Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Instructions for authors, subscriptions and further details:
http://ijelm.hipatiapress.com
Utilizing Humor to Enhance Leadership Styles in Higher
Education Administration
Beverlyn E. Grace-Odeleye & Jessica Santiago1
1) University of Pennsylvania. United States
Date of publication: July 16th, 2019
Edition period: July 2018 - July 2019
To cite this article: Grace-Odeleye, B. E. & Santiago, J. (2019). Utilizing
Humor to Enhance Leadership Styles in Higher Education Administration.
International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 7(2), 171-
202. DOI:10.17583/ijelm.2019.3912
To link this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.17583/ijelm.2019.3912
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
The terms and conditions of use are related to the Open Journal System and
to Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL).
IJELM – International Journal of Educational Leadership and
Management Vol. 7 No. 2 July 2019 pp. 171-202
2019 HipatiaPress
ISSN: 2014-9018
DOI: 10.17583/ijelm.2019.3912
Utilizing Humor to Enhance Leadership
Styles in Higher Education Administration
Beverlyn E. Grace-Odeleye
East Stroudsburg University
Jessica Santiago
East Stroudsburg University
Abstract
This review examined the literature addressing humor as a potential trait that may
enhance leadership styles in higher educational administration. It provides an
overview of current humor research from several disciplines of major contemporary
leadership theories and styles in higher educational administration and develop and
propose a theoretical link between humor as functional management communication
for enhancement to other leadership characteristics. The framework developed in this
analysis offer a suitable range of humor and its implications for leadership and
leadership development in university environments for more effective leadership
competencies to manage the multi-dimensional intricacies and practicalities.
Additionally, the review provides strategic insights, and practical ways of
incorporation of humor into leadership styles in higher education administration along
with suggestions for further empirical exploration on relationships of humor and
leadership effectiveness.
Keywords: Higher educational administration leadership, humor, competencies,
transformation, leadership theories and practice
IJELM – International Journal of Educational Leadership and
Management Vol. 7 No. 2 July 2019 pp. 171-202
2019 HipatiaPress
ISSN: 2014-9018
DOI: 10.17583/ijelm.2019.3912
Uso del humor para Mejorar los Estilos de
Liderazgo en la Educación Superior
Beverlyn E. Grace-Odeleye Jessica Santiago
East Stroudsburg University East Stroudsburg University
Resumen
Esta revisión examina la literatura que aborda el humor como un rasgo potencial que
puede mejorar los estilos de liderazgo en la dirección escolar de la Educación
Secundaria. Proporciona una visión general de la investigación actual del humor en
varias disciplinas y en las principales teorías y estilos de liderazgo contemporáneo en
la dirección de la educación superior. Desarrolla y propone un vínculo teórico entre
el humor como comunicación de gestión funcional para mejorar otras características
del liderazgo. El desarrollo del marco teorico ofrece un análisis del humor y sus
implicaciones para el liderazgo y el desarrollo del liderazgo en entornos universitarios
para que las competencias de liderazgo sean más efectivas para gestionar las
complejidades y aspectos prácticos multidimensionales. Además, la revisión
proporciona perspectivas estratégicas y formas prácticas para incorporar el humor en
los estilos de liderazgo en la administración de la educación superior, junto con
sugerencias para una exploración empírica adicional sobre las relaciones del humor y
la eficacia del liderazgo.
Palabras clave: Dirección escolar en educación superior, humor, competencias,
transformación, teorías y prácticas de liderazgo.
IJELM– International Journal Educational Leadership & Management, 7(2) 173
here has been a growing interest in the role of leadership within
higher education institutions administrations and leadership in recent
years, driven by the occurring contextual shifts and new challenges
including globalization of higher education, diversity of the students
population and the “customer” services they require, the assortment of the
core teaching and research activities of the institution, and the comparable
change in management functions of colleges observed since the 1980s (Amey,
2006; Astin & Astin, 2000; Drew, Ehrich & Hansford, 2008).
A number of academic disciplines mostly from the business domains
enlightens higher educational leadership and services professional theories
and practice. These theories of management, human resources, marketing,
educational research, and leadership studies underlies the effective
administration and leadership of the wide variety of higher educational
leadership styles that drives innovative students’ services. Current
frameworks of leadership in the Higher Education sector however do not
encompass all of the behaviors expressed in established leadership literature
given the major differences between the business or non-academic and the
academic world. Leadership roles in academic institutions have a number of
differences; whilst traditional senior executive roles (e.g. Vice-Chancellor,
Chief Executive, President, Vice-President, pro-Vice Chancellor) resonate
with roles encountered in other sectors, academic leadership roles (such as
Deans, Heads of School or Department Chairperson) are unusual and
commonly have complications that are transitory, rotating or secondment
nature of leadership role-holders. Also, traditionally in some situations,
leadership roles are given on an almost honorary basis and conferred by
academic productivity, other non-traditional leadership basis or to the most
senior or established professor (Davies, Hides, & Casey, 2001).
Administrative and leadership faculty positions usually combine the role
of teacher, scholar, and researcher (Astin & Astin, 2000) all of which have
leadership responsibility in some form or other, either explicitly or implicitly
specified within the role. In addition to the nuanced challenges of these
traditional structural legacy, the demands and expansion of student numbers,
provision of “holistic student experience” for integrated learning, lifestyle,
T
IJELM– International Journal Educational Leadership & Management, 7(2) 174
social and developmental provision to students demands, a highly woven
arrangement of work between academic and service departments, increased
marketization and student choice (Davies, Hides, & Casey, 2001) wield
pressures on higher educational institutions leadership on delivering with
operational efficiencies. Higher Education leaders need a combination of
leadership, academic and management competencies to address challenges
faced using new models of leadership styles focused on novel leadership
concepts, models, and practices specific to higher educational administration
(Alexander, 2000).
This new model of leadership characteristics and behaviors is needed to
“lubricate” the social complex machinery of higher educational institutions,
provide the flexibility needed to work through many unforeseen
contingencies, and help employees in the organization cope with the awesome
tasks of promotion of interdependence of all units within and outside the
institution – for example, interaction with state and federal government
legislatures, research and grant funding agencies, and parents and students’
concerns.
Effective leadership is required at all levels of institution’s administration
to navigate, survive and thrive these changes in college and university
administration and delivery services, differentiate the conceptual, strategic,
and operational dimensions to leadership education. This need for a new
paradigm of leadership is higher education administration is supported by
studies that show strong correlations between leadership management styles
and performance in higher education institutions and in open systems (Kieu,
2010; Black, 2015), the practical use of humor as contributory qualities for
effective leaders remain to be fully elucidated empirically (Holmes & Marra,
2006).
This gap in knowledge within the diversity of student services and
outcomes does not allow for the informed promotion and/or adoption of
specific leadership models and best practices. Therefore, policy makers lack
the evidence that serve as the basis for the support of specific approaches to
leadership training or follows a practical manual for incorporation of best
IJELM– International Journal Educational Leadership & Management, 7(2) 175
practices into the development, implementation and assessment of student
affairs leadership training programs (Gigliotti, 2017; Gigliotti & Ruben, 2017;
Gmelch & Buller, 2015).
Communication at the strategic, teams and external levels is at the core of
mandatory skills for leadership (Ruben & Gigliotti, 2017; Miller, 2019). The
subject of humor as a powerful tool in effective leadership communication has
been defined and used in a range of literatures like applied psychology
(Cooper, 2005; Warren & McGraw, 2016); relationship to team or group
effectiveness, and work groups integration and socialization (Romero &
Pescosolido, 2008; Mak, Liu & Deneen, 2012); communications and teaching
tool (Riesh, 2014; Chiew, Mathies & Patterson, 2019); leadership style and
performance (Mao, Chiang, Zhang & Gao, 2017). Although studies have
examined humor in leadership, the literature is most often conceptual, and
does not empirically examine the value of humor in leadership for service
organizations (Slåtten, Svensson, & Sværi, 2011).
