patterns. Corporate values and assumptions may also be reflected through workplace humor enabling different insights into the nature of the organization.²³

Popular books and magazines contain a plethora of case studies detailing the benefits of humor. Among the many case studies examining humor as an important component of organizational culture are Castelli²⁴ who reported on the Ben & Jerry’s ice-cream franchise; Caudron²⁵ who examined Kodak when it held a dominant position in the photographic film sector; and Hudson²⁶ who explained the corporate culture of the Brady Corporation from her perspective as its CEO. Hudson reported that getting the people at Brady to loosen up and enjoy themselves fostered a company esprit de corps and greater team camaraderie. Humor use in the Brady Corporation started conversations that sparked innovation, helped to memorably convey corporate messages to employees, and increased productivity by reducing stress. The company doubled its sales and almost tripled its net income and market capitalization over seven years.²⁷ The improvements experienced by the Brady Corporation suggest that promoting fun within the workplace can not only lead to a robust corporate culture, but can also improve business performance. A similar corporate culture initiative from within Southwest Airlines helped facilitate learning, promoted increased creativity and helped employees feel less threatened by change.²⁸

The work and influence of the International Society for Humor Studies has broadened the academic lenses through which humor is studied.²⁹ Studies on laughter and humor have moved away from philosophical and literary analysis into scientific journals where psychological, physiological, sociological and psychiatric approaches are applied to understanding humor and its impacts.³⁰

Scholarly research indicates that the acceptance and use of appropriate humor within workplaces has significant benefits for both the employee and organization.³¹ Increased job satisfaction and workplace involvement was reported by workers who participated in workplace humor. These workers also displayed better mental health than those who did not report enjoying humor at work. Those initiating the humor were also less likely to resign from their workplace.³²

Many aspects of a well-functioning organization are enhanced as a result of the appropriate use of humor. Workers using such humor have a positive impact on workplace attributes and productivity indicators such as stress management, organizational commitment, teamwork and cooperation between team members.³³

Peer-reviewed journal articles and publications reporting on specific workplace outcomes from the use of humor include:

p.165

In addition to these specific workplace outcomes, Noon and Blyton⁴⁶ observed that joking within workplaces is important for group cohesion. They see humor as a key factor in this context as it can help suppress the potential for workplaces to alienate workers and can diminish the negative impacts of some dehumanizing aspects of work.

Humor as a potential workplace de-stressor

Humor is one way humans have historically coped with stress. It has been a useful characteristic in the evolution of the species, allowing us to cope with otherwise unbearable circumstances and enabling humans to cluster together for mutual and collective benefits.⁴⁷ From a functionalist psychological perspective, it has been suggested that there is a crucial difference between humor that is beneficial to a group and ‘hostile’ humor which has a predominantly splintering effect on members of a group rather than being cohesive.⁴⁸ A reduction of anxiety levels and an increase in positive moods and emotional response follows the use of humor.⁴⁹

Assuming, as claimed, that the use of appropriate humor does play an important role in dealing with stress,⁵⁰ the question remains, how does this relationship work? Laughter may moderate the adverse effects of stress and may also increase a person’s level of social support, suggesting that the social support element may be the key when it comes to fighting stress and staying happy. The role of humor in this scenario may be cyclic. A positive sense of humor appears to make a person more approachable and likable. This in turn helps them build and maintain a nurturing social network, resulting in increased social interaction that helps generate more humor.⁵¹

Humor is an effective self-care option. Tensions can be reduced through recognizing the humor in a situation and having an ability to find something delightful in a current circumstance. To experience joy and laughter, especially if it is with others, will reduce tensions and can be a significant antidote to stress.⁵² A sense of humor may moderate stress. An individual taking a humorous perspective on an otherwise stressful situation may be able to make a positive reappraisal of the circumstance and use this as a coping strategy.⁵³

Workplaces can be stressful, and strategies for coping with stress and antidotes to stress are needed. Short-term, quick-fix solutions for stress management are inadequate. Longer-term strategies are needed involving preventative stress management and workplace culture changes.⁵⁴ In addition, where stressors are inevitable, it would be helpful for organizations to encourage their employees to develop the skills necessary to cope with those stressors.⁵⁵

p.166

Killian reported lower levels of burnout in stressful occupations where humor use was prevalent,⁵⁶ and Fry reported higher levels of humor-inspired psychological well-being.⁵⁷ For example, the use of humor by British sex workers and descriptions of the way humor contributes to the range of defense mechanisms that prostitutes use to cope with their ‘extreme’ profession have been reported.⁵⁸ Humor used by emergency workers within the Queensland State Emergency Service, primarily as a mechanism for coping with the daily stresses of their work, has also been reported.⁵⁹

