p.228
A critical analysis of organizational humor
Barbara Plester
Introduction
A bitter jest, when it comes too near the truth, leaves a sharp sting behind it.
(Tacitus, ad 117)
This chapter offers a unique critical analysis of workplace humor based on empirical research situated within a variety of different corporate organizations. The research is unique because specific analyses of humor are few and this one is based on an ethnographic approach incorporating observations, interviews, documentary data, and everyday conversations from actual workplaces. Not only are workplace analyses of humor scarce but they are mostly based on a functional interpretation of humor that assumes the uses of humor to be “self-evident”1 and functionalist approaches are “associated with a range of presumed positive managerial and organizational outcomes.”2 Functionalist approaches do not always adequately account for the ambiguity and complexities of humor2 and workplaces are often complex sites of history, tradition, patriarchy, power, and control. Therefore, it is important to research organizational humor in a “nuanced and radical way”2 in order to address the complexity and depth of the concept.
Although there are many positive functions attributed to workplace humor, a critical analysis of workplace humor must consider the crucial elements of power, control, resistance, and authority. Therefore, this analysis considers the way in which humor might be co-opted by management in order to control employees’ behavior, how management attempts to limit and control workplace humor, and finally it explores employees’ use of humor to resist, challenge and disrupt organizational power and control. A crucial element in such an analysis is the recognition and exploration of humor with a darker agenda that may be interpreted in a more problematized manner in order to explore humor that can harm, manipulate, or disturb people at work. In other words, this chapter discusses workplace humor that shows the “dark side” of people, organizations, and work.
Humor in modern organizations is ubiquitous, complex, influential, and multifunctional.3 In a functional sense, humor may be used to release tension,4 reveal hidden emotions, make sense of the working environment,5 create affiliation and harmony in groups,6, 7 challenge powerful organizational members,1 display cultural values and norms8, 9, 10 and can even be used to disrupt and reframe normal everyday working processes. Although the majority of organizational humor analyses tend to emphasize the positive and potentially productive aspects of workplace humor, recent research is emerging that cautions about adopting an overwhelmingly upbeat approach and suggests instead that the dark, biting and mocking elements of humor should be recognized and considered.11, 12, 13, 14 It is therefore important to understand humor in a comprehensive way that encompasses both the happy, optimistic and upbeat aspects alongside the contentious, problematic dark humor that may create disruption and dissonance in modern organizations.
p.229
The bodily expression of laughter offers verbal and visual clues that people find something humorous.13 Simon Critchley15 cites Descartes among others and defines laughter as an “explosion expressed with the body.” There are physical, philosophical, psychological components to laughter and it may occur when people cerebrally perceive a stimulus to be amusing which may engender the response of laughter. Conversely, when a person experiences a supposedly humorous incident as not amusing they may indicate displeasure or disapproval, through withholding laughter—a phenomenon known as “unlaughter.”11, 13 Laughter then has twin aspects that combine physical, embodied components with a metaphysical or intellectual element.13 Laughter can be a paradoxical occurrence11 because it involves “those who laugh as well as those who are laughed at.”13
Of course laughter does not always denote amusement and can be a polite social response, an expression of embarrassment or it may even be “pathological” and an involuntary disorder.16 Moreover laughter may be caused by tickling, which is a completely different response from laughter caused by mirth.16 In theorizing laughter in modern workplace contexts, Butler13 highlights the social significance of laughter in workplaces and suggests that it has two key functions that are either “collective” or “corrective.” The collective aspect creates collegiality, goodwill, and enjoyment but laughter may also be used to correct behavior. People do not like being laughed at and thus the threat of laughter may ensure behavioral conformity in work groups. This type of laughter may ensue from mocking and derisory teasing, sometimes called jocular abuse,17 and although it is still humor, it is barbed, biting, and aimed humor that may have the specific purpose of changing behavior or inhibiting specific activities. Although mocking humor is still functional and may have a specific purpose, it is also associated with elements of organizational power and control, and the quick-witted workplace joker can wield fierce social power and influence through jests, barbs, and witticisms—all delivered as jokes.18
In order to explore and understand the concept of organizational humor from a critical perspective, a rich understanding of the organizational contextual factors such as norms, activities, assumptions, and power restructures is highly important and relevant. Therefore, the methodological approach adopted in this research is an ethnographic one, whereby I entered, affiliated and socialized (full-time) into several different organizational contexts in order to interpret the prevailing social cultural conditions that influence everyday humor events and enactments. Correspondingly, the humor displays offer a reflection of organizational norms and values assumed by power holders, workers, and the organization itself.