A purpose of this review is to provide links between models of educational
management leadership styles and the use of humor – as forms of
communication, by more effective leadership for enhanced organizational
performance despite the parallel and sometimes interweaving evolution of
leadership ideologies. The essay focus on research on the effects of the two
major leadership contemporary leadership theories - distributed and
transformational leadership, on student services. It addresses the link between
leadership important traits and competency of leaders and attempt to evaluate
the contribution of the two theories to service improvement through an
examination of their limitations and weaknesses. The paper begins with an
overview of major students’ services and the major tenets under-guarding
good practices in the development of these services and examines the concepts
of leadership and outlines the definitions and theories of humor and research
about functional humor as related specifically to the leadership arena. Finally,
some practical methods are suggested on incorporating humor in leadership
practices.
IJELM– International Journal Educational Leadership & Management, 7(2) 176
Administration of Students’ Services Deliveries
A number of academic disciplines informs higher educational
administration leadership and services professional theory and practice. It
draws from research in psychology, sociology, mental and physical health
services, psychology, education research, management theories, sociology,
human resources, marketing, and leadership studies. Consequently, the latest
thinking, research, and practice of integration of knowledge from a diverse set
of areas of underpin the effectiveness of higher educational leadership that
focusses on building, integration and deliver effective student-centric services
and support students’ academic endeavors, enhancing their personal, social,
cultural and cognitive development.
Educational Leadership and Management Skills
The knowledge of students, the use of educational leadership models,
activities programming, and human resources must be crafted together to
define, support and expand the mission of effective student affairs and support
services. The mandatory leadership skills for higher educational leaders
minimally include the following:
(a) curriculum development and program design;
(b) budget development and resource allocation;
(c) program administration;
(d) effective operation within the context of institutional governance and
governmental policies;
(e) marketing of accomplishments;
(f) research, evaluation, assessment and knowledge of students;
(g) staff supervision and professional development;
(h) strategic planning, mission and vision development;
(i) legal dimensions of working with university/college students; and
(j) integration of appropriate technology into program/service delivery.
Therefore, there is a need for a flexible leadership and management style for
effective leadership to deliver in a diversified environment.
IJELM– International Journal Educational Leadership & Management, 7(2) 177
Leadership and Humor Theories and Research
Leadership, viewed from a functional approach involve strong elements of
communication and the practical use of humor presupposes some level of
knowledge, definitions and theories of humor. Theories and research about
functional humor as related specifically to communication and leadership
arena are presented and this article lists some observations and comments on
humor in leadership.
Communication in Leadership Theories
Leadership is a social influence process whereas leader typically refers to
a person who occupies a position within a group structure (Fisher, 1985).
Brilhart & Galanes (1989), Tannenbaum, Wechsler, & Massarik (1988) and
Hoy & Miskel (1991) defined leadership as interpersonal influence exercised
in a situation and directed through the communication process toward the
attainment of specified goals. Such widely accepted definition suggest that a
functional and theoretical perspective is integral for explaining leadership
process and describes a functional view of leadership with emphasis on the
communicative behaviors performed by leaders. The literature reveals five
primary viewpoints on leadership: trait, styles, situational or contingency,
power, and functional (Hoy & Miskel, 1991; Jensen & Chilberg, 1991;
Fashiku, 2016). Most contemporary prevailing theories of leadership adopt a
contingency approach (Adler, 1989) or a functional perspective (Jensen &
Chilberg, 1991). An effective leader needs to apply both transformational and
transactional leadership approaches (Bass & Avolio, 1993) depending on the
different individuals and tasks being undertaken at various points in time.
The practical challenge for the leader is to be able to perceive which elements
to manage within the context of each particular situation (e.g. people, task,
team, and other contextual information). From a contingency approach,
successful leadership requires both personal dimensions and situational
variables. That is, the best leadership style is flexible and allow leaders to
emphasize a task and manage relationship strategy appropriate to the
particular situation.
IJELM– International Journal Educational Leadership & Management, 7(2) 178
A functional view of leadership behaviors is performance-based rather
than descriptive of the traits or styles of leaders. Researchers using functional
perspective have stated two primary dimensions of leadership behaviors: task
and social (Fisher, 1980; Hoy & Miskel, 1991). Bales (1970) identified
specific categories of behaviors grouped into general dimensions of task
functions and socioemotional functions. Task functions move groups toward
task completion, whereas socioemotional roles are oriented toward the
functioning of the group responsible for tasks completion. Other studies have
reported distinctions between task and social leaders (Bales & Slater, 1955;
Burke, 1967, 1992), instrumental and expressive needs (Etzioni, 1965), goal
achievement and group maintenance objectives, between group task roles and
group building and maintenance roles (Holmes & Marra, 2002), and between
initiating structure and consideration functions (Hoy & Miskel, 1991).
Although earlier theorists suggested that mutually exclusive leadership
behaviors are necessary for task achievement and for group maintenance,
more recent researchers have proposed the two dimensions are interdependent
(Wheeless, Wheeless & Dickson-Markman, 1982). That is, every leadership
communication act reflects both a task and a social dimension. Therefore, the
functional perspective of leadership communication is concerned with task
and social behaviors that help groups function more effectively and
efficiently. This functional view has been applied to the use of humor as a
form of communication (Graham, Papa & Brooks, 1992).
Studies on leadership literature have reported the use of humor as an
important leadership skill and communication style for effective leadership.
Although some suggested that a sense of humor is simply a critical trait of
leaders (Robert, Dunne & Iun, 2015; Fisher & Robbin, 2014), others have
emphasized the functional role of humor (Wijewardena, Hartel &
Samaratunge, 2017) . For example, Crawford, Nerina & Caltabiano (2011)
and Valle, Kacmar, Micki &Andrews (2018) described humor as one of the
behaviors indicative of the harmonizing function of group maintenance. Cann
& Kuiper (2014) identified humor and laughing as representative of the
positive socioemotional function of showing psychological and tension
release, and improved organizational creativity (Lang & Lee, 2010). Fisher
(1980) and Firestein (1990) proposed that a humorous group member function
IJELM– International Journal Educational Leadership & Management, 7(2) 179
in an informative task and a harmonizing maintenance role. Brilhart &
Galanes (1989) cited the importance of humor as a leadership function that
help reduce tensions among group members, and improve positive personality
(Cann, Stilwell & Taku, 2010), Cann & Matson (2014), and concluded that
productive leaders need to see interjecting humor serve an important
communication choice for leaders.
Definitions and Theories of Humor
Humor is defined as a multi-paradigmatic, multi-faceted and systematic
process to elicit psychologic, neuropsychologic, social, and cognitive
reactions, evolutionary and developmental psychology, to the organizational
psychology, and many more (Pluta, 2003). Martineau (1972) described humor
more specifically as a distinctive type of medium of communication by which
persons convey information during interaction. Humor is complex,
multifaceted and manifests as jokes, puns, funny stories, laughter, banter,
teasing, satire, sarcasm, ironic remarks, ridicules, humorous behaviors and as
a stimulus response, and as disposition (Martin, 2007). Chapman & Foot
(1976) identified humor as a stimulus and any communication specifically
intended to provoke laughter or smiling, and as a stimulus from the context of
public speaking to convey critical information designed to elicit positive
reactions (Watson & Drew, 2017; Markiewicz, 1974). Scholars have
categorized types of humor as stimuli or described conditions under which
humor may be experienced (Rybacki & Rybacki, 1991). As a response, humor
has been defined as the amount of laughter or smiling observed in a situation
(Galloway, 2010) and humorous laughter as involuntary physical expression
of amusement (Morreall, 1987, 1991). Pluta, (2013) posited that laughter is
studied in tandem with humor, or elicitation of laughter. Many definitions and
theories of humor, intended to explain why a communication is funny, are
actually theories of laughter. In summary, a personality inclusive of
disposition and use of humor is considered a good leadership trait.
