Relationships Among Gender, Type Of Humor, And Perceived Leader Effectiveness.
Humor is a tool to study the social forces in an organization because the contents and form of humor reflect social relations, power distributions and changes in both. Dwyer (1991) noted that the appropriateness and effects of humor depend on the status of its initiator, target, and audience. We claim, though, one cannot fully understand the nature of these informal social connections without explicitly considering the effect that humor may have on leadership behavior and leader effectiveness and the potential for gender differences in the relationships.
Relatively speaking, gender differences are among the more heavily researched topics in both humor research and in leadership/managerial research. Substantive differences between males and females have been identified in humor research (e.g., Duncan, et al., 1990; Hassett and Houlihan, 1979). However, gender differences in leadership and management are more elusive, causing many to argue they are very limited (if they exist at all) in actual organizational settings (Powell, 1988). The failure to identify extreme gender differences in leadership and management has led some to argue that the differences, though real, are extremely complex and more subtle than blatant discrimination (see Alvesson and Billing (1992) for a discussion).
In this study, we seek to examine the role of manager gender in the relationship between humor use and key leadership behaviors. We see humor as something underlying formal communication that has the potential to enhance leadership ability by shaping the work environment. The single study (Avolio et al., 1999) examining humor and leadership used a sample of nearly all men (97% male). Given the strong evidence that men and women differ on use and appreciation of humor, examining gender differences in this context is a logical step forward.
The relevant literature on humor, leadership and gender differences is discussed next, which serves as the basis for a model used to guide this study. Our research methods, results, and conclusions follow with emphasis on practical managerial implications.
The general study of humor is extensive and crosses many academic disciplines; however, our knowledge of humor and management is relatively incomplete (Duncan et al., 1990). A complete review of humor literature is well beyond the scope of this article. The literature, however, strongly supports the notion that humor serves myriad purposes and functions that are relevant to organizations and management (Duncan, 1982).
Humor in Organizations
The effect of humor on physiological, cognitive, and affective responses and on the communication process suggests humor may shape the climate and informal social relations at work (Hatch and Ehrlich, 1993; Heath, 1997). Several review articles have discussed the general value of humor usage among coworkers (Collinson, 1988; Lippitt, 1982; Malone, 1980; Sykes, 1966). Humor has also been cited as a possible source of psychic rewards as well as a way to relieve frustration, alleviate boredom, and facilitate information transfer at work (Duncan, 1982).
The significance of humor as a characteristic of the work environment appears to center on the positive role humor plays in affecting the mood at work and the communication channels between group members. One can extend these effects among workers to the dyadic and group relationships between leaders and subordinates. The social system includes the manager who has a direct influence on the quality of the work environment. Managers are responsible for influencing the efforts of subordinates toward goal achievement, something typically referred to as leadership. In addition to the numerous formal mechanisms for motivating behavior, leaders (hence, managers) can rely on more subtle and informal mechanisms such as humor. Our interest here is to explore the connection between humor and leadership behaviors, and how gender differences may affect the relationship.
Humor and Leadership
Leadership is perhaps the most comprehensive and diverse topic in the study of management of organizations. Attempts to understand leadership have led to multiple frameworks, each providing some insight into a complex phenomenon. In this regard, leader traits/skills and leader behavior have been two avenues explored in detail as having the potential to positively impact group and organizational performance. Humor, like leadership, is something that includes aspects of a trait or characteristic (i.e., being a humorous person) and of a socially determined exchange (i.e., something is not humorous until the audience perceives it to be so). Thus, as one of numerous characteristics associated with successful leaders and managers, the use of humor could be included with skills such as being clever, creative, fluent in speech, persuasive, and socially skilled (Stogdill, 1974). Such skills, in part, facilitate specific categories of leader behavior. To the extent a leader engages in more effective behaviors (in part through better developed skills), he or she would likely be a more effective leader.
Empirical studies indicate several benefits of humor use by authority figures. Decker (1987) found that subordinates rating their supervisors as having a good sense of humor reported higher job satisfaction and rated other supervisor qualities more positively than did those who rated their supervisors as being low in sense of humor. Avolio et al. (1999) found that humor positively moderated the relationship between some leadership styles (laissez-faire, transformational, and contingent-reward) and individual and unit performance. Given the tentative conclusion that humor has a positive effect on performance outcomes, how and why this may occur is still unknown.