Methodology and data
My empirical workplace humor research, conducted over the last 12 years, adopts an ethnographic approach which is based on observing and participating in humor first-hand as it occurs in its natural setting and context. The philosopher Bergson19 in his famous essay Le Rire asserts:
To understand laughter we must put it back in its “natural environment.”
p.230
Contemporary humor scholars also contend that context is an extremely important element when examining organizational humor.20 Therefore empirical research needs to account for the rich contextual elements important to the experience of humor, which leads to a deeper, more nuanced understanding of workplace humor and its associated implications. Thus, my empirical examples include detailed situational descriptions of humor events, the organizational actors participating, the preceding and contributing factors and wherever possible the outcomes, reaction, and consequences of workplace humor. These examples are gathered from a variety of different organizations, including a prestigious law firm; a large financial institution; an energy provider; and four different information technology (IT) companies. These organizations range in size from one small owner-operated company of only 25 employees, to some larger institutions with global operations and comprising upwards of 900 staff. The data has been collected using (1) participant observation; (2) formal semi-structured interviews with staff from all hierarchical levels (90+); (3) document collection; and (4) ad hoc discussions with organizational members. This has resulted in a wide range of empirical material comprising verbatim examples of everyday banter, canned jokes, practical jokes and horseplay, email jokes, visual jokes, cartoons and a myriad of complex material encompassing the minutiae of daily barbs and quips, alongside complicated joke set-ups requiring coordination and planning. Only a small selection of this wide-ranging material can be used here, but data presented are representative of many similar examples collected and analyzed.
Management’s imposition of humor
Although the creation and enjoyment of humor would seem to be a discretionary and voluntary behavior within an individual’s suite of communication practices, my workplace research would suggest otherwise, as exemplified within several of the studied organizations. In observed humor examples and in the excerpts from interview transcripts, it seems that humor and the more common notion of fun may sometimes be imposed on workers by their managers and/or through organizational expectations. The imposition of humor may be associated with programs designed to foster and artificially create workplace fun, and for some organizations, fun and humor are endorsed as workplace objectives and/or espoused values.
Modern Western workplaces are striving hard to be considered healthy and vibrant places where people can portray themselves authentically and seemingly without restraint. There is a new imperative for work to be fun, but Fleming21 cautions that contrary to the spirit of freedom and playfulness enthusiastically espoused, only organizationally approved forms of fun are endorsed and sanctioned. According to Warren and Fineman22 the term “managed fun” is an oxymoron and such prescribed fun is “oppressive” and silences opposing perspectives held by workers. Fleming and Sturdy23 discuss neo-normative cultures where employees are encouraged to enjoy humor, fun, display their individuality, and even their sexuality—seemingly without restraint—as management seek to increase commitment, performance, and motivation at work.
Fleming21 extends this argument in his book Authenticity and the Cultural Politics of Work, claiming that modern managerial practices embrace fun and light-hearted play and that an endorsed anti-authoritarian stance has become “chic.” Such an approach seeks to stave off skepticism about corporate life in the attempt to elude workers’ feelings of alienation and to encourage (apparent) authenticity in the interests of whole-person engagement in the workplace context. Yet such manufactured approaches to humor and fun, and an enthusiastic willingness by management to make work enjoyable, may have the effect of inhibiting genuine self-expressed forms of humor and fun. Genuine and spontaneous workplace humor can mock managerial actions3 and organizational initiatives, which can be challenging to management. Thus, by appearing to embrace and create humor and/or fun, managers may try to avoid ridicule and derision from workers who may use joke-work to express their feelings thinking they are safe from censure and reprisals.4 In other words, management may prefer to make the jokes before they become the target of jokes. Critical scholars highlight that management has co-opted the freedom and expressive capabilities of humor and fun in order to transform it into a tool with which to control and manipulate workers.21, 22, 23 However, Parker24 cautions that humor should be “central to constituting a sense of an oppositional identity at work” and when this aspect of expression is co-opted by management for organizational purposes, workers may be denied a useful form of resistance and opposition.
p.231
The next section presents examples of actual workplace humor combined with workers’ reflections on humor expressions and dynamics. Obtained from a variety of the studied corporate organizations, these extracts suggest that on the surface, managerial use of humor appears to be friendly and even good-natured but it also serves to emphasize power, control, and an authoritarian perspective. Even more insidious is the sense that the concepts of humor and fun have in these instances become an organizational imperative and that subordinate workers must participate, endorse, and respond to managerial humor initiatives. Non-participation or unlaughter carries the risk of not only being considered humorless and dour, but also of disapproval and condemnation from those with organizational power. These examples suggest that humor and fun at work may (in some cases) constitute a new managerial initiative that does not promote happiness and well-being but simply represents a new form of tyranny and control which workers hesitate to condemn or resist because it is supposedly “all good fun” and “only joking.”