Humor and leadership

The growing significance of humor as a legitimate addition to a manager’s skill-set is evident from colleges and universities responding to a demand from the business sector that humor be included in leadership and management studies. For example, the Singapore Government’s Public-Sector Leadership and Management program conducted by the Civil Service College includes a course entitled, ‘How Leaders and Managers Can Engage Staff through Humor.’ The course synopsis suggests that ‘humor provides an important key to creating a more open and responsive workplace.’ The synopsis details the potential benefits of humor including less ‘burnout,’ improved communication, enhanced problem-solving skills and better employee relations. It concludes that through using humor, professionals not only become more productive on the job, but also enjoy their work more.⁶⁰

The emotions of those in positions of power, or with a higher organizational status, have a greater influence on subordinates than the emotions of subordinates have on their superiors. How leaders control or project their emotions will either have an uplifting or a detrimental effect on their subordinates.⁶¹ A ‘sense of humor’ is one of seven core skills, competencies and qualities that workers look for in their managers or leaders. The other attributes are honesty and integrity; competence and credibility; ability to motivate and inspire; good two-way communication skills; equity and fairness.⁶² Earlier research suggests that managers who possess or develop a strong sense of humor make the most effective leaders;⁶³ will have improved management style and performance;⁶⁴ and will be better liked by their subordinates.⁶⁵

The constructive use of humor typifies effective leadership with many incidents being reported that demonstrate a link between humor, laughter and leadership effectiveness. Using humor, even in tense situations, will send a strong positive message from the leader or manager that will ‘shift the underlying emotional tone of the interaction.’⁶⁶ It was also acknowledged that certain kinds of humor were more appropriate than others.⁶⁷ There will be times when the use of humor is inappropriate and an effective leader should have the maturity and judgment to understand this. The potential for a mismatch between what a supervisor may think of as humorous and how that might be perceived by the subordinates is significant. Managerial humor may backfire by reinforcing employee cynicism.⁶⁸ Managers may use humor in ways that are offensive or oppressive, may express aggression and hostility, and may reinforce gender stereotypes. Managers who artificially incorporate joking into their control practices reduce humor to a manipulated commodity which has a number of inherent problems, including ethical issues that arise from their attempts to manipulate workplace humor.⁶⁹ These examples fall outside the parameters of ‘positive humor.’

p.167

Fun teams

Workplace culture has an effect on workplace performance⁷⁰ and humor is recognized as a significant contributor to maintaining a congenial organizational climate.⁷¹ The positive effect that a happy, ‘fun’ workplace may have on organizational productivity was addressed as an element of workplace culture within specific organizations.⁷² A fun work environment promotes positive and happy moods within employees which may lead to increased organizational commitment and job satisfaction.⁷³ Providing a fun, supportive workplace may attract workers who see their work as a joy and approach tasks positively. It was proposed that such workers would provide better customer service and would have an abundance of energy and enthusiasm to focus their talents toward the organization’s goals and objectives.⁷⁴

When advertising staff vacancies, some organizations use words such as a ‘fun team’ or a ‘fun-filled workplace’ to encourage applicants. This is an indication that these businesses recognize the value of making work ‘fun.’ A study of ‘fun workplace activities’ led to the development of a framework to help create a positive work environment; aid the attraction and retention of employees and support the organization’s efforts in encouraging the general well-being of employees.⁷⁵ This framework also proposes that an organization that supports a fun environment will benefit from enhanced creativity, communication, satisfaction and enthusiasm amongst its employees.

Popular management books based on practical corporate examples strongly support the view that working in a fun environment has more productive outcomes than working in a routine environment.⁷⁶ Workplace fun has a positive impact on worker attributes such as job satisfaction, morale, pride, creativity and quality,⁷⁷ counters the negative effects of stress and burnout⁷⁸ and leads to less absenteeism and staff turnover.⁷⁹ The two most important benefits of workplaces with a fun culture are increased staff commitment and the organization’s attractiveness to potential employees. Increased commitment is reflected in employee attributes such as loyalty and dedication, and staff turnover.⁸⁰ The common goal implicit in all these publications is one of moving organizational culture from frustration to fun.

Critical analysis of humor in the workplace

A top-down imposition of ‘fun’ activities should be avoided. Observations made while witnessing employees of a company participating in games of hopscotch, frisbee throwing and kickball suggested that although there was much clapping, cheering and laughter accompanying these activities, some employees privately confessed to joining in only because they did not want to be seen as ‘a bad sport or a party pooper.’⁸¹ The inference here is that for organizational fun and humor to be productive, it should be both positive and organic; that is naturally occurring or inherent within a situation.

The role of humor in providing relief from work pressures, or as a way to counter boredom or to overcome the tedium of repetitive tasks, should not be underestimated. Nor should one ignore its satirical force, especially when directed at managerial targets.⁸² Managers perceived to be applying continual pressure on workers to meet increasingly difficult targets or to achieve more productivity with fewer resources, or who are thought of as bullying or intimidating workers, will become unpopular and thus most likely become the butt of workplace jokes.