IJELM– International Journal Educational Leadership & Management, 7(2) 180
Theories of Humor
Humor theories have fallen into one of three broad theoretical perspectives:
superiority, incongruity, and relief theories (Foot, 1986; Haig, 1988; Morreall,
1987, 1991). Although no single theory is comprehensive to explain humor
alone, some combination of theories may adequately explain all aspects of the
phenomenon of humor (Kuhlman, 1985).
Superiority theories contend that all humor originates from the users’
feeling of perceived superiority over another or over previous situation. Foot,
(1986) and Morreall (1987) derision theory, suggested humor as the derived
glorification from grimaces called laughter, caused either by some sudden act
of their own that pleases them or by the apprehension of some deformed thing
in another. Much of the research that has examined humor from a superiority
perspective deals with aggressive, disparaging, and self- deprecating humor,
which elevates individuals above the target of the humor (Zillmann, 1983).
Incongruity theory perspective address the cognitive processes involved in
perceiving humor and reacting to incongruities from two primary directions.
The first direction suggests that humor results from the surprising discovery
of an incongruity itself while the second considers humor to be a reaction to
discovering two seemingly incongruous elements are actually related (Suls,
1983). Leaders should therefore ensure a connection of the joke to the tasks
and the incongruities involved in accomplishing the tasks.
The final perspective, relief theory, includes a variety of theories that fall
into psychological and physiological domains. A common ingredient among
these theories is that laughter is a release of repressed or unused energy.
Freud's psychoanalytic theory has been the most prominent of this type
(McGhee, 1979). Freud (1961) suggested that laughter is an outlet for psychic
or nervous energy, particularly sexual and aggressive inhibitions.
Additionally, two types of arousal theories have gained acceptance as theories
of humor and laughter (Godkewitsch, 1972; Langevin & Day, 1972). The first
approach is that humor itself raises the state of arousal, which causes pleasure;
to balance this arousal, the person laughs. The second approach is that an
individual is aroused to such an uncomfortable state by a joke or a situation
IJELM– International Journal Educational Leadership & Management, 7(2) 181
as it develops that the humorous punchline or ending, and therefore the
removal of the discomfort, causes pleasure and laughter. As Giles, Bourhis,
Gadfield, Davies & Davies (1976) theorized, failure to perceive or
comprehend the humor, and thus failure to relieve the discomfort would elicit
frustration. Leaders must therefore draw the fine line between these
approaches as they integrate the types and approach of humor into their
leadership styles within higher educational administration.
Types of Humor Affiliative Humor
Affiliative humor users joke around with others and attract them with
forms of humor that focus on enhancing social interaction. Examples of
affiliative humor include funny stories particular to a group, insider jokes, and
good-natured practical jokes that are traditionally played on people during
social events. Individuals who exhibit this behavior are liked by others and
are usually perceived as non-threatening (Vaillant, 1977). By utilizing this
style of non-hostile and affirming humor, one lessens interpersonal tensions
and aid in relationship building (Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray & Weir,
2003). Affiliative humor is like a social lubricant that facilitates interpersonal
interaction and creates positive environment. This approach is particularly
usable in higher educational leadership roles or professionals that design,
implement and oversee diverse programs in higher educational, and interact
heavily with students’ administration services.
Self-Enhancing Humor
People who exhibit self-enhancing humor have a humorous view of life
and are not overly distressed by its inevitable tribulations. This humor style is
a coping mechanism for dealing with stress, which assists in maintaining
positive perspective. Self-enhancing humor is negatively related to
neuroticism and positively related to self-esteem and favorable emotions.
This humor style is centered more on the individual when compared to
affiliative humor (Martin et al. 2003) and is very usable in higher educational
institution organizational leadership when the initiator’s intention is to
IJELM– International Journal Educational Leadership & Management, 7(2) 182
enhance the users’ image and experience relative to others in the group or
organization. Aggressive Humor
Aggressive humor often aims to manipulate others by means of an implied
threat of ridicule (Janes & Olsen 2000). Aggressive humor is used to
victimize, belittle, and cause others some type of disparagement (Zillman
1983). This style of humor is consistent with superiority theory, which
postulates people make themselves feel better at another’s expense to achieve,
or perceive that they have achieved higher rank or status (de Koning & Weiss,
2002). Aggressive humor is negatively related to agreeableness and
conscientiousness while positively related to neuroticism (Martin et al. 2003).
Mild Aggressive Humor
Mild aggressive humor can have positive functions as a trait or application
in enhancing leadership style. Studies have postulated that observing other
people being ridiculed is related to conforming behaviors, which is
constructive in cohesive teams’ building (Janes & Olsen 2000). When
manifested as satire or teasing, mild aggressive humor communicates a
forceful reprimanding message but with a humorous and positive tone (Meyer
1997, 2000). It also allows expression of disagreement and conflict without
the negative affect since the message is delivered in a playful manner (Kahn
1989). This humor type has applications in higher educational leadership traits
– especially in working with students that insist in having their ways despite
being privy to a fraction of the information for educational leaders and
administrators. Self-Defeating Humor
Utilizing self-defeating humor ridicule themselves in attempts to amuse
and seek acceptance from others (Martin, 2003). A position is that people who
use a moderate amount of this humor style often desire to reduce their status
level and make themselves more approachable. This is a desirable trait in
educational administration leadership where providing services to students is
paramount.
IJELM– International Journal Educational Leadership & Management, 7(2) 183
A Functional Perspective of Humor in Communication and Tasks Group
The section reviews some literature relevant to leadership and use of
humor from a functional perspective and examines more closely the functional
role of humor in a variety of communicative relationships leaders encounter
and in group tasks. Neuendorf and Fennel (1988) confirmed humor as a
socially facilitating phenomenon and that laughter is more likely to occur in
the presence of others. Others have posited that humor itself, as contrasted
with laughter, facilitates a number of communicative functions. Although
many have reaped unconditional praises on the use of humor (Debats, 1983;
Holmes & Marra, 2006) and its effectiveness in accentuation of positive
leadership styles, others have recommended more caution. Martineau (1972)
and Mao, Chiang, Zhang, & Gao (2017) showed that humor is viewed as both
"lubricant" or “abrasive" in social interactions with positive or negative
implications for the workplace performance. Another affect-based study
concluded that managerial humor, employees’ emotions and psychological
capital in the workplace and in subordinates (Wijewardena, Hartel &
Samaratunge, 2017). As a lubricant, humor functions to initiate social
interaction and keep free and smooth flowing conversations. As an abrasive,
humor may cause interpersonal friction that modify the nature of the
interaction (Wood, Beckman & Rossiter, 2011). Humor in managerial
communication has been described as both a potentially integrative and a
potentially disruptive behavior (Wood, Beckman, & Rossiter, 2011) and
humor is a double-edged tool which may both help and hurt interactions (de
Koning & Weiss, 2002) and provided a framework that includes the presenter,
recipient, message, and medium and elaborative cognitive and emotional
reactions of the recipients to humor. Because humor is so enigmatic as a form
of communication, researchers have attempted to better understand how it
functions.