Displaying the boss’s buttocks
Ann, a woman in her fifties and the office administrator, leaves her desk unattended one Friday afternoon to go and purchase alcoholic drinks for the regular after-work “Friday drinks.” During her absence, Jake (the CEO) pressgangs Adrian (a young male employee) and stepping behind a partition, Jake orders Adrian to photograph his (Jake’s) naked buttocks. This is uploaded to Ann’s computer screen. She returns and re-opens her computer to be greeted with the full-screen photograph of her boss’s naked buttocks. She screams in shock, laughs loudly and shouts (jocular) abuse at her boss and her colleagues who have surrounded her desk. Much laughter ensues from all.14
The described prank was typical of the many jokes that were observed and/or physically experienced in this organization. The CEO (pseudonym Jake) of this small, predominantly male IT organization identified himself as a “joker who loves humor” and he was similarly described by all of his employees. This practical joke exhibits several significant elements relevant to a critical agenda, specifically power, dominance and a gendered aspect predicated on the ideal of hegemonic masculinity.14 This organization was defined by an overtly masculine culture and one of the few women, Ann is subjected to a photograph of her male boss’s buttocks. She is definitely shocked and screams out loud in reaction—but quickly changes her protest into laughter when she realizes it’s a joke and her reaction is being observed. It is difficult to discern whether she was genuinely amused, embarrassed, or felt compelled to laugh at a prank enacted by her dominant, male boss. Adrian is also forced to comply in taking the photo, and this action could not be considered a typical or reasonable workplace task. The practical joke highlights the masculine and sexualized culture prevalent in this workplace, and the display of the boss’s buttocks could be considered sexual harassment of both Ann and Adrian.25 Elements of power and control are clearly discernible, and both employees must laugh and “take the joke” or risk being excluded from the organizational culture. The only recourse open to these employees would be to initiate legal action for sexual harassment, but as Jake is the owner and boss of the company this would be risky, time consuming, and probably fraught with stress. When questioned about his employees’ reactions to the incessant and confronting humor, Jake blithely responded: “If they don’t like it they can leave!” Laughing along is the safest and easiest option and Jake’s uncompromising response suggests that employees who do not accept such humor enactments will not be welcome in the organization and their only alternative is to “leave.”
p.232
One of the issues in the concept of humor is that what one person finds highly amusing and deeply funny is only mildly amusing or even offensive and outrageous to a different person or group.3 In other words, humor is highly ambiguous. In the IT organization, Jake the CEO uses this uncertainty to enact humor that he personally finds very funny and his contentious humor reinforces his power and domination over both work activities and organizational humor and fun. Jake has crafted a notorious identity as a powerful boss and as the “industry’s biggest joker” (participants’ words). Although a prank depicting bare buttocks is considered inappropriate in most corporate (Western) organizations, Jake uses the inherent ambiguity in humor to justify his sexualized display. By claiming “it’s just a joke” he coerces his subordinate employees to accept many similar displays. Most of the time his employees accept the “jokes” because not to do so risks termination of their employment and opposition carries the risk of further mocking and ridicule. Humor in the form of ridicule can be used to control and correct those who do not conform,13 and to complain about a joke one risks being deemed humorless and a “spoilsport.”3 Furthermore, Freud4 claims that sexualized humor allows a joker to “display himself” and that the “joke-work” offers safety from recriminations and condemnation.