Such employee humor may include actions that are detrimental to organizations such as ridicule, resistance to instruction or, in the worst-case scenario, sabotage.⁸³ This is an obvious example of ‘negative humor’ which may be used by subordinates as a method of dealing with strict managerial control. It offers an informal mechanism through which work groups can define their own identity.⁸⁴ This is also commonly referred to as ‘subversive humor.’ The relationship that exists between supervisors or managers and their subordinates may determine a climate in which the humor is shared (and thus mostly affiliative) or subversive should there be a climate of antagonism between management and the workforce.

p.168

A changing work environment calls for changing management practices

Significant changes in societal and workplace values and attitudes have occurred over the past few decades. These are now being reflected in contemporary human resource management practices. Equal opportunity and pay for women, different expectations of work/life balance by younger generations entering the workforce and greater cultural diversity characterize some of these changes.⁸⁵ During this period there have been other community and societal changes that have impacted on workplaces leading to a greater focus on the ‘softer’ aspects of human relations. This now includes consideration being given to employee commitment as well as their capability.⁸⁶

To meet the demands of the emerging globally competitive environment, substantial downsizing through redundancy programs has been a constant feature of many organizations in OECD countries since the 1980s.⁸⁷ The consequences for organizations undertaking redundancy programs were not always positive when assessed against organizational and social criteria.⁸⁸ Management’s endeavors to rationalize staff as well as accommodating the changing workforce considerations mentioned above, have led to increased demands for greater flexibility from workers and the need for job consolidation, multi-skilling and multi-tasking from a management perspective. There has also been a shift toward organizational out-sourcing of some tasks and a greater emphasis on contract, part-time and temporary employee arrangements. These moves toward increasingly lean and efficient workplaces have resulted in employee insecurity and workplace stresses which may lead to new inefficiencies and further organizational and productivity losses.⁸⁹

This period of increasing turbulence has resulted in constant changes within organizations and presents new challenges for their survival in the growing competitive global environment in which they now must operate. In an attempt to satisfy the two seemingly contradictory imperatives of creating lean and efficient workplaces and yet attracting and retaining the best employees available, many programs and workplace development interventions have been proposed, trialed and implemented.⁹⁰ Organizations worked on the assumption that sustained competitive advantage could be assured through maintaining a technological edge and the patent protections and government regulations on which they relied. They mostly ignored the human resource development that the changing environment was demanding.⁹¹

The response of workplaces to this changing environment led to new pressures on workers which necessitated a different human resource management focus to accommodate the ideology of lean production and maintaining high-performance workplace teams.⁹² Initially, the organizational investment in ‘human capital’ had a greater emphasis on developing and maintaining the skills, knowledge and expertise of the workers. This human resource development focus has now extended beyond the job-specific activities and has embraced the broader attributes of a highly functioning worker.⁹³ Also, as younger people joined the workforce, the career development emphasis became one of employability rather than job security.⁹⁴ There was now an appreciation that organizations were only as good as the people within them and that if workers felt threatened, bored, undervalued or discouraged they would not be working at their optimum and therefore would not reach their full potential and value to the organization.⁹⁵

p.169

A link between human happiness and human productivity suggests more attention needs to be given to emotional well-being as a causal force within workplaces.⁹⁶ As managers’ performance impacts on organizational productivity and the economic prosperity of individual businesses, and in turn their nation-states, it is suggested that managers’ jobs be changed to ensure a continuation or enhancement of ‘happiness’ in their work situation. Contemporary understandings about aspects of human behavior that contribute to workplace performance and productivity have been enhanced through the research concerned with the happy, productive worker hypothesis.⁹⁷

Considerations such as worker attitudes and values, and psychological attributes are now accorded a higher prominence in developing human resources in organizations. The underlying premise of emerging Positive Psychology theories supported this approach to human resource development. Positive Psychology advocated that, by changing certain psychological attitudes and resources, a transformative effect on a person’s life would follow. It suggested that a person’s overall well-being relied on positive emotion together with sound relationships, a sense of accomplishment and having a meaning to one’s life.⁹⁸

Integrating Positive Psychology with the study of humor in the workplace

The number of research papers focusing on positive emotions, happiness and factors that promote positivity started to escalate in the mid-1980s.⁹⁹ Since the turn of the century, studies have emerged showing that workplaces were benefiting from the application of Positive Psychology in enhancing workplace satisfaction, motivation and productivity.¹⁰⁰ The need for a more positively oriented focus within social and human sciences was recognized, and since that time there has been a plethora of research studies, peer-reviewed journal articles and academic texts published.¹⁰¹ This emphasis on positivity led to the establishment of a Positive Psychology movement supported by subject-specific journals and national and international conferences.