Priest & Swain (2002), and Mesmer-Magnus, et al (2012) showed positive
uses of humor in developing friendships and being playful are positively
correlated to communication competence that contributes to a positive
workplace, leadership effectiveness, and improve interpersonal skills. For
IJELM– International Journal Educational Leadership & Management, 7(2) 184
example, humor is used to avoid difficult topics or introduce new information
(Ullian, 1976). In the right context, humor that attacks or demeans and can
signal closeness between people that confirms a safe relationship (Martin &
Lefcourt, 1983, 1984).
Individuals use humor to facilitate self-disclosure (Avant, 1982), to probe
one another's values or motives (Linstead, 1985), or to introduce topics that
may otherwise be socially inappropriate (Ziv, 1984). Ziv, (1988) and Lippitt
(1982) concluded humor also is also used as a coping mechanism for
managing anxiety and embarrassment by diverting attention from the situation
that caused the embarrassment. Humor can be used to distance unpleasant,
stressful, or boring parts of our lives by allowing us to regard them with less
seriousness (Linstead, 1985).
As a means of social control, humor function as a control mechanism to
express approval or disapproval of actions, especially disapproval of
violations of group norms (Webb, 1981). Stephenson (1951) concluded that
humor is used to control conflict and behavior, and to reinforce group norms
and values by humorously making an example of inappropriate conduct.
Collinson (1988) found that joking placed social pressure on workers to
conform to cultural norms and motivated workers not meeting work standards.
Bradney (1957) determined some humor functioned to control conflicts
caused by competition among coworkers and that joking was used to sanction
individuals, both formally and informally. Bricker (1980) determined that
humor, particularly in the form of joking relationships, was both a mechanism
of social control and a tension-reducing device.
The control functions of humor have also been studied from the
perspective of social status. Duncan and Feisal (1989) determined that humor
helps equalize status among group members, helps assimilate new members
into and comfortable of the group the group. Similarly, Huber & Brown,
(2016) and Weaver (2010) showed all are equal in humor. These studies
confirm that humor helps define and maintain social groupings and reinforce
both social and positional rankings (Boland & Hoffman, 1982; Duncan, 1982,
1985).
IJELM– International Journal Educational Leadership & Management, 7(2) 185
Robert & Wilbanks, (2012) and Watson & Drew (2017) observed that
humor tend to be directed downward in a hierarchical organizational structure;
that is, higher status persons tended to target lower status colleagues with their
humor. Lundberg (1969) noted that lower-ranking group members tend not to
joke back with higher status members. Bradney (1957) also found that joking
relationships among members of the same status level occur most often, and
that when joking occurs between status levels, it is typically aimed downward.
Many researchers have reported that humor functions to reduce and manage
social distance among individuals and performance management.
For example, use of humor helped to facilitate interpersonal attraction and
developed friendships (Derks & Berkowitz, 1989), reduced and managed
social distances (Cheatwood, 1983) and improve performance management
(Vitug & Kliener, 2007). Humor also reduced social distance by managing
stress and reducing tensions between individuals or among group members
(O’Quinn & Aronoff, 1981). Humor serve the function of gaining approval.
If others can be made to laugh, a pleasurable experience, that may dispose
them to evaluate the joker’s character and viewpoints more favorably (Giles
et al 1976). Scogin & Pollio (1980) determined that humor is used to express
appreciative or positive feelings.
In studies conducted in small groups, reduction of social distance typically
is expressed in terms of group cohesiveness. Studies that have examined the
role of humor in developing cohesion among group members suggested
humor enhance morale by decreasing social distance of group members, by
forestalling conflict, and provide common ground and as an expression of
support or affection, and a way to give new members a sense of belonging
(Kaplan & Boyd, 1965). Linstead (1985) reported humor as a form of
symbolic activity that reinforces the social structure and the subculture of a
group. Pogrebin & Poole (1988) presented three functions of humor that
operate to build and maintain group cohesiveness. First, it uses allows group
members to share common experiences and probe the attitudes, perceptions,
and feelings of other group members in nonthreatening manner. Humor helps
to translate an individual's concern into a group issue and reinforcing group
solidarity. Second, humor promotes social solidarity through the mutual
teasing that allows group members realize that they share a common
IJELM– International Journal Educational Leadership & Management, 7(2) 186
perspective. This intra group laughter of inclusion, and humor aimed at people
outside the group, helps to define social boundaries. Third, groups utilize
humor as a coping strategy in managing a variety of forces beyond their direct
control. For example, humor allows group members to laugh at their plight,
demonstrating community and reinforcing group cohesion, to show empathy
with each other’s feelings and allow emotional distancing from a topic by
normalizing extraordinary situations (Obrdlik, 1942).
Reference group theory has also influenced humor research. From a
reference group perspective, one's membership or lack of it affects reaction
toward the use of humor (La Fave & Mannell, 1976). Martineau (1972)
theorized that humor is judged to esteem and solidify groups. However, humor
that disparages the group also solidify the group, or it may control behavior
of group members, foster conflict in the group, or foster demoralization within
the group. Fine (1976) concluded that humor bond group members and form
a barrier to outside groups. Linstead (1985) suggested that in defining
boundaries, humor directed toward persons outside the group clarify both
social and moral boundaries.
From an organizational perspective, humor help socialize new members
into the culture of the organization (Vinton, 1989) created bonds among
employees and facilitated the accomplishment of work tasks. Also, Vinton
(1989) found that self-deprecating jokes informs members that the joke-teller
has a sense of humor and willing to participate in the predominant form of
humor in the organization: teasing. This teasing functioned in two ways - as
task-specific joking that dealt with a work-related task and as social teasing
which involved non-work issues. Deal & Kennedy (1982) proposed that
organizational humor bond people together, reduces conflict, create new
visions, and regenerate cultural values. Similarly, Lundberg (1969) suggested
that humor assist organizational members in earning and maintaining a sense
of social inclusion, especially by easing tension and boredom and providing
social rewards. Additionally, Lundberg suggested that the amount and type of
humor used in an organization indicate the absence or presence of a cohesive
social structure. Blau (1963) noted that joking among workers in a competitive
situation helped unite the group by allowing them laugh together.
IJELM– International Journal Educational Leadership & Management, 7(2) 187
Nelson (1986), found that humor, in the form of jocular griping, enabled
individuals to establish an identity and arrive at consensus and cohesion by
creating a group structure with boundaries.
In studies that examined the relationship between humor, leadership, and
organizational climate of schools, Ziegler, Boardman & Thomas (1985) and
Hughes & Avey (2009) showed cheerful, light-hearted humor positively
correlated with supportive leadership styles and positive climate.
The moderator effect was supported only in relationships between
transformational leadership with both trust and affective commitment,
suggesting that transformational leaders use more humor rate higher on these
outcomes than followers of low humor leaders. Berlyne (1972) suggested that
humor is valuable because it attracts attention, provokes thought, helps gain
friends, improves communication, helps deal with difficult moments, helps
develop positive self-image, motivates and energizes. Smith & Powell (1988)
concluded that self-disparaging humor leaders were perceived as more
effective at relieving tension, summarizing group member opinions, and
encouraging participation. These leaders were perceived as more willing to
share opinions than those who disparaged others. Furthermore, humor is used
simply to entertain or gain attention (Boland & Hoffman, 1982; Bricker 1980).