Confidential interviews with employees of this company elicited expression of distaste at some of the humor that they felt compelled to endure. Humor was used by the powerful CEO to create a very specific and somewhat threatening organizational culture, ostensibly focused on fun and laughter—but simultaneously rife with control, aggression, sexuality, and domination. Control was achieved through the use of humor by the CEO and senior managers and employees were daily subjected to ridicule and mockery about all facets of working life. However, as a feature of this humor dynamic, workers also felt free to respond in kind and used some teasing humor back to their CEO. It was notable that the employees’ jokes and pranks were much more moderate than those instigated by the CEO. In some cases when an employee instigated a prank or a teasing joke towards a co-worker, the CEO joined in enthusiastically, encouraged the interaction and even escalated it—often adding extra profanity or derisory jibes.14 Thus, an effective way to invoke the boss’s approval was to create a prank or joke, particularly when targeted at a co-worker, and specific people seemed to receive more of the teasing, particularly the younger, less-experienced workers. Senior managers mimicked the CEO’s fondness for scatological and sexualized humor, and thus outrageous joking and physical jokes constantly permeated this workplace. Employees in this organization, accepted that participating in and even creating humor was a component of their job. There were rare occurrences when employees dared to complain, withhold laughter, or challenge the constant barrage of jokes, and such individuals were subsequently more ferociously mocked and derided (through “jokes” of course). During the research period two employees resigned, both stating that they could not tolerate this chaotic context any longer. The following quotes from employees reflect some of these complex dynamics:
p.233
It’s very important that people fit in. They need to fit in because you won’t be lasting very long if you didn’t like humor. You need someone to enjoy the culture, the tricks, the jokes and all that. It’s useless getting rid of non-fits.
(Sean, 25, Sales Consultant)
Someone who can’t handle the culture or take the jokes is never going to really loosen up and become part of the team, and the team is a very important part of the job, being able to work with other people, etc. There are a couple of people I thought were very hard to break them in, they did eventually fit in but it took them a little while to loosen up. The culture can be a little overwhelming for new people.
(Pete, 35, Engineering Manager)
Someone will have to be able to take jokes. That would be quite important, if they can’t then they won’t enjoy it and we won’t like working with them, because this is a fun kind of place.
(Adrian, 24, Engineer)
The humor can be a bit disturbing. A lot of the humor that I have seen is about putting someone or something down. Adrian for example, is the butt of a lot of jokes, mainly because he comes across as being really innocent and unable to stand up for himself. He gets a little upset every now and then and people pull back.
(Dylan, 34, Sales Consultant)14
The humor here is very crude, crass, rude, toilet humor. I don’t know anywhere else the humor is that much in the gutter—it’s better than no humor though. Whatever skeletons someone has—we will dig it all out. It’s the nature of humor—the Koreans are the butt of jokes and get the piss taken out of them and ragged on—but they love it. Jake initiates it—so it’s top down. Jake definitely creates the humor.
(Karen, 26, Sales Consultant)14
Although interpretations may be ambiguous, these quotes seem to emphasize the point that employees must accept the workplace jokes and “tricks” (referring to actual physical pranks, of which there were many) in order to be integrated into the workplace culture. These quotes were strongly backed up by the great number of pranks, jokes, humorous emails, and displays that were observed and experienced while researching this company. There is a sinister undertone in Dylan’s quote when he talks about “getting rid of non-fits,” suggesting that workers who are not part of the humor must be dismissed. Sean talks of “breaking people in,” and from my participant observations I noted that this occurred through a series of practical jokes played on a newcomer whereby they were teased, tricked, and then assessed as to their reactions and ability to take the humor. Upon observing a newcomer cope with a series of pranks involving toilet humor (fart jokes, stink bombs, and an electronic machine making simulated flatulence noises) I noticed that she very quickly developed strategies for coping with the constant jokes. Her strategies included laughing heartily at pranks whilst also retaliating with vigorous jocular abuse towards her co-workers, even when the jokes became very rude or profane. Such wholehearted embracing of the humor and fun helped her become “one of the boys” quite rapidly.26
p.234
Karen and Dylan (above) describe the humor as crass and disturbing and involving “putdowns,” “taking the piss” and “being ragged on.” These phrases imply that mocking, deriding, and somewhat confrontational humor is the norm in this organization. All of the IT employees identified the CEO as the instigator and main protagonist of humor and fun, and as owner/operator he was also the most powerful person in this organization. Thus, Jake seemed to enjoy total freedom to inflict any form of humor that he liked on his hapless staff. It was notable that humor in this organization was profane, highly sexual, homophobic, racist, and seemingly lacking in normal societal constraints or those limitations expected in typical corporate organizations. In Karen’s words the humor is “top down” and therefore the elements of power and control permeate the humor and fun, and the coercive elements of “join in . . . or leave” are felt by all organizational members. Although earlier research suggests that workers can express dissatisfaction at managerial actions through using humor,27 and also that satire may be used to ridicule managers or authority28 in this IT organization, humor is used by a powerful manager to control subordinate employees and display his dominance, sexuality, and aggression.14 The appropriation of humor makes such power less obvious because it is hidden behind the flamboyant, exuberant jokes and employees’ reactions are tightly controlled because laughter is mandatory and career-enhancing.