Positive Psychology has moved from within the traditional disciplinary boundaries of psychology and research has explored its applicability in a number of disciplines and professions including organizational sciences.¹⁰² It now embraces other specific foci of research and application including virtues, excellence, thriving, flourishing, resilience and flow.¹⁰³ It has also led to other theoretical frameworks such as Positive Organizational Behavior (POB) and Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS).

Positive Organizational Behavior (POB) refers to ‘the study and application of positively oriented human resource strengths and psychological capacities that can be measured, developed, and effectively managed for performance improvement in today’s workplace.’¹⁰⁴ POB elements have been linked to higher job satisfaction, and worker happiness and commitment.¹⁰⁵ Additional positive employee characteristics include optimism, kindness, generosity and humor.¹⁰⁶ These attributes are expected to relate to higher levels of individual performance in a work environment. POS is ‘concerned primarily with the study of especially positive outcomes, processes, and attributes of organizations and their members.’¹⁰⁷

p.170

Psychological Capital (PsyCap)

Also emerging from the field of Positive Psychology, Luthans, Youssef and Avolio¹⁰⁸ developed a construct called Psychological Capital (or PsyCap) based on the capacities of self-efficacy, resilience, hope and optimism associated with improved employee performance. Although the above-mentioned states—self-efficacy, resilience, hope and optimism—are the original attributes included in the PsyCap model, other cognitive and affective strengths displayed by individuals were also considered. These included creativity, wisdom, well-being, flow and humor.

We believe that today’s business environment is in great need of more humor and laughter. Not only is a positive, humorous work environment likely to reduce medical and legal costs, it can also enhance teamwork, foster effective problem solving, promote wider acceptance and tolerance of one-self and others, and encourage challenge-seeking and attaining results.¹⁰⁹

Humor, generally, has a positive social impact for both the deliverer and the recipient of that humor. However, there is a potential downside in which use of inappropriate humor (negative humor) may alienate others and can lead to social isolation for the deliverer and apprehension by those observing this behavior. Thus inappropriate humor may lead to reduced group cohesion.¹¹⁰

Research suggests that PsyCap has a positive correlation with performance and satisfaction, mediates between a supportive organizational climate and employee performance, and supports effective organizational change.¹¹¹ The view of organizations at the end of the twentieth century was that a competitive advantage would only be achieved if the full potential of their human resources could be realized. It was noted that the optimal use of human resources is harder to replicate by competitors than infrastructure or processes.¹¹² The development of PsyCap was stimulated by this observation and proposes that these states of self-efficacy, hope, optimism and resilience, in contrast to dispositional traits, can be developed within individuals and converted into commercial gain within an organization.¹¹³

Surprisingly little research has been done to examine the relationship between PsyCap and humor, a notable exception being Hughes¹¹⁴ who examined a sense of humor and its relationship with the PsyCap construct and with each of the PsyCap capacities of self-efficacy, hope, optimism and resilience individually. The conclusion reached was that overall sense of humor and PsyCap are positively and significantly related and that there is also a positive relationship between a sense of humor and all the individual PsyCap factors with the exception of hope. Hughes also commented that there was a ‘dearth of literature bridging the so-called research-practice gap’ in this area.¹¹⁵

A subsequent study examined both the PsyCap scores and the use of positive humor within 50 Australian work teams and conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to determine whether or not positive humor fits empirically with the PsyCap construct.¹¹⁶ Results for a model of positive humor and PsyCap achieved satisfactory fit, showing evidence of convergent validity. Linear regressions were also used to test a series of hypotheses relating to workplace attitudes and performance. Results were mixed but overall supportive of the value of using, or at least allowing, positive humor to be a part of contemporary workplace cultures.¹¹⁷

There is, however, a growing discourse as to whether other constructs such as humor should be included in the PsyCap scale.¹¹⁸ Dawkins et al.¹¹⁹ warn that the inclusion of additional dimensions without adequate theoretical justification may lead to conceptual confusion about the definition of the PsyCap construct.

p.171

Opportunities for future research

Despite the concerns expressed over confusing the PsyCap definition,¹²⁰ opportunities exist for further research into the relationships between positive humor, PsyCap and the potential positive effects these may have on worker attitude and performance and workplace productivity. There is also an opportunity to develop and implement specific humor interventions alongside suggested PsyCap-based interventions¹²¹ within workplaces, and to conduct longitudinal research projects to determine the effect, it any, such interventions may have on workplace outcomes.