In small groups, Pollio & Bainum (1983) noted that humor have two effects
on group decision making. First, joking and laughing is seen as attempts to
reaffirm common bonds and relieve tensions and thereby allowing groups to
work more effectively. Second, humor distract groups from its task by calling
attention to some specific tension in the group or to the person making the
remark but humorous behaviors do not necessarily interfere with a group's
task effectiveness. Pollio & Bainum (1983) demonstrated that if a humorous
remark was related to the problem, it served to facilitate task completion but
distracted the group, and decreased efficiencies.
Additionally, they determined that task requiring sustained interest and
much attention to detail, humorous behaviors did not facilitate effectiveness;
but if the task required only shorts, bursts of interest, humorous behaviors,
particularly laughter, facilitate performance. Consalvo (1989), in a study of
small task-oriented group interactions, showed humor tended to occur in
IJELM– International Journal Educational Leadership & Management, 7(2) 188
patterns associated with particular phases of task-oriented meetings.
The initial phase is identified by negative use of humor as adversarial
relationships developed. The second phase, a transitional phase, is marked by
consensual laughter at humor that appeared to facilitate communication. The
laughter then assists the groups in transitioning from a feeling of tension and
defensiveness to a realization of relative safety and playfulness. Third, the
problem-solving phase is marked by task-oriented efforts and some positive
or neutral humor. In some cases, a fourth stage is characterized by clustered
humorous episodes about the earlier processes. Consalvo (1989) concluded
that humor is an antidote to the stress of the opening phase and facilitated the
transition to constructive task effectiveness. Similarly, Scogin & Pollio (1980)
concluded that non-directed humorous remarks provided a group a brief
respite needed to keep the group functioning.
Empirical research suggests that humor help groups perform tasks that
require creative thought, such as brainstorming projects (Adams, 1986; Von
Oech, 1990). Specifically, De Bono (1985) stated “lateral thinking is closely
related to insight, creativity, and humor”. Ziv (1984) theorized that humor
serve to provide a sense of momentary freedom by twisting the usual rules of
logical thinking. Von Oech (1990) showed that humor stretches thinking
which helps develop alternative ideas, promotes ambiguity and the unusual
combinations of ideas, and allows the challenge of conventional rules
Albrecht (1980) suggested humor promotes the mental flexibility that leads to
innovation and reduce tension in tasks groups promote positive risk-taking
behaviors both of which are essential to creativity and creative problem
solving (Adams, 1986). Additionally, results in small tasks groups show that
deliberate use of humor performed better and more efficiently in problem-
solving tasks (Romero, 2008), through enhanced and imaginative stimulation
and divergent thinking (Valett, 1981).
This confirms that humor play both positive and negative roles in the
communication and leadership process. Leaders must understand the
functional nature of humor to effective and appropriate use and for
recognizing and responding to inappropriate humor use by subordinates and
peers.
IJELM– International Journal Educational Leadership & Management, 7(2) 189
The Practice of Humor in Leadership
This section reviews use of humor from a practical perspective with
emphasis on how leaders can further develop, incorporate sense of humor and
promote positive humor within their immediate leadership environments and
influence. The literature confirmed an implicit truth that humor performs
valuable communicative functions which leaders can use to their advantage to
enhance their leadership styles and increase productivity. However, there is
no uniform agreement on the benefit of humor in leadership or organizations
(Smeltzer & Leap, 1988) or how humor functions as a leadership character or
management behavior (Smith & Powell, 1988). Studies agree that humor have
both a positive and a negative force in groups and is a double-edged leadership
tool (Malone, 1980) and an interpersonal assest and liability to managers
(Mettee, Hrelec & Wilkens, 1971). Murdock & Ganim, (1993) for example
advocated for an increased awareness of the good and bad humor in the
workplace and for leaders to be attentive to both forms before its use, and that
leaders learn what types of humor behaviors to utilize during their interactions
with groups and individuals. Due to differences in sense and perception of
humor, what is funny to one person or group can spark negative feelings in
others (Maples et al. 2001). Negative humor includes humor-based activities
that result in repression, humiliation, degradation and intentional or
unintentional distress in organizations Unwelcome ethnic and sexist jokes,
insults, humiliation, and malicious ridicule are some examples of negative
humor (Clouse & Spurgeon 1995). Additionally, individuals who use too
much humor can lose credibility.
In organizations including higher educational institutions, using humor in
service encounters is an ingenious affiliative behavior that strengthens rapport
between service employees and their (students) customers (Slåtten, Svensson,
Sværi, 2011). Humor permits frontline service employees to better cope with
the emotional challenges of their work, reduce the emotional labor and
increase well-being of service frontline employees. The effectiveness of
service recovery efforts also grows when employees use humor successfully
to soften unpleasant emotional reactions (Mathies et al, 2016). The use of
humor in improvements of services delivery has been proposed to trigger a
IJELM– International Journal Educational Leadership & Management, 7(2) 190
natural physiological response experienced by both the sender and the
receiver, and allows for a humanizing effect that creates a connection between
two or more parties. When applying comedy concepts to business, the speaker
may utilize the three components of comedy or apply improvisation
principles. However, the presenter should use comedy that is carefully
calibrated and without using offensive material.
Conclusions
The literature supports the assumption that humor, when used
appropriately employed by leaders play an important role in enhancing
leadership styles and effectiveness of services deliveries, employees’ job
related affective well-being. The literature indicates there are relationships
between the use of humor and several critical leadership functions, including
creativity, interpersonal relations, team-building, enhancement of groups
decisions-making skills, boosting creativity, improve interpersonal relations
and team-building, leadership effectiveness, and improved organizational
leadership, performance management in complex and integrated
environments, including those in higher educational administration. Leaders’
aggressive humor in interpersonal communication have positive contributions
to employees’ job related negative affective well¬being a positive role to
making work more enjoyable by undermining power and status that inhibit
effective work relationships. Therefore, for organizations, a proactive
approach is to involve self-enhancing humor as an important criterion in the
selection process of leaders and managers.
Leaders must realize that it is their responsibility to create the humorous
environment within their workplace (Duncan 1985; 1989). A practical method
include organizational sponsorship and promotion of humor events has been
proposed (Robert & Wilbanks, 2012) and creating a conducive environments
where appropriate humor is incorporated into groups activities. Managers
should encourage collective and individual use of humor among their
subordinates to show acceptance of this mode of communication. Krohe
(1987) suggested leadership use of humor more often reduce or eliminate the
IJELM– International Journal Educational Leadership & Management, 7(2) 191
perception and fear of reaction from their superiors. Leaders must therefore
create an atmosphere conducive to humor use. Additionally, leaders must set
the example of what types of humor are appropriate. This humor role
modeling is an important function of leadership in the work place. The handy
rule suggested by Goodman (1983) may prove valuable: humor is laughter
made from pain -- not pain inflicted by laughter. Leaders must recognize that
humor is risky, that one may need to "dare to be foolish" (Metcalf & Felible,
1992). There are times humor in leadership and places where humor is not
appropriate. Bradford (1976) warned that too much clowning and joking
create an atmosphere of play that interferes with work. Comic relief can help
lighten a meeting, while persistent joke telling can disrupt a discussion.
Humor may be acceptable during breaks and certain meetings, but may be less
proper during a disciplined conference. Furthermore, a leader need to gauge
employee tolerance for humor during meetings; those who are disturbed by
the inefficient use of time caused by humor may become frustrated and may
contribute less to the task. A balance must be maintained. Additionally, there
are types of humor that are rarely appropriate. Prejudicial humor -including
sexist or sexual, racist, and ethnic humor, is never appropriate in today's
workplace (Krohe, 1987; Smeltzer and Leap, 1988). Leaders must take into
account the people who follow and realize inappropriate humor may alienate
workers. Such alienation might have a more profound impact on an
organization than merely tension between the subordinates and the leader.