Although humor was blatantly co-opted by management in this organization, some of these effects were also seen in less overt ways in other, larger organizations where humor was enthusiastically encouraged and fun was prescribed as an organizational value or desired attribute. The following section highlights that although fun and humor are endorsed and explicitly encouraged, they are also very much controlled by management, who take an active role in deciding what constitutes fun, humor, and good taste. Additionally, management also decide which humor and fun is deemed to have “crossed the line” and become an organizational transgression.29
Management controlling humor
The first tranche of interview quotes (below) all originate from a large and prestigious law firm where senior management promoted the notion that this was a fun company. By promoting fun at work, management sought to differentiate the company from their competitors, especially in regards to recruiting top university graduates, and thus the fun element was prominently emphasized in recruitment brochures. The following four employees discuss their reactions to being labeled a fun company:
I think we want to tell people that we are a fun organization but they can’t use that word “fun” because that would be downright lying. We are not really a culture around fun, we don’t have a value called fun but I know that HR are very aware of that. They sort of are trying to bring on people that might create that fun or introduce that fun.
(Kim, 37, Marketing Manager)
p.235
Interestingly enough we are trying to get a bit more of our humor out there to the guys who have come on board—a lot are very straight-laced. If you have a bit of fun you will find your work a lot more enjoyable. You need a release and you’ve got to have a laugh . . . Join in and have fun then work is more tolerable.
(Clinton, 42, Law Partner)
Obviously there are some inappropriate things as well as appropriate things and they are restricting what comes in (via email and the internet) and there are some things that aren’t appropriate that come in but then again they still let us have a little bit of fun.
(John, 26, IT Manager)
Humor is important, I seem to be the loudest—I think I am. I have only been told off once by my boss—oh no twice! I don’t think there is enough humor.
(Amber, 25, Marketing Assistant)
There is palpable tension in these interview responses, and the first comment from Kim was made quite ferociously as she discussed the perceived untruth in representing the organization as a fun place. Later in the same interview Kim pointed out that because law firms account for their time and bill in six-minute increments, it is hard, if not impossible, to find the time to create or participate in fun activities, even though the organization aspires to be known for its fun culture. During her interview, Kim laughed ironically at management’s attempt to depict this organization as a fun company. Although these law employees acknowledge that fun and humor make work more enjoyable, they indicate that there is strong managerial control around what constitutes fun and they strongly suggest that this is a matter for management (or HR) to decide and articulate. John indicates that permission for fun comes from management in his comment “they still let us have a little bit of fun,” and Amber clearly indicates that she has been reprimanded for her humor, twice. Therefore, although this organization publicly promotes its so-called fun culture, employees perceive significant managerial control regarding when, where, and what type of activities constitute acceptable fun. Thus, the possibility of any authentic and genuine fun is minimal and the only type of fun likely to occur in this law firm is that which is managerially created and endorsed.
Similarly, the excerpts below also support the notion that management define and control fun and humor in this large financial institution. These respondents also refer to reprimands (“smack your hand”) for perceived transgressions and they suggest that in this workplace, fun is careful, politically correct, appropriate, and dispensed by management (“handed out”). Fun is encouraged and ardently espoused in this organization but only if it remains within prescribed “professional” boundaries.29 Transgressing these managerially endorsed boundaries brings about recriminations and disciplinary action.
Fun is definitely part of the culture . . . I think humor is always there in the background, because I think we do have a corporate-type company. Emails and dodgy jokes going around are frowned on if it is too politically incorrect. I think there is an unspoken understanding that people are careful with what they are sending and to whom.
(Fred, 32, Customer Services Adviser)
They’ll certainly hand out the fun themselves which is kind of nice. But if you think you can do something that’s inappropriate that shouldn’t happen then they’ll smack your hand.
(Fred, 32, Customer Services Adviser)
p.236
On the first day I came in they were all about having fun but they really do define some things such as what clothes you can wear. They do encourage the whole fun thing but there is a definite line there and as much as we do joke about it is still very professional.
(Paul, 25, Customer Service Adviser)
I think there is a line fully, and as much as it [humor] is encouraged and again just based on our team and our management. Our managers they have fun with us, it’s great for the team, we all have a laugh and a joke, but I think everyone knows where the line is . . . You know where the line is with management because there is a line and you can’t go over it. When you’ve gone beyond the line and are spoken to I think that is when you really know you’ve crossed the line where you shouldn’t go.