A fundamental challenge for future research opportunities arises from the assertion that many of the claimed benefits of positivity are yet to be demonstrated.¹²² This challenge is based on the observation that only ‘half the story’ is being addressed by providing positive organizational scholarship tools to help individuals deal with the challenges of life and work. More research is needed within the POB paradigm to help identify and create suitable conditions within organizations to promote learning and growth. To achieve this, researchers working in this field are encouraged to shift their focus from individuals and to concentrate their efforts in determining the positive structural features that are the basis of the social systems in which people live and work.¹²³

Conclusions

Combining the organizational benefits of PsyCap and the contributions that appropriate humor may make to any organization, as discussed in this chapter, suggests that workplace managers (as well as leaders of any groups) would be well served to further explore these fundamental human attributes of self-efficacy, hope, optimism, resilience and positive humor. They are all attributes that can be nurtured and developed and all have the potential to contribute to workplace harmony, efficiency and increased productivity through leadership; teamwork; workplace culture; worker health, happiness, attitudes and values; creativity and communication.

References

    1    MacHovec, F. J. (2012). Humor. Bloomington: Authors Guild BackinPrint.com, iUniverse, Inc.

    2    Brief, A. P. (1998). Attitudes in and around organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 102; Chapman, A. J. and Foot, H. C. (Eds.) (2007). Humour and laughter: Theory, research and applications. London: Wiley.

    3    Roy, Donald F. (1959). ‘Banana time’: Job satisfaction and informal interaction. Human Organization, 18, 158–168.

    4    Morreall, J. (1987). The philosophy of laughter and humor. New York: State University of New York Press.

  5    Ziv, A. (1984). Personality and a sense of humor. New York: Springer; Fry, W. F. (1994). The biology of humour. Humor, 7(2), 111–126; Ruch, W. (1998). Sense of humour: A new look at an old concept. In W. Ruch (Ed.), The sense of humour: Explorations of a personality characteristic (3–14). New York: Mouton de Gruyter; Lefcourt, H. M. (2001). Humor—The psychology of living buoyantly. New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers; Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor—an integrative approach. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press; McGhee, P. E. (2010). Humor: The lighter path to resilience and health. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.

p.172

    6    Giles, H. and Oxford, G. (1970). Towards a multidimensional theory of laughter causation and its social implications. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 23(79), 97–105.

    7    Attardo, S. (2008). A primer for the linguistics of humor. The primer of humor research. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 10.

    8    Ross, A. (1998). The language of humour. London: Routledge.

    9    Ibid.

  10    Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J. and Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in uses of humor and their relationship to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 48–75.

  11    Ibid.

  12    Ibid.

  13    Kazarian, S. S. and Martin, R. A. (2006). Humor styles, culture-related personality, well-being, and family adjustment among Armenians in Lebanon. Humour, 19(4), 405–423; Penzo, I., Giannetti, E., Stefanile, C. and Sirigatti, S. (2011). Stili umoristici e possibili relazioni con il benessere psicologico secondo una versione italiana dello Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ), in Falanga, R., De Caroli, M. E. and Sagone, E. (2014). Humor styles, self-efficacy and prosocial tendencies in middle adolescents. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 127, 214–218; Falanga, R., De Caroli, M. E. and Sagone, E. (2014). Humor styles, self-efficacy and prosocial tendencies in middle adolescents. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 127, 214–218.

  14    Brief, op. cit.

  15    Morreall, J. (1983). Taking laughter seriously. New York: State University of New York Press.

  16    Brief, op. cit.

  17    Infante, D. and Gordon, W. (1989). Argumentativeness and affirming communication style as predictiveness of satisfaction / dissatisfaction with subordinates. Communication Quarterly, 37, 81–90; Zillman, D. (1983). Disparagement humor. In McGhee, P. E. and Goldstein, J. H. (Eds.), Handbook of humor research, Vol. 1. New York: Springer-Verlag.

  18    Duncan, W. J. and Feisal, P. (1989). No laughing matter: Patterns of humor in the workplace. Organizational Dynamics, 17, 18–30.

  19    McGee, E. and Shelvin, M. (2009). Effect of humor on interpersonal attraction and mate selection. The Journal of Psychology, 143(1), 67–77; Hemmasi, M., Graf, L. A. and Russ, G. S. (1994). Gender related jokes in the work place: Sexual humor or sexual harassment? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(12), 1114–1128; Smeltzer, L. R. and Leap, T. L. (1988). An analysis of individual reactions to potentially offensive jokes in work settings. Human Relations, 41(4), 295–304.

  20    Davies, C. (2002). The mirth of nations. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

  21    Quinn, B. A. (2000). The paradox of complaining: Law, humor, and harassment in the everyday work world. Law and Society, 25(4), 1151–1186.

  22    Barsoux, J. (1996). Why organizations need humour. European Management Journal, 14(5), 500–508.

  23    Ibid.; Robert, C. and Yan, W. (2007). The case for developing new research on humor and culture in organizations: Toward a higher grade of manure. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 26, 205–267; Meyer, J. C. (1997). Humor in member narratives: Uniting and dividing at work. Western Journal of Communication, 61(2), 188–208.

