FRONTSPIECE
INTRODUCTION
LITERATURE
FOUNDATION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
APPENDICES |
Recently, research interest in the general area of emotions has experienced a renewal. Donald
Gibson (1995) has written about emotional scripts, Howie Weiss (1996) has investigated the effects
of affect in the workplace and Kevin Daniels (1998) has written about the impact of emotions in
strategic planning. Some authors have revisited the fit between the emotionality of job candidates
and the emotion-provoking characteristics of the jobs themselves (Arvey, Renz, & Watson, 1998) while
others have addressed international differences in the affect experienced at work (Iwata et al., 1998).
Much of this work has focused on the negative emotions (Han, Weed, Calhoun, & Butcher, 1995; Mano,
1999; McConnell, Niedermeier, Leibold, & El-Alayli, 2000; Nabi, 1998; Schaubroeck, Judge, & Taylor
III, 1998) and their undesirable consequences (Griffin, Kelly, & Collins, 1998; Kuiper, Olinger, &
Martin, 1988; Pelled & Xin, 1999). Some work takes a more balanced approach to both positive and
negative affect (Abele & Rank, 1994; Bohner, Crow, Erb, & Schwarz, 1992; Burke, Brief, George, &
Roberson, 1989; Cropanzano, James, & Konovsky, 1993; Daniels, 1998; Keating & Kuykendall, 1990;
Mittal & Ross Jr., 1998; Njus, Nitschke, & Bryant, 1996; Petty, Richman, Schumann, & Strathman,
1993; Russell & Carroll, 1999; Sharma, 1999; Shaw, Duffy, Jenkins Jr., & Gupta, 1999; Watson &
Slack, 1993). Some work even focuses specifically on positive affect (Crooker & Near, 1998; DeNeve &
Cooper, 1998; Isen, Daubman, & Nowicki, 1987; Tierney, 1991; Yoon & Lim, 1999).
This author prefers to devote a life of study to more positive experiences, and one of these is humor.
Humor is a ubiquitous phenomenon that has been discussed by many of our best thinkers. Investigations
of humor have existed as least since the time of Aristotle. Like any human experience, humor also
appears occasionally as an issue at work. Its behavioral manifestation, laughter, is credited with
boosting the immune system, providing a form of exercise, and building communities when shared. A
sense of humor is thought to provide a healthy perspective on psychological problems and to help
with creative problem solving.
Leadership charisma (Avolio, Howell, & Sosik, 1999) and flexibility (Gelkopf & Kreitler, 1996)
can be enhanced with the judicious use of humor. It makes the job atmosphere pleasant and vents
stress that may otherwise turn into aggression (Decker, 1987). Ambient humor (e.g., jokes sent
on facsimile machines) can be gathered and analyzed as an indicator of job satisfaction or to
identify unpopular people and groups (Bennett, 1991). The prevalence and type of humorous
interaction in teams can be used as a measure of the level of intimacy they have achieved
(Banning & Nelson, 1987).
Humor consultants report that there is a humor movement, and indeed many companies espouse the
importance of a fun workplace. The idea promises to instill loyalty and commitment in workers made
cynical by routine layoffs; to increase motivation without much investment or power-sharing. Humor
is thought to support team cohesion (today's substitute for company loyalty), and a fun workplace
is known to be more attractive to expensive and needed technical workers.
However, most companies (96%) do not employ humor consultants (Mercer survey, 1999) and there may
be two main reasons for this. One is that the claims for humor's effectiveness seem exaggerated and untested,
and the other is that use of humor in the workplace has real pitfalls that can counteract its benefits.
Unfortunately, many of the claims for the effectiveness of humor are made by those who profit from its
use, such as humor consultants and advertising agencies. Practitioners substitute enthusiasm for rigor,
sprinkling their writing with phrases like research has established and research has shown, without
offering citations. Those familiar with humor research often recognize such claims as unscientific.
One advocate, for example, tells the story of an advertising campaign for Lavoris mouthwash in Quebec
(Middleton & Dalla Costa, 1997, p. 42-3). The sponsor hired a clown named Oncle Georges as its
spokesperson. Georges' endorsement of the product led to strong sales results. The authors attribute
this success to the fact that the Oncle Georges was a humorist. However, it is clear from the story that
Oncle Georges was also renowned for his frank talk. It was almost certainly this reputation that
bolstered his credibility. Had Oncle Georges hosted a radio talk show with frank talk and no humor, his
credibility might have been just as strong; an alternate hypothesis that the writers blissfully ignore
in their enthusiasm for humor. This is just the sort of unreflective polemic that makes humor advocacy
seem irresponsible.
Not only are the benefits of using humor in doubt, but the pitfalls of its misuse are quite salient.
Humor is delicate and, except in cases of natural ability, cannot be used successfully without training
and practice. The over-use of humor can reduce a speaker's credibility or lead to task avoidance. Sooner
or later, the spontaneous use of humor is bound to offend a client, boss, or member of an under-privileged
group (Morgenson, 1989). This can result in expensive lawsuits (Fitzgerald, 1988) and soiled reputations
(The new office etiquette., 1993). Even when most people find the humor acceptable, some onlookers may
be offended (Bergmann, 1986). This is especially difficult to manage as the workplace becomes more
heterogeneous and it can no longer be assumed that listeners will understand a joker's intentions.
Humor, of course, is not a new phenomenon in business. In the areas of training and advertising,
humor has long been counted upon to relax trainees and aid recall. There is a large body of research
analyzing the effectiveness of humor in advertising different types of products (e.g., Weinberger &
Gulas, 1992; Zinkhan & Gelb, 1990). In all these cases, humor is being used to support communications
that attempt to persuade others. Accordingly, this study takes as its focus the effectiveness of humor
in persuasion. This work follows in the footsteps of earlier researchers on the topic (e.g., Kennedy,
1972; Kilpela, 1961; Markiewicz, 1973).
Previous research on the effectiveness of humor in persuasion has produced conflicting and
inconclusive results. There have been untrustworthy positive results due to poor specification of
constructs, inadequate controls for internal validity, and irresponsible use of statistical analysis.
There have been untrustworthy negative results due to sterile laboratory conditions, failure to
develop specific predictions grounded in theory, and equivocation among types of humor (Markiewicz, 1974).
To address these issues, the separate literatures on humor, humor in the workplace, and persuasion are reviewed. Characterizations of humor and humorous interaction are developed and discussed. A conceptual foundation is laid and propositions are generated about which types of humor will be effective and when. This is an attempt to go beyond empirical generalizations to the development and testing of theory.
An experiment is designed to test these propositions. It takes advantage of The Ethics Challenge, a board game used by Lockheed Martin to persuade its employees to consult company officials when faced with an ethical dilemma. The research design achieves maximum internal validity and rigorously tests causal relationships. Statistical analyses are sensitive to very small effects.
This study, like all studies, is based on certain presumptions that flow primarily from the perspective
of the investigator. This study is concerned with humor rather than laughter. While the humor background
addresses the nature of humor, it is the effectiveness of humor that is the focus of the
experiment. The study focuses on individuals (rather than groups, organizations, or society) and takes
a psychological perspective. It does not address notions of social construction or gender and
diversity issues except as they naturally arise in the course of the investigation.
|
|