Task behaviors (defining and structuring work roles) and relationship behaviors (being friendly, supportive, and constructing a positive work environment), though two very broad constructs, capture the observable categories of how leaders direct subordinate effort (see Yuki (1998) for an excellent discussion). Barbour (1998) summarized humor's potential as a managerial tool by identifying four functions of humor: 1) facilitates learning, 2) helps change behavior, 3) promotes increased creativity, and 4) helps us feel less threatened by change. Each of these functions can enable a leader to engage in more effective task and relationship behaviors with subordinates. Humor may make it easier for a leader to define, teach, and clarify work tasks and, Simultaneously, make the dyadic exchange between the leader and the subordinate be more positive and less tense.
The most effective leaders are typically described as capable of engaging in "high-high" leader behavior; that is, high use of situationally appropriate task and relationship behaviors (Yuki, 1998). We suspect that a judicious use of humor (in a "positive" form) may enhance performance outcomes (cf. Aviolo et al., 1999) via its influence on process variables like leader behaviors. Certain types of humor, however, may degrade the relationship because the subordinate finds the humor offensive or inappropriate. Such "negative" humor may lead to perceptions of ineffective leader behavior. Thus, we hypothesize the following:
H1: Use of positive humor by managers will be positively associated with subordinate perceptions of task behaviors, relationship behaviors, and overall leader effectiveness.
H2: Use of negative humor by managers will be negatively associated with subordinate perceptions of task behaviors, relationship behaviors, and overall leader effectiveness.
Gender Differences in Humor and Leadership
One of the more heavily researched humor topics is gender differences. Males have been shown to appreciate and use most, but not all, types of humor more than do females (e.g., Duncan et al., 1990; Hassett and Houlihan, 1979; Thorson et al., 1997). Gender differences are more striking when the type of humor considered is negative or offensive. Males, for example, perceived sexual jokes (Groch, 1974) and insult jokes (Decker, 1986) to be funnier than did females, and were less offended by racist and sexist jokes than were women (Smeltzer and Leap, 1988). Also, men reported greater enjoyment and use of sexual and insult humor at work than did females (Decker and Rotondo, 1999).
Despite numerous studies focusing on humor and gender, those concentrating specifically on the work environment are rare. This line of research is particularly important today as the presence of females in organizations has been and is increasing. The broader research stream, though, clearly yields generalizations regarding gender differences. Men appear to use and appreciate humor (both non-offensive and offensive) more than females, both in self-report studies and in studies where perceptions of humor in other individuals (i.e., managers) are reported. If humor is related to perceived leader behavior and effectiveness, the potential exists for females to be disadvantaged in this exchange. Male managers may use positive humor to their advantage more so than females. Further, negative and offensive humor is used and enjoyed by males more than females, making such communications expected from males thus more likely to be accepted.
The general consensus of research on gender differences and leadership is that among actual leader-subordinate relationships, very few differences can be found between men and women (cf., Korabik and Ayman, 1989). This is believed to be the result of self-selection, convergent work-related abilities and attitudes within a given set of organizational influences, and limitations in the operationalizing of male/female or masculine/feminine groupings for study (Alvesson and Billing, 1992). This explanation, however, does not eliminate the possibility (and the reality) that females are often disadvantaged in obtaining positions that are more senior within organizations. Organizational cultures dominated by male values and that exist to maintain those values create subtle, covert power differentials that restrict the ability for women to enter into higher-level positions. Marshall (1993) states that adoption of male values is often a typical price of membership in male-dominated organizations.
Though the reasons for differences in gender demographics within organizations are complex, we agree with others (Avolio et al., 1999) that the ability to use humor as part of a leader's communication style may tend to affect leadership measures as perceived by subordinates. Given that the use of humor occurs with greater frequency in males, we hypothesize:
H3: Gender will moderate the relationship between positive humor and leader behaviors and effectiveness such that the overall positive effect will be greater for male managers than for female managers.
H4: Gender will moderate the relationship between negative humor and leader behaviors and effectiveness such that the overall negative effect will be less for male managers than for female managers.
Model of Humor, Manager Gender, and Leader Behavior and Effectiveness
The hypothesized relationships explored in this study are depicted in Figure I. The use of both positive and negative humor is believed to influence subordinate perceptions of leader behaviors (both task and relationship) and leader effectiveness. Positive humor is expected to be associated with higher levels of perceived leader behavior and effectiveness and negative humor with lower levels of behavior and effectiveness.