Humor and leadership are risky. Leaders should utilize tools that help to
be more effective at motivating followers, achieving goals, and developing
communication relationships. Humorous relationship is one of the
communication choices available to every leader. With some knowledge and
common sense about its use, leaders can use humor effectively as part of their
repertoire of communication skills.
References
Adams, J. L. (1986). The care and feeding of ideas: A guide to encouraging
creativity. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
IJELM– International Journal Educational Leadership & Management, 7(2) 192
Adler, R. B. (1989). Communicating at work: Principles and practices for
business and the professions (3rd Ed.). New York: Random House.
Albrecht, K. (1980). Brainpower: Learn to improve your thinking skills.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Alexander, F. K. (2000). The Changing Face of Accountability: Monitoring
and Assessing Institutional Performance in Higher Education.
The Journal of Higher Education, 71, 411-431.
Amey, M. J. (2006). Leadership in Higher Education. Change: The Magazine
of Higher Learning, 38, 55-58.
Astin, A. W., & Astin, H. S. (2000). Leadership Reconsidered:Engaging
Higher Education in Social Change. Battle Creek, MI: W.K. Kellogg
Foundation.
Avant, K. M. (1982). Humor and self-disclosure. Psychological Reports, 50,
253-254.
Bales, R. F. (1970). Perspectives and Theory. Small Group Research, 1, 315-
326.
Bales, R. F., & Slater, P. E. (1955). Role differentiation in small decision-
making groups. In T. Parsons & R. F. Bales (Ed) Family, socialization
and interaction process. Glencoe, IL: Free.
Banning, M.S. & Nelson, D.L. (1987). The Effects of Activity-Elicited Humor
and Group Structure on Group Cohesion and Affective Responses.
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 41, 510-514.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and
organizational culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17, 112-121.
Berlyne, D. E. (1972). Humor and its kin. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee
(Ed), The psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and
empirical issues. New York: Academic.
Black, S.A. (2015). Qualities of Effective Leadership in Higher Education,
Open Journal of Leadership, 2015, 54-66
Blau, P. M. (1963). The dynamics of bureaucracy: A study of interpersonal
relations in two government agencies (rev. Ed.). Chicago: University
of Chicago.
Boland, R. J. & Hoffman, R. (1982). Humor in a machine shop: An
interpretation of symbolic action. In P. J. Frost, V. F. Mitchell, & W.
R. Nord (Eds.), Organizational reality: Reports from the firing line
(pp. 372-377). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
IJELM– International Journal Educational Leadership & Management, 7(2) 193
Bradford, L. P. (1976). Making meetings work: A guide for leaders and group
members. La Jolla, CA: University Associates.
Bradney, P. (1957). The joking relationship in industry. Human Relations, 10,
179-187.
Bricker, V. R. (1980). The function of humor in Zinacantan. Journal of
Anthropological Research, 36, 411-418.
Brilhart, J. K., & Galanes, G. J. (1989). Effective group discussion (6th Ed.).
Dubuque, IA: Wm. C.Brown.
Burke, P. J. (1967). The development of task and social-emotional role
differentiation. Sociometry, 30, 379-392.
Burke W. & Litwin G. (1992). A Causal Model of Organizational
Performance & Change, Journal of Management, 18, 523 – 545.
Cann, A., & Matson, C. (2014). Sense of humor and social desirability:
Understanding how humor styles are perceived. Personality and
Individual Differences, 66, 176-180.
Cann, A., Stilwell, K., & Taku, K. (2010). Humor styles, positive personality,
and health. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 6, 213-235.
Cann, A., & Kuiper, N.A. (2014). Sense of humor and social desirability:
Understanding how humor styles are perceived. Europe's Journal of
Psychology, 10, 412–428.
Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (Eds.). (1968). Group dynamics: Research and
theory (3rd Ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Chapman, A. J., & Foot, H. C. (1976). Introduction. In A. J. Chapman & H.
C. Foot (Eds.), Humour and laughter: Theory, research, and
applications (pp. 1-7). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Chapman, A. J., & Gadfield, N. J. (1976). Is sexual humor sexist? Journal of
Communication, 26, 141- 153.
Cheatwood, D. (1983). Sociability and the sociology of humor. Sociology and
Social Research, 67, 324- 338.
Chiew, T.M., Mathies, C. & Patterson, P. (2019). The effect of humour usage
on customer’s service experiences. Australian Journal of
Management, 44, 109-127.
Clouse, R.W.& Spurgeon, K.L. (1995). Corporate analysis of humor.
Psychology: A Quarterly Journal of Human Behavior, 32, 1–24.
Collinson, D. L. (1988). Engineering humour: Masculinity, joking and
conflict in shop-floor relations. Organization Studies, 9, 181-199.
IJELM– International Journal Educational Leadership & Management, 7(2) 194
Consalvo, C. M. (1989). Humor in management: No laughing matter.
International Journal of Humor Research, 2, 285-297.
Cooper, C.D. (2005), Just joking around? Employee humor expression as an
ingratiatory Behavior. Academy of Management Review, 30, 765-76.
Crawford, S.A., Nerina J. & Caltabiano, N.J. (2011) Promoting emotional
well-being through the use of humour. The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 6, 237-252
Davies, J., Hides, M. T., & Casey, S. (2001). Leadership in Higher Education.
Total Quality Management, 12, 1025-1030.
de Bono, E. (1985). Six thinking hats. New York: Viking Penguin.
de Koning, E. D. & Weiss, R. L. 2002. The relational humor inventory:
Functions of humor in close relationships. The American Journal of
Family Therapy, 30, 1–18.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and
rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Debats, K. E. (1983). Humor relations for fun and profit. Personnel Journal,
61, 346-348.
Derks, P., & Berkowitz, J. (1989). Some determinants of attitudes toward a
joker. International Journal of Humor Research, 2, 385-396.
Drew, G., Ehrich, L. C., & Hansford, B. C. (2008). An exploration of
university leaders’ perceptions of leadership and learning. Leading &
Managing, 14, 1-18.
Duncan, W. J. (1985). The superiority theory of humor at work: Joking
relationship as indicators of formal and informal status patterns in
small, task-oriented groups. Small Group Behavior, 16, 556-564.
Duncan, W. J., & Feisal, J. P. (1989). No laughing matter: Patterns of humor
in the workplace. Organizational Dynamics, 17, 18-30.
Etzioni, A. (1965). Dual leadership in complex organizations. American
Sociological Review, 30, 688- 698.
Fashiku, C. O. (2016). Leaders’ communication pattern: a predictor of
lecturers job performance in Nigeria. International Journal of
Educational Leadership and Management, 4, 103-126
Fine, G. A. (1976). Obscene joking across cultures. Journal of
Communication, 26, 134-140.
IJELM– International Journal Educational Leadership & Management, 7(2) 195
Firestien, R.L. (1990). Effects of Creative Problem Solving Training on
Communication Behaviors in Small Groups. Small Group Research,
21, 507-521.
Fisher, B. A. (1980). Small group decision making: Communication and the
group process (2nd Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fisher, B. A. (1985). Leadership as medium: Treating complexity in group
communication research. Small Group Behavior, 16, 167-196.
Fisher, F. & Robbins, C.R. (2014). Embodied leadership: Moving from leader
competencies to leaderful practices. Leadership, 11, 281-299.
Foot, H. (1986). Humour and laughter. In 0. Hargie (Ed.), A handbook of
communication skills (pp. 355- 382). Washington Square, NY: New
York University.