(Paul, 25, Customer Service Adviser)
Thus, it seems that organizational members desire the creation and encouragement of workplace humor and fun, but at the same time management feel the need to ensure that it is firmly controlled and monitored. Obviously, management teams understand the capacity of humor and fun to create issues and disharmony and thus perceive a definite need to manage these potentially chaotic workplace dynamics. One could then question if the so-called fun activities that are organizationally manufactured are actually perceived as fun by any employees, or do such activities merely become just another imposed set of workplace demands that workers must respond to, enthusiastically endorse, and pretend to enjoy and relish? As found in the financial organization discussed above, employees can find themselves assessed on their commitment to and application of company values, and thus when fun is an espoused value, not only is work performance evaluated but also workers’ fun performances and participation. Therefore it could be interpreted that for many workers, fun (and by association humor) must be embraced, endured, and outwardly enjoyed, yet it is management who decides what constitutes fun and humor. Being forced to have fun and laugh at work may be humiliating30 and even unendurable when combined with stressful work demands and constraints, yet it is overwhelmingly assumed that having a fun culture or encouraging laughter at work is both desirable and beneficial in modern workplaces.7, 11 Forced fun and humor then may become yet another task on the long “to do” list of harried but smiling workers. Sometimes the only way to resist such imperatives is to develop a wry or satirical sense of humor, and workers may cope with the demands of too much fun, or unfunny humor, through either non-responsiveness such as “unlaughter”11, 13 or by using alternative humor forms to mock, challenge, or resist the managerial fun perspective and cultivate their own voice.22, 24
Resisting managerial directives through joking
Management cannot prescribe all behavior and expression, and one great asset of humor (and fun) is that it is freely available to all and can be used to resist managerial directives and demands. Psychological research suggests that using humor provides a safety shield whereby a person can jokingly make an aimed point that is understood, but the recipient of the jibe cannot easily react negatively to something presented in the guise of joke-work.4 Thus humor can be dark, biting, derisory, and sometimes unkind. It can also be clever and quick-witted and make people laugh which may mitigate bad feelings towards organizational edicts or developments. Humor can allow people to save face32 and can soften harsh criticisms, and can be effectively used by both workers and managers as a way of releasing pent up emotions caused by work events. Humor and fun activities can also go horribly wrong and cause distress, offense, and negative consequences, but if the resultant distress is not too severe jokers may be able to retract or distance themselves from adverse reactions by claiming the “only joking” defense—but this is not always successful.
p.237
People have differing communicative abilities and within all of the organizations studied, I have identified specific people who are more skilled at humor use. I call this group the jokers, and their organizational colleagues also easily and consistently identify these characters. Not only do the jokers use humor to insulate themselves from organizational occurrences, but they also have a tendency to create quips and jokes that make others feel better, and they provide light-hearted relief from tension and pressure.18 The jokers play an important social role within organizations, as they use humor to soften difficult interactions, relieve tension, sometimes challenge managerial directives, and they alleviate boredom associated with dull repetitive work tasks.33
These final examples illustrate two different organizational jokers pushing back against managerial directives and expectations, relieving the tension for all involved.
The sales meeting is tense and uncomfortable and sales results are not ideal, a long way beneath the forecasts. The CEO is unhappy and terse and questions each team member in turn, asking sharply what their sales figure is compared to what they had forecast for the quarter. Everyone looks tense and unhappy. Finally his gaze comes to rest on Zac, who also has poor results. Zac earnestly and seriously justifies why his sales figures are low, but with steel in his voice the CEO firmly restates Zac’s forecast figure and then cites Zac’s much lower actual result. With his prior justification not making any impact on the CEO’s displeasure, Zac (a frequent joker) gives up trying to explain and instead quips: “Oh well, I’m revising next week’s forecast to zero sales!”3
The room erupts into loud laughter at Zac’s joke, which relieves the very tense atmosphere in the room. The laughter was heartier perhaps than the joke warranted, but the CEO also joins the laughter and then he changes the discussion to a new topic. Zac’s well-timed quip has distracted the censorious manager from his recriminations and has obliquely challenged the CEO. Zac has jokingly suggested that the only way to escape chastisement for poor sales results is to forecast that he will make no sales, thus any sales he makes will be considered a good result. The quip protects Zac by distracting the CEO and at the same time sends the message that the workers are not enjoying this public dressing down and that they might have to take drastic steps to avoid future rebukes. The quip does not change the power dynamic or the imperative to improve sales but it does effect a change of subject, and Zac’s colleagues’ hearty laughter shows their support and endorsement of this mild jocular challenge to the CEO’s behavior.