Gender of the manager is expected to interact with humor use such that male managers will be advantaged relative to female managers. This interaction is hypothesized based on the research which clearly suggests males use, appreciate, and enjoy humor more than females, including "negative" humor involving insulting and sexually-based content.
The present study has the goal of extending knowledge of gender differences in the relationship between a manager's perceived use of humor at work and perceived leadership behaviors and effectiveness. Is humor an element that can enhance (or detract from) leadership ability, and does it work similarly for male and female managers? Our methods are described below.
A random sample of 1,000 business-school alumni was selected at a U.S. Mid-Atlantic University. A questionnaire was mailed to each of the 998 selected persons having U.S. addresses. The return was 359 completed questionnaires.
The data were collected as part of a larger study and only those items relevant to this research are discussed here. The questionnaire included a demographic section that contained questions concerning the respondent's employment status, the gender of the respondent, and the gender of the respondent's manager. The respondents included 217 males, 135 females and 7 persons not reporting gender. Those respondents having exactly one manager (i.e., not selfemployed) reported 216 male managers and 105 female managers.
Also included were items measuring the respondent's perception of his/her manager's use of positive humor, negative humor, task behaviors, relationship behaviors, and overall effectiveness. All of these items were measured on a five-point scale of agreement with descriptors ranging from "strongly disagree" (1) to "strongly agree" (5). Respondents answered seven items concerning their managers' perceived enjoyment or use of humor, and six items concerning the managers' leadership behaviors. One item captured overall perceived leader effectiveness. We elected to focus on subordinate perceptions because self-reports of humor use and leader behavior are problematic. Outside of questionable reliability and veracity, we were concerned about whether others (specifically, subordinates) would share similar perceptions given the obvious social desirability of these questionnaire items. We therefore elected to have the subordinate describe the manager rather than rely on the manager describing himself or herself.
The seven humor items were factor analyzed using PCA with Varimax rotation. A two-factor solution explaining 72.6 of the variance was generated. Five items representing "positive" humor loaded on the first factor and two items representing "negative" humor loaded on the second. Appendix 1 contains the items and their respective factor loadings. The coefficient alpha for positive humor was .86 and for negative humor was .82.
Six items capturing leadership behaviors were also factor analyzed using PCA with Varimax rotation. A two-factor solution explaining 77.03 percent of the variance was generated. Three items representing relationship behaviors loaded on the first factor and three items representing task behaviors loaded on the second. Appendix 1 contains the items and factor loadings. Relationship and task behavior had a coefficient alpha of .81 and .83, respectively.
The hypotheses were tested using three hierarchical regressions (one for each dependent variable). Gender of the respondent and manager were dummy coded with 0 representing males and 1 representing females. The gender of the respondent was entered in the first step to remove any associated variance in the dependent variables. The second step allowed positive and negative humor as well as the manager's gender to enter into the equation. The third step included the interaction between humor use and manager gender. The change in [R.sup.2] was tested at each step to ensure the variables entering the equation made a significant contribution to the model. The results of the regression analyses are discussed below.
The means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations of the variables used in this study are reported in Table 1. Note that manager gender correlated negatively with both positive and negative humor, indicating male managers are perceived as using more of both forms of humor. Positive humor had significant correlations with the dependent variables (leadership behaviors and effectiveness). Negative humor did not correlate significantly with any of the dependent variables.
The first analysis regressed both forms of humor and the interaction between manager gender and humor on task behavior. The results are reported in Table 2. Note that the addition of the interaction term was insignificant ([DELTA][R.sup.2]=.009, p<.2l), indicating the direct effects tested in step two produce the only significant relationships (F=15.79, p<.00l; [DELTA][R.sup.2]=.174, p<.001). The use of positive humor was associated with higher levels of task behavior ([beta]=.43, p<.001), while negative humor was associated with lower levels of task behavior ([beta]=-.13, p<.02). Manager gender was also directly related to task behavior indicating females are perceived as more task oriented ([beta]=.12, p<.03). Overall the model explained 16.6 percent of the variance in task behavior.