Freud, S. (1961). The ego and the id. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The
standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund
Freud (Vol. 19, pp. 3–66). London: Hogarth Press
Galloway, G. (2010). Individual differences in personal humor styles:
Identification of prominent patterns and their associates. Personality
and Individual Differences, 48, 563-567.
Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y., Gadfield, N. J., Davies, G. J., & Davies, A. P.
(1976). Cognitive aspects of humour in social interaction: A model and
some linguistic data. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humour
and laughter: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 139-154). New
York: John Wiley and Sons.
Gigliotti, R. A. (2017). Academic leadership education within the Association
of American Universities. Journal of Applied Research in Higher
Education, 9, 196-210.
Gigliotti, R. A. & Ruben, B. D. (2017). Preparing higher education leaders: A
conceptual, strategic, and operational approach. Journal of Leadership
Education, 16, 96-114.
Gmelch, W. H. & Buller, J. L. (2015). Building academic leadership capacity:
A guide to best practices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Godkewitsch, M. (1972). The relationship between arousal potential and
funniness of jokes. In J. H. Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The
psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues
(pp. 143-158). New York: Academic.
IJELM– International Journal Educational Leadership & Management, 7(2) 196
Goodman, J. (1983). How to get more smileage out of your life: Making sense
of humor, then serving it. In P. E. McGhee & J. H. Goldstein (Eds.),
Handbook of humor research: Volume II. Applied studies. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Graham, E. E., Papa, M. J., & Brooks, G. P. (1992). Functions of humor in
conversation: conceptualization and measurement. Western Journal of
Communication, 56, 161-183.
Haig, R. A. (1988). The anatomy of humor: Biopsychosocial and therapeutic
perspectives. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Holmes, J. & Marra, M. (2002). Having a laugh at work: How humour
contributes to workplace culture. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1683-
1710.
Holmes, J. & Marra, M. (2006). Humor and leadership styles. International
Journal of Humor Research, 19,119-138
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (1991). Educational administration: Theory,
research, practice (4th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Huber, G. & Brown, A.D. (2016). Identity Work, Humour and Disciplinary
Power. Organization Studies, 38, 1107-1126.
Hughes, L.W. & Avey, J. B. (2009). Transforming with levity: humor,
leadership, and follower attitudes, Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 30, 540-562.
Janes, L. M. & Olsen, J. M. 2000. Jeer pressure: The behavioral effects of
observing ridicule of others. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 26, 474–485.
Jensen, A. D., & Chilberg, J. C. (1991). Small group communication: Theory
and application. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Kahn, W. 1989. Toward a sense of organizational humor: Implications for
organizational diagnosis and change. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 25, 45–63.
Kaplan, H. B., & Boyd, I. H. (1965). The social functions of humor on an open
psychiatric ward. Psychiatric Quarterly, 39, 502-515.
Kieu, H. Q. (2010). Leadership Styles and Organizational Performance: A
Predictive Analysis: ERIC retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED525809
Krohe, J., Jr. (1987). Take my boss -- please. Across the Board, 24, 31-35.
IJELM– International Journal Educational Leadership & Management, 7(2) 197
Kuhlman, T. L. (1985). A study of salience and motivational theories of
humor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 281-286.
La Fave, L., & Mannell, R. (1976). Does ethnic humor serve prejudice?
Journal of Communication, 26, 1 16-123.
La Fave, L., Haddad, J., & Maesen, W. A. (1976). Superiority, enhanced self-
esteem, and perceived incongruity humour theory. In A. J. Chapman
& H. C. Foot (Eds.), Humour and laughter: Theory, research, and
applications (pp. 63-92). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Langevin, R., & Day, H. I. (1972). Physiological correlates of humor. In J. H.
Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of humor:
Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues (pp.129-142). New
York: Academic.
Lang, J.C, & Lee, C. H. (2010). Workplace humor and organizational
creativity. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 21, 46–60
Lemer, H. (2003) The practical qualities for effective leaders. The Scrivener
12, 16.
Linstead, S. (1985). Jokers wild: The importance of humour in the
maintenance of organizational culture. Sociological Review, 33, 741-
767.
Lippitt, G. L. (1982). Humor: A laugh a day keeps incongruities at bay.
Training and Development Journal, 36, 98- l 00.
Lundberg, C. C. (1969). Person-focused joking: Pattern and function. Human
Organization, 28, 22-28.
Malone, P. B. (1980). Humor: A double-edged tool for today's managers?
Academy of Management Review, 5, 357-360.
Madanchian, M. Hussein, N., Noordin, F. & Takerdoost, H. (2016).
Economics and Education, 115-119. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305323612_Effects_of_Lea
dership_on_Organizational_Performance
Mak, N.C., Liu, Y. & Deneen, C.S. (2012). Humor in the workplace: A
regulating and coping mechanism in socialization. Discourse &
Communication, 6, 163-179. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481312437445
Mao, J., Chiang, T., Zhang, Y & Gao, M. (2017). Humor as a Relationship
Lubricant: The Implications of Leader Humor on Transformational
IJELM– International Journal Educational Leadership & Management, 7(2) 198
Leadership Perceptions and Team Performance. Journal of Leadership
& Organizational Studies, 24, 494-506.
Maples, M. F., Dupey, P., Torres-Rivera, E., Phan, L. T., Vereen, L., &
Garrett, M. T. 2001. Ethnic diversity and the use of humor in
counseling: Appropriate or inappropriate? Journal of Counseling &
Development, 79, 53– 61.
Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: an integrative approach.
Burlington: Elsevier Academic Press.
Martin, R. A., & Lefcourt, H. M. (1983). Sense of humor as a moderator of
the relation between stressors and moods. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 45, 1313-1324.
Martin, R. A., & Lefcourt, H. M. (1984). Situational Humor Response
Questionnaire: Quantitative measure of sense of humor. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 145-155.
Martin, R.A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & Weir, K. (2003)
Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to
psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles
Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 48-75.
Mathies, C., Chiew, T.M., Kleinaltenkamp, M. (2016). The antecedents and
consequences of humour for service: A review and directions for
research, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 26, 137-162,
Markiewicz, D. (1974). Effects of humor on persuasion. Sociometry, 37, 407-
422.
Martineau, W. H. (1972). A model of the social functions of humor. In J. H.
Goldstein & P. E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of humor:
Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues. New York: Academic.
McGhee, P. E. (1979). Humor, its origin and development. San Francisco: W.
H. Freeman.
McKenzie, E. C. (1980). 14,000 quips and quotes for writers and speakers.
New York: Greenwich House.
Mesmer-Magnus, J., Glew, D. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2012). A meta-analysis
of positive humor in the workplace. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 27, 155-190.
Metcalf, C. W., & Felible, R. (1992). Lighten up: Survival skills. For people
under pressure. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
IJELM– International Journal Educational Leadership & Management, 7(2) 199
Mettee, D. R., Hrelec, E. S., & Wilkens, P. C. (1971). Humor as an
interpersonal asset and liability. Journal of Social Psychology, 85, 5 l
-64.
Meyer, J. C. 1997. Humor in member narratives: Uniting and dividing at
work. Western Journal of Communication, 61, 188–208.
Meyer, J. C. (2000). Humor as a double-edged sword: Four functions of
humor in communication. Communication Theory, 10, 310-331.
Miller, P. (2019). Leadership communication: the three levels. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254664129_Leadership_co
mmunication_the_three_levels/citation/download
Morreall, J. (1991). Humor and work. International Journal of Humor
Research, 4, 359-374.
Morreall, J. (Ed.). (1987). The philosophy of laughter and humor. Albany,
NY: State University of New York.