  24    Castelli, J. (1990). Are you weird enough? HR Magazine, 38 (September), 1.

  25    Caudron, S. (1992). Humor is healthy in the workplace. Personnel Journal, 71, 63–68.

  26    Hudson, K. M. (2001). Transforming a conservative company—One laugh at a time. Harvard Business Review, 07 (July/August 2001), 45–53. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2001/07/transforming-a-conservative-company-one-laugh-at-a-time March 18, 2016.

  27    Ibid.

  28    Barbour, G. (1998). Want to be a successful manager? Now that’s a laughing matter. Public Management, July 1998, 6–9.

  29    McGraw, P. (2011). The importance of humor research. A serious non-serious research topic. Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-humor-code/201109/the-importance-humor-research.

  30    Milner Davis, J. (2003). Farce. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

p.173

  31    Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; Crawford, C. B. (1994). Theory and implications regarding the utilization of strategic humour by leaders. Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(4), 53–67; Rizzo, B. J., Wanzer, M. B. and Booth-Butterfield, M. (1999). Individual differences in managers’ use of humour: Subordinate perceptions of managers’ humour. Communication Research Reports, 16, 360–369; Mesmer-Magnus, J., Glew, D. and Viswesvaran, C. (2012). A meta-analysis of positive humour in the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(2), 115–190.

  32    Abramis, D. J. (1992). Humor in healthy organizations. HR Magazine, 37(8), 72–75.

  33    Romero, E. and Arendt, L. (2011). Variable effects of humor styles on organizational outcomes. Psychological Reports, 108, 649–659.

  34    Bennis, W. (1997). Organizing genius: The secrets of creative collaboration. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; Hudson, op. cit.; Dziegielewski, S. F., Jacinto, G. A., Laudadio, A. and Legg-Rodriguez, L. (2003). Humor: An essential communication tool in therapy. International Journal of Mental Health, 32(3), 74–90; Chapman and Foot, op. cit.; Romero, E. and Pescosolido, A. (2008). Humor and group effectiveness. Human Relations, 61, 395–415.

  35    Dziegielewski et al., op. cit.; Zinker, J. C. (2003). Beauty and creativity in human relationships. In Lobb, M. and Amendt-Lyon, N. (Eds.), Creative license: the art of gestalt therapy (142–151). New York: Springer; Romero, E. and Cruthirds, K. (2006). The use of humor in the workplace. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(2), 58–69; Meyer, op. cit.; Romero and Pescosolido, op. cit.; Hill, D. (1988). Humor in the classroom: A handbook for teachers (and other entertainers). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

  36    Ziv, A. (1988). Teaching and learning with humor: Experiment and replication. Journal of Experimental Education, 57, 5–15; Abramis, D. J. (1991). There is nothing wrong with a little fun. San Diego Union, March 19, p. 25; Barbour, op. cit.; Dziegielewski et al., op. cit.

  37    Abramis, D. J. (1989). Finding the fun at work. Psychology Today, 23(2), 36–38.

  38    Hudson, op. cit.; Romero and Cruthirds, op. cit.; Mesmer-Magnus et al., op. cit.

  39    Abramis (1992), op. cit.

  40    Abramis (1991), op. cit.; Murdock, M. C. and Ganim, R. M. (1993). Creativity and humor: Integration and incongruity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 27(1), 57–70; Barbour, op. cit.; Hudson, op. cit.; Romero and Cruthirds, op. cit.

  41    Avolio, B. J., Howell, J. M. and Sosik, J. J. (1999). A funny thing happened on the way to the bottom line: Humor as a moderator of leadership style effects. Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 219–227; Romero and Cruthirds, op. cit.; Mesmer-Magnus et al., op. cit.; Priest, R. F. and Swain, J. E. (2002). Humor and its implications for leadership effectiveness. Humor, 15(2), 169–189.

  42    Davis, A. and Kleiner, B. (1989). The value of humour in effective leadership. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 10(1), 1–3; Abramis (1989), op. cit.; Abramis (1992), op. cit.; Mesmer-Magnus et al., op. cit.

  43    Avolio et al., op. cit.; Romero and Pescosolido, op. cit.

  44    Collinson, D. (1988). Engineering humour: Masculinity, joking and conflict in shop floor relations. Organization Studies, 9(2), 181–199.

  45    Romero and Cruthirds, op. cit.; Robert and Yan, op. cit.

  46    Noon, M. and Blyton, P. (1997). The realities of work. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan, 159–160.

  47    Lefcourt, op. cit.; Kuiper, N., Martin, R. and Olinger, L. (1993). Coping humor, stress and cognitive appraisals. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Research, 25(1), 81–96; Abel, M. (2002). Humor, stress, and coping strategies. Humor, 15, 365–381.