A second analysis using relationship behavior as the dependent variable was performed. In this model, the change in [R.sup.2] was significant for the full model that included the interaction term (F=33.9, p<.001; [R.sup.2]=.013, p<.042). Positive humor was still found to be associated with higher levels of relationship behavior ([beta]=.58, p<.00l) and negative humor with lower levels ([beta]=-.16, p<.002). The interactions, however, indicate that the use of positive humor is associated with higher levels of relationship behavior for women relative to men (contrary to our expectations) ([beta]=.38, p<.05). Negative humor was associated with lower levels of relationship behavior for women, relative to men (consistent with our expectations) ([beta]=-.34, p<.04).
The final analysis used perceived leader effectiveness as the dependent variable. Once again, the model containing the interaction terms produced a significant change in [R.sup.2](.019, p<.02), supporting the full model F=17.8, p<.00l). Use of positive humor, again, was associated with higher levels of effectiveness ([beta]=.43, p<.00l). The significant interaction terms show that use of positive humor is associated with higher levels of effectiveness for women relative to men ([beta]=.50, p<.02), while negative humor is associated with lower levels of effectiveness for women relative to men ([beta]=-.41, p<.02).
Overall, the results support H1 and H2 in that, for both male and female managers, positive humor led to increased perceptions of desirable task and relationship behavior, while negative humor decreased perceived task and relationship behavior. Only positive humor, though, was associated with increased perceived effectiveness. The hypothesized moderating role of manager gender produced surprising results in that the effects of humor on leader outcomes were more dramatic for females than males. Female managers were rated higher than male managers on relationship behavior and effectiveness when using positive humor. Female managers were rated lower than male managers when using negative humor. Both interactive effects were present holding constant the gender of the respondent. (1) This finding provides support for H4, but is contrary to H3. The results are discussed below in more detail.
The objective of this study was to examine how gender differences may influence the relationship between the use of humor by persons in leadership roles and the perception of leader behaviors and effectiveness by their subordinates. Based on existing theory and research, we expected to find that, regardless of gender, positive humor would enhance leadership behavior and effectiveness, while negative humor was expected to be detrimental to perceived leader behavior and effectiveness. We also expected male mangers to be somewhat advantaged in relation to females because of their generalized tendency to use and appreciate humor with greater frequency. The results of our analyses of numerous manager-subordinate dyads across many organizations suggest that while positive (negative) humor use is associated with more positive (negative) leader perceptions, it was females in leadership roles who were advantaged when using positive (non-offensive or nonsexual) humor at work.
Use of Humor and Leader Behavior
The model in Figure I depicts a direct relationship between the use of humor and perceived leader behavior and effectiveness. Given that humor has been shown to play an important role in facilitating communication and improving the climate in organizations, we expected subordinates to perceive their manager differently if he/she used humor. Specifically, managers that use and enjoy humor that is positive in nature should enhance the necessary task and relationship behavior occurring at work, as perceived by their subordinates. This, in turn, should have a positive effect on perceived leader effectiveness. When negative humor is used, the effect was expected to be the opposite on the leader outcomes examined here.
The use of positive humor by the manager was directly associated with higher levels of desirable task and relationship behavior as well as leader effectiveness. This suggests positive humor may give subordinates the impression the manager is engaged in more desirable behavior at work, and thus is perceived to be more effective. Given that a manager's use of positive humor is associated with other favorable employee outcomes (e.g., greater satisfaction), this adds additional support to the research evidence suggesting humor can play an important role in the work environment.
Negative humor, when used, was found to be significantly associated with lower perceived task and relationship behaviors. We were surprised that negative humor use was not directly associated with lower effectiveness, given the potential for a hostile or discriminatory environment. Consequently, H1 was supported while H2 received moderate support in this research.
Like Avolio et al. (1999), we found that humor usage enhances the abilities of someone in a leadership role and, in particular, we argue that this effect is a result of slightly better communication of important task and relationship information in the work setting. Importantly, we found this effect for male and female managers (whereas Avolio et al. (1999) used a sample of men only).
The Moderating Role of Gender
The manager's gender was expected to be a key variable, moderating the direct relationship between humor use and leader outcomes. Because males typically use and enjoy all forms of humor more than females, we expected humor use in managers to advantage men relative to women in terms of the leader outcomes. Male managers were expected to be rated higher than women when they used positive humor, and not rated as low as women when they used negative humor. This interaction is depicted in Figure I and stated in H3 and H4.