The example below, from one of the large IT organizations, exemplifies a similar dynamic whereby workers suggest to their manager that they will only follow his instructions if they feel like doing so. The quip suggests that these workers have an alternative choice, which is to disobey the directive. In this scenario, the manager (Colin), one of the most senior staff in the organization, quietly but firmly requests that his staff complete some specific work tasks:
Colin: “Can you guys please get these orders sorted out and send them off before the end of the day. Thanks, this is really important”
Mac (joker): “we might do it . . . if we feel like it . . .”3
p.238
Initially Colin seems quite startled by Mac’s seemingly challenging response. Once he realizes that Mac is joking, Colin joins the laughter of his subordinates and a cheerful atmosphere prevails. As the group joker, Mac has indirectly challenged Colin’s directive (phrased as a question but constituting a demand nonetheless). By suggesting that the subordinate workers will only complete the tasks if they “feel like it,” Mac has implied the possibility of free choice and worker resistance. Framing this mild challenge in a joke format creates a type of mock resistance because Mac and his colleagues know that they must complete these tasks as they are relevant to their continued employment. The humor comes from the incongruity created in Mac responding as if he really has a choice, making everyone laugh. No actual resistance or challenge to the manager’s power is constituted in the joke, just the subtle reminder that noncompliance is an option, even if it is unlikely to occur.
These two observations exemplify effects that are consistent throughout my research. Self-nominated jokers are skilled in their humor use and through joking comments are able to respond to hierarchical power through suggesting alternative courses of action that might be considered by subordinate workers. Although the joking suggestion of a contradictory workplace response does not constitute a true challenge to authority, it does allow workers a voice and at least presents the notion that alternative actions can be contemplated. Joking also relieves tension that is created in overtly powerful scenarios (such as the censorious sales meeting). Laughter may be created from the incongruity that occurs when managerial discourse involving performance, tasks, and actions is disrupted by the cognitive mind shift required to consider alternative responses—as suggested by the quips. Jokes such as this have the additional advantage of mitigating managerial hubris by reminding managers with controlling positions that workers still retain free will and can make choices about whether or not to comply with directives. Although a challenge may be implied, the use of humor in these everyday work situations does not constitute serious defiance and therefore both managers and workers save face and may even experience shared goodwill as they join the collegial laughter.
Concluding remarks
Humor may be enjoyable and pleasurable but it can also be dark, aggressive, and disturbing. It is inadvisable to entirely attribute positively functional and optimistic attributes to workplace jokes because humor may also convey unpleasant sentiments and can contain derision and mocking. Thus it is important to understand and explore the dark elements of humor. In the workplace, dark humor may be closely associated with organizational elements of patriarchy, dominance, and power. Humor may shield authority figures as they enact hegemonic practices that oppress and subjugate subordinate workers, powerless to react in any way other than with (seemingly) supportive laughter. Therefore some humor is threatening, challenging, and dangerous and when enacted by a powerful organizational actor, this humor may be overwhelming and insurmountable for vulnerable workers.
However, workers can also use humor to jokingly defy managerial directives and actions and may lightly mock some actions and pronouncements, using the protection of a joking framework to escape disapproval. Of course, joking resistance does not actually change the organizational situation34 but humor can at least allow workers some release of tension and frustration through having voiced their opposition, albeit in a joking manner. While humor may not alter workplace objectives and power structures it can disrupt and divert managerial discourse, and workers may experience a momentary feeling of freedom from control and domination.
p.239
Critical aspects of workplace humor are difficult to access, analyze, and interpret. There are few such organizational studies and therefore the components of power, control, dominance, and hegemony are scarce in organizational humor research. This chapter offers a distinctive critical approach to workplace humor based on unique, rich, ethnographic data, and such approaches are uncommon in the current literature. This critical analysis problematizes workplace humor and fun and thus could be considered rather dark and dour. Of course, plenty of genuine, pleasant humor and fun occurs inside organizations and this is well-documented in a wide variety of studies. The point of difference for this current chapter is to explore the less-common aspects of power, control and resistance enacted through humor and fun. Humor is sometimes used to openly display power, control, and hegemonic masculinity and such behavior may be based on the overarching (but erroneous) assumption that all humor is good humor.
References
1 Collinson, D. L. (2002). Managing humour. Journal of Management Studies, 39(3), 269–289.
2 Westwood, R. & Rhodes, C. (Eds.). (2007). Humour, work and organisation. London: Routledge.
3 Plester, B. A. (2015a). The complexity of workplace humour: Laughter, jokers and the dark side. Dordrecht: Springer.
4 Freud, S. (1905). Jokes and their relation to the unconscious (A. Richards, Trans. 1991). London: Penguin.
5 Tracy, S. J., Myers, K. K., & Scott, W. (2006). Cracking jokes and crafting selves: Sensemaking and identity management among human service workers. Communication Monographs, 73(3), 283–308.