  48    Lefcourt, op. cit.

  49    Abel, M. and Maxwell, D. (2002). Humor and affective consequences of a stressful task. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 21(2), 165–190.

  50    Berk, L. S., Tan, S. A., Fry, W. F., Napier, B. J., Lee, J. W., Hubbard, R. W., Lewis, J. E. and Eby, W. C. (1989). Neuroendocrine and stress hormone changes during mirthful laughter. American Journal of Medical Science, 298(6), 390–396; Dixon, P. (1994). The truth about AIDS—Aids care education and training international. Eastbourne, UK: Kingsway Publications; Gavin, J. H. and Mason, R. O. (2004). The virtuous organization: The value of happiness in the workplace. Organizational Dynamics, 33(4), 379–392.

p.174

  51    Martin, R. A. (2004). Sense of humor and physical health: Theoretical issues, recent findings, and future directions. Humor, 17(1), 1–19.

  52    Lefcourt, H. M. and Martin R. A. (1986). Humor and life stress. New York: Springer-Verlag.

  53    Martin, R. A. (2001). Humour, laughter, and physical health: Methodological issues and research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(4), 504–519.

  54    Matteson, M. T. and Ivancevich, J. M. (1987). Controlling work stress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

  55    Jex, S. M. and Bliese, P. D. (1999). Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of the impact of work-related stressors: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 349.

  56    Killian, J. G. (2005). Career and technical education teacher burnout: Impact of humor-coping style and job-related stress. Humanities and Social Sciences, 65(9), 3266.

  57    Fry, P. (1995). Perfectionism, humor and optimism as moderators of health outcomes and determinants of coping styles of women executives. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 121(2), 211–245; Sanders, T. (2004). Controllable laughter: Managing sex work through humour. Sociology, 38(2), 273–291.

  58    Ibid.

  59    Moran, C. C. and Massam, M. (1997). An evaluation of humour in emergency work. The Australian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies, 3, 26–38.

  60    Singapore Civil Service College website, https://www.cscollege.gov.sg/About%20Us/Pages/PST-Service.aspx. Accessed November 12, 2013.

  61    Anderson, C., Keltner, D. and John, O. (2003). Emotional convergence between people over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1054–1068.

  62    Foster, N. (2005). Maximum performance: A practical guide to leading and managing people at work. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

  63    Bass and Avolio, op. cit.; Romero and Pescosolido, op. cit.

  64    Crawford, op. cit.

  65    Rizzo et al., op. cit.

  66    Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. and McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 34–35.

  67    Martin et al., op. cit.

  68    Collinson, D. L. (2002). Managing humour. Journal of Management Studies, 39(3), 269–288.

  69    Ibid.

  70    Frost, P. J., Moore, L. F., Louis, M. R., Lundberg, C. C. and Martin, J. (Eds.) (1985). Organizational culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

  71    Goleman et al., op. cit.

  72    Castelli, op. cit.; Caudron, op. cit.; Hudson, op. cit.

  73    Chan, S. C. H. (2010). Does workplace fun matter? Developing a useable typology of workplace fun in a qualitative study. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(4), 720–728.

  74    Berg, D. (2001). The power of a playful spirit at work. Journal for Quality and Participation, 24(2), 57–62.

  75    Chan, op. cit.

  76    Von Oech, R. (1983). A whack on the side of the head. Menlo, CA: Creative Think; Lundin, S. C., Paul, H. and Christensen, J. (2000). FISH! London: Omnibus, Hodder and Stoughton; Yerkes, L. (2007). Fun works: Creating places where people love to work. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

  77    Murdock and Ganim, op. cit.; Barbour, op. cit.; Deal, T. and Kennedy, A. (1999). The new corporate cultures. London: Perseus Books.

  78    Hudson, op. cit.; Romero and Cruthirds, op. cit.

  79    Abramis, op. cit.; Abner, M. (1997). Corporate America takes fun seriously. Women in Business, 49(5), 42.

  80    Ford, R., Newstrom, J. and McLaughlin, F. (2004). Making workplace fun more functional. Industrial and Commercial Training, 36(3),117–120.

  81    Critchley, S. (2002). On humour. New York: Routledge.

  82    Taylor, P. and Bain, P. (2003). Subterranean worksick blues: Humour as subversion in two call centres. Organization Studies, 24(9), 1487–1509.

p.175

  83    Linstead, S. (1985). Jokers wild: The importance of humour and the maintenance of organisational culture. Sociological Review, 33(4), 741–767.

  84    Collinson, op. cit.

  85    Nankervis, A. R., Compton, R., Baird, M. and Coffey, J. (2011). Human resource management: Strategy and practice (7th ed.). South Melbourne, Victoria: Cengage Learning Australia.