Our analyses produced some interesting results that were contrary to our expectations, in part. The interaction was significant for two of the three outcome variables: relationship behavior and perceived effectiveness. The direction of the effect, however, was not consistent. Male managers were not rated as low as female managers on relationship behavior and effectiveness when using negative humor (See Table 2). In a sense, this suggests that women are penalized more than men when using sexual or offensive humor at work. This finding, it is important to note, is true controlling for the gender of the respondent. Male mangers were reported to use more negative humor than female managers, and male respondents reported that their supervisor (of whatever gender) used more negative humor than did female respondents (See Table 1). Perhaps negative humor is more likely to be expected from males and/or may occur more frequently in interactions with males, making both male and female subordinates less surprised when it occurs.
Although female managers may be more severely "penalized" when using negative humor, they were advantaged (or "rewarded") relative to men when using positive humor. Ratings of relationship behavior and effectiveness were higher for female managers than for male managers when positive humor was used in the work environment (See Table 2). Once again, this is an interesting effect because female managers were reported to use less positive humor by both male and female respondents. That female managers use less positive humor yet obtain higher effectiveness ratings than men suggests women get more "bang for the buck" out of humor use.
Because the interaction indicating an advantage for females using positive humor in the work environment was opposite what we predicted, we searched for an explanation that might fit with the existing literature on gender, leadership, and humor. It is possible that being female and using positive (non-offensive) humor in the work place is unexpected; that is, it is not what most people have been socialized to perceive as the norm. If men use and appreciate humor more than females in general, encountering a female who uses humor in a leadership role may be unusual. This contrast in perceptual norms may be beneficial to the female in terms of how others view her as a leader. This explanation is also consistent with the interaction found with negative humor, which disadvantages females relative to males. The unexpected nature of a female manager using sexual or offensive humor may be a much more serious offense for her than for a male manager.
Though this effect is clearly quite speculative and subtle, this type of gender difference may reflect the complexities of gender bias to a greater degree than more obvious leadership differences (e.g., leadership styles, decision-making styles), which yield more findings of no differences than differences between the genders. Being able to joke, laugh, and communicate in a positive way, using a more masculine-like pattern, may enhance a female manager's ability to communicate effectively and create a better working environment, which in turn enhances her perceived leadership ability.
To suggest that one simply become funnier as a means of being viewed more positively by subordinates is simplistic and not what is offered here as a prescription for managers. We suggest, instead, that managers, especially female managers, resist the urge to stifle humorous tendencies in the work environment out of the fear that they may be perceived as unprofessional or "not serious." Females are often cautioned about how their speech patterns can place them at a power disadvantage in the work environment. Certainly, engaging in humor at the risk of being perceived as "silly" is dangerous work behavior. It is possible, though, that in an effort to adopt a more androgynous, emotion-free communication style, some women may consciously eliminate humor from their speech patterns. Our findings suggest this may not be universally advisable.
An alternative for managers who lack a natural ability to be humorous is to infuse the work environment with humor and levity by drawing it out of the group. There has been much practitioner literature focusing on ways to make the work environment less formal or serious by using humorous games, contests, or activities designed to relax the workplace and enhance relationships. A fun and playful work environment is believed to foster myriad positive outcomes, from decreased stress to increased creativity and productivity (Brotherton, 1996). Encouraging these activities may help the manager see the same positive outcomes (more favorable subordinate perceptions) via an alternative route.
Limitations and Future Directions
As with most any empirical research, our sample and methods have both advantages and limitations. By sampling individuals from a wide variety of organizations, we can be confident that our findings are not specific to one organization, one profession, or one geographical area (within the U.S.). Our sample is neither representative of the general population, nor even working persons, but it does include an important segment of the population. These college-educated individuals are not only subordinates, but represent future organizational leaders as well. Importantly, our conclusions are based on the perceptions held by actual subordinate-supervisor dyads and not on experimental manipulations of gender and humor use.
The data were collected using a mail questionnaire as the survey instrument and relied entirely on the perceptions of respondents. Certainly, alternative methods of data collection exist (e.g., qualitative analysis or group-level analysis). However, the method used here is consistent with other studies (Avolio et al., 1999). Along similar lines, capturing accurate representations of actual leader behavior using respondent perceptual measures may lead to distortions in ratings. For example, positive characteristics (such as a sense of humor) may be likely to be attributed to leaders who are perceived to be effective (rather than a sense of humor contributing to one's effectiveness). Female managers, also, may be disadvantaged in perceptual evaluations, which may influence the data and our results. For these reasons