6 Cooper, C. (2005). Just joking around? Employee humor expression as an ingratiatory behaviour. The Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 765–776.
7 Cooper, C. (2008). Elucidating the bonds of workplace humor: A relational process model. Human Relations, 61(8), 1087–1115.
8 Kunda, G. (1992). Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
9 Linstead, S. (1985). Jokers wild: The importance of humour in the maintenance of organisational culture. Sociological Review, 13(3), 741–767.
10 Holmes, J. & Marra, M. (2002). Having a laugh at work: How humour contributes to workplace culture. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(12), 1683–1710.
11 Billig, M. (2005a). Laughter and ridicule: Towards a social critique of humour. London: Sage.
12 Billig, M. (2005b). Violent racist jokes. In S. Lockyer & M. Pickering (Eds.), Beyond a joke: The limits of humour, 27–46. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
13 Butler, N. (2015). Joking aside: Theorizing laughter in organizations. Culture and Organization, 21(1), 42–58.
14 Plester, B. A. (2015b). Take it like a man! Performing hegemonic masculinity through organizational humour. ephemera, 15(3), 537–559.
15 Critchley, S. (2007). Humour as practically enacted theory, or, why critics should tell more jokes. In R. Westwood & C. Rhodes (Eds.), Humour, work and organization, 17–32. London: Routledge.
16 Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor. An integrative approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
17 Plester, B. A. & Sayers, J. G. (2007). Taking the piss: The functions of banter in three IT companies. Humor, 20(2), 157–187.
18 Plester, B. A. & Orams, M. B. (2008). Send in the clowns: The role of the joker in three New Zealand IT companies. Humor, 21(3), 253–281.
19 Bergson, H. (1911). Laughter. An essay on the meaning of the comic (C. Brereton & F. Rothwell, Trans. 1935 ed.). London: Macmillan & Co.
p.240
20 Westwood, R. & Johnston, A. (2012). Reclaiming authentic selves: Control, resistive humour and identity work in the office. Organization, 19(6), 787–808.
21 Fleming, P. (2009). Authenticity and the cultural politics of work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22 Warren, S. & Fineman, S. (2007). “Don’t get me wrong, it’s fun here, but...” Ambivalence and paradox in a “fun” work environment. In R. Westwood & C. Rhodes (Eds.), Humour, work and organisation, 92–112. London: Routledge.
23 Fleming, P. & Sturdy, A. (2009). “Just be yourself!” Towards neo-normative control in organisations? Employee Relations, 31(6), 569–583.
24 Parker, M. (2007). The little book of management bollocks: Kitsch artefacts. In R. Westwood & C. Rhodes (Eds.), Humour, work and organisation, 77–91. London: Routledge.
25 Collinson, M. & Collinson, D. (1996). It’s only dick: The sexual harassment of women managers in insurance sales. Work, Employment & Society, 10(1), 29–56.
26 Fine, G. A. & De Soucey, M. (2005). Joking cultures: Humor themes as social regulation in group life. Humor, 18(1), 1–22.
27 Rodrigues, S. B. & Collinson, D. L. (1995). “Having fun?” Humour as resistance in Brazil. Organisation Studies, 16(5), 739–768.
28 Taylor, P. & Bain, P. (2003). “Subterranean worksick blues”: Humour as subversion in two call centres. Organisation Studies, 24(9), 1487–1509.
29 Plester, B. A. (2009). Crossing the line: Boundaries of workplace humour and fun. Employee Relations, 31(6), 584–599.
30 Fleming, P. (2005). Worker’s playtime? Boundaries and cynicism in a “Culture of fun” program. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(3), 285–303.
31 Owler, K., Morrison, R., & Plester, B. (2010). Does fun work? The complexity of promoting fun at work. Journal of Management and Organization, 16(3), 338–352.
32 Holmes, J. (2000). Politeness, power and provocation: How humour functions in the workplace. Discourse Studies, 2(2), 159–185.
33 Roy, D. (1959). “Banana time”: Job satisfaction and informal interaction. Human Organisation Studies, 18, 158–168.
34 Westwood, R. (2004). Comic relief: Subversion and catharsis in organisational comic theatre. Organisation Studies, 25(5), 775–795.