  86    Stone, R. (2008). Managing human resources. Milton, Queensland: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd, pp. 12 and 350.

  87    Worrall, L., Campbell, F. and Cooper, C. (2000). Surviving redundancy: The perceptions of UK managers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(5), 460–476; Gandolfi, F. (2005). How do organizations implement downsizing? An Australian and New Zealand study. Contemporary Management Research, 1(1), 57–68; Zimmerer, T. W., Scarborough, N. M. and Wilson, D. (2008). Essentials of entrepreneurship and small business management. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.; Stone, op. cit.; Nankervis et al., op. cit.

  88    Morris, J. R., Cascio, W. F. and Young, C. E. (1999). Downsizing after all these years: Questions and answers about who did it, how many did it, and who benefited from it. Organizational Dynamics, 27(3), 78–87.

  89    Kumar, P., Murray, G. and Schetagne, S. (1999). Workplace change in Canada: Union perceptions of impacts, responses and support systems. Kingston, Ontario, Canada: IRC Press, Queen’s University.

  90    Powell, T. C. (1995). Total quality management as competitive advantage: A review and empirical study. Strategic Management Journal, 16(1), 15–37.

  91    Morris et al., op. cit.; Luthans, F., Luthans, K. W. and Luthans, B. C. (2004). Positive psychological capital: Beyond human and social capitals. Business Horizons, 41(1), 45–50.

  92    Kumar et al., op. cit.

  93    Stone, op. cit.; Nankervis et al., op. cit.

  94    Parker, P. and Inkson, K. (1999). New forms of career: The challenge for human resource management. Asia Pacific HRM, 37(3), 76–85.

  95    Berg, op. cit.

  96    Oswald, A. J., Proto, E. and Sgroi, D. (2014). Happiness and productivity. JOLE 3rd version, retrieved from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/eproto/workingpapers/ happinessproductivity.pdf, May 16, 2015.

  97    Hosie, P. J., Sevastos, P. P. and Cooper, C. L. (2006). Happy-performing managers—the impact of affective wellbeing and intrinsic job satisfaction in the workplace. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

  98    Seligman, M. E. P. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive Psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14.

  99    Fineman, S. (2006). On being positive: Concerns and counterpoints. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 270–291.

100    Luthans, F. (2002). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological strengths. Academy of Management Executive, 16, 57–72; Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Good business: Leadership, flow and the making of meaning. New York: Viking; Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). Positive emotions and upward spirals in organizations. In Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. and Quinn, R. (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (164–175). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehle; Peterson, C. M. and Seligman, M. E. P. (2003). Positive organizational studies: Lessons from Positive Psychology. In Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E. and Quinn, R. E. (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (14–17). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

101    Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, op. cit.

102    Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E. and Quinn, R. E. (Eds.) (2003). Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers; Luthans (2002), op. cit.

103    Donaldson, S. I. and Ko, I. (2010). Positive organizational psychology, behavior, and scholarship: A review of the emerging literature and evidence base. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(3), 177–191.

104    Luthans (2002), op. cit., p. 59.

105    Youssef, C. M. and Luthans, F. (2007). Positive organizational behaviour in the workplace: The impact of hope, optimism, and resilience. Journal of Management, 33(5), 774–800.

p.176

106    Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). How to see the glass half full. Newsweek, September 16, 48; Ramlall, S. J. (2008). Enhancing employee performance through positive organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(6), 1580–1600; Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B. and Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 541–572.

107    Cameron et al., op. cit., p. 4.

108    Luthans, F., Youssef, C. and Avolio B. (2007). Psychological capital—Developing the human competitive edge. New York: Oxford University Press.

109    Ibid., p. 167.

110    Ibid.

111    Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J. and Peterson, S. J. (2010). The development and resulting performance impact of positive psychological capital. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(1), 41–67.

112    Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120; Luthans et al. (2010), op. cit.

113    Luthans et al. (2007), op. cit.

114    Hughes, L. W. (2008). A correlational study of the relationship between sense of humor and positive psychological capacities. Economics and Business Journal: Inquiries and Perspectives, 1(1), 46–55.

115    Ibid.

116    Peebles, D. R. (2015). The value of positive humour in the workplace. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Tasmanian School of Business and Economics, University of Tasmania.

117    Ibid.

118    Newman, A., Ucbasaran, D., Zhu, F. and Hirst, G. (2014). Psychological capital: A review and synthesis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 120–122.

119    Dawkins, S., Martin, A., Scott, J. and Sanderson, K. (2013). Building on the positives: A psychometric review and critical analysis of the construct of psychological capital. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86, 348–370.

120    Ibid.

121    Luthans et al. (2007), op. cit.

122    Hackman, J. R. (2009). The perils of positivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(2), 309–319.

123    Ibid.