Murdock, M. C. & Ganim, R. M. 1993. Creativity and humor: Integration and
incongruity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 27,57–70.
Napier, R. W., & Gershenfeld, M. K. (1989). Groups: Theory and experience
(4th Ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifllin.Nelson, R. B. (1985). Louder
and funnier: A practical guide for overcoming stage/right in
speechmaking. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed.
Neuendorf, K. A., & Fennel, T. (1988). A social facilitation view of the
generation of humor and mirth reactions: Effects of a laugh track.
Central States Speech Journal, 39, 37-48.
Nolan, M. (1986). Success can be a laughing matter. Data Management, 24,
28-29.
O'Quin, K., & Aronoff, J. (198l). Humor as a technique of social influence.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 349-357.
Obrdlik, A. J. (1942). "Gallows humor" -- a sociological phenomenon.
American Journal of Sociology, 47, 709-716.
Pluta, P. (2013). What is humor? An attempt at definition. (2013). Psychology
ofHumor. Retrieved from
http://www.psychologyofhumor.com/2013/09/01/what-is-humor-an-
attempt-at-definition/
Pogrebin, M. R., & Poole, E. D. (1988). Humor in the briefing room: A study
of the strategic uses of humor among police. Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography, 17, 183-210.
IJELM– International Journal Educational Leadership & Management, 7(2) 200
Pollio, H. R., & Bainum, C. K. (1983). Are funny groups good at solving
problems? A methodological evaluation and some preliminary results.
Small Group Behavior, 14, 379-404.
Priest, R.F, & Swain, J.E. (2002). Humor and its implication for leadership
effectiveness. Humor, 15, 169-189
Riesh, H. Why did the proton cross the road? Humour and science
communication. Public Understanding of Science, 24, 768-775
Ruben, B. D. & Gigliotti, R. A. (2017). Communication: Sine qua non of
organizational leadership theory and practice. International Journal of
Business Communication, 54, 12-30.
Robert, C., Dunne & Iun (2015). The Impact of Leader Humor on Subordinate
Job Satisfaction: The Crucial Role of Leader–Subordinate
Relationship Quality. Group & Organization Management, vol. 41,
375-406.
Robert, C. & Wilbanks, J.E. (2012). The wheel model of humor: Humor
events and affect in organizations. Human Relations, 65, 1071-1099.
Romero, E., & Pescosolido, A. (2008). Humor and group effectiveness.
Human Relations, 61,
Rybacki, K., & Rybacki, D. (1991). Communication criticism: Approaches
and genres. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Scogin, F. R., Jr., & Pollio, H. R. (1980). Targeting and the humorous episode
in group process. Human Relations, 33, 831-852.
Slåtten, T., Svensson, G., Sværi, S. (2011). Empowering leadership and the
influence of a humorous work climate on service employees' creativity
and innovative behavior in frontline service jobs, International
Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 3, 267-284,
Smeltzer, L. R., & Leap, T. L. (1988). An analysis of individual reactions to
potentially offensive jokes in work settings. Human Relations, 41, 295-
304.
Smith, C. M., & Powell, L. (1988). The use of disparaging humor by group
leaders. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 53, 279-292.
Stephenson, R. M. (l951). Conflict and control functions of humor. American
Journal of Sociology, 56. 569-574.
Suls, J. M. (1983). Cognitive processes in humor appreciation. ln P. E.
McGhee & J. H. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of humor research:
Volume /. Basic Issues (pp. 39-58). New York: Springer-Verlag.
IJELM– International Journal Educational Leadership & Management, 7(2) 201
Tannenbaum, R., Wechsler, 1. R., & Massarik, F. (1988). Leadership: A frame
of reference. ln R. S. Cathcart & L. A. Samovar (Eds.), Small group
communication: A reader (5th ed., pp. 483-492). Dubuque, IA: Wm.
C. Brown.
Ullian, J. A. (l976). Joking at work. Journal of Communication, 26, 129-133.
Vaillant, G. E. 1977. Adaptation to life. Toronto: Little, Brown, & Co.
Valett, R. E. (1981). Developing the sense of humor and divergent thinking.
Academic Therapy, 17, 35- 42.
Valle, M., Kacmar, Micki M. &Andrews, M. (2018). Ethical leadership,
frustration, and humor: a moderated-mediation model. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 39, 665-678.
VanGundy, A. B. (1984). Managing group creativity: A modular approach to
problem solving. New York: American Management Associations.
Vitug, M., Kleiner, B. (2007). How can comedy be used in business?
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
56, 155-161,
Vinton, K. L. (1989). Humor in the workplace: It is more than telling jokes.
Small Group Behavior, 20,151-166.
Von Oech, R. (1990). A whack on the side of the head: How you can be more
creative (rev. Ed.). New York: Warner.
Warren, C., & McGraw, A. P. (2016). Differentiating what is humorous from
what is not. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 407-
430.
Watson, C. & Drew, V. (2017). Humour and laughter in meetings: Influence,
decision-making and the emergence of leadership. Discourse &
Communication, 11, 314-329.
Weaver, S (2010) The ‘other’ laughs back: Humour and resistance in anti-
racist comedy. Sociology, 44, 31–48.
Webb, R. G. (1981). Political uses of humor. Et cetera, 38, 35-50.
Wheeless, L. R., Wheeless, V. E., & Dickson-Markman, F. (1982). A research
note: The relations among social and task perceptions in small groups.
Small Group Behavior, 13, 373-384.
Wijewardena, N., Hartel, C. & Samaratunge, R. (2017). Using humor and
boosting emotions: An affect-based study of managerial humor,
employees’ emotions and psychological capital. Human Relations, 70,
1316-1341.
IJELM– International Journal Educational Leadership & Management, 7(2) 202
Wood, R.E., Beckman, N. & Rossiter, J.R. (2011). Management humor: Asset
or liability? Organizational Psychology Review, 1, 316-338.
Ziegler, V., Boardman, G., & Thomas, M. D. (1985). Humor, leadership, and
school climate. Clearing House, 58, 346-348.
Zillmann, D., & Stocking, S. H. (1976). Putdown humor. Journal of
Communication, 26, 154-163.
Ziv, A. (1984). Personality and sense of humor. New York: Springer.
Ziv, A. (1988). Humor’s role in married life. International Journal of Humor
Research, 1, 223-229.
Beverlyn E. Grace-Odeleye Assistant Professor and Director, STAR
Program and Summer Bridge Program at East Stroudsburg University of
Pennsylvania, East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. She has planned and directed
academic enrichment and learning programs in universities since 1985 —
designing programmatic approaches, academic and social contents of
educational support program, outcome measurements, and teaching students’
support success courses. Additionally, Dr. Grace-Odeleye is a peer-reviewer
for submitted proposals, presented and chaired sessions for various national
and local conferences on support programs for students’ success, retention,
persistence, and educational programs administration.
Contact Address: Department of Academic Enrichment & Learning,
Rosenkrans East, East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania, East
Stroudsburg, PA 18301-2999. E-mail: beverlyn@esu.edu
Jessica Santiago, Ph.D. is an academic coach on the Summer Bridge Program
at East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania, East Stroudsburg,
Pennsylvania. She supports the planning and implementation of the Summer
Bridge team and manages the unit’s data collection. Additionally, she is a
trainer for Summer Bridge peer mentors, tracks students’ performances and
provide academic coaching and counseling year-round at the Department of
Academic Enrichment and Learning.
Contact Address: East Stroudsburg University, Department of Academic
Enrichment & Learning, East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania, East S
Stroudsburg, PA 18301-2999. E-mail: jsantiago1@esu.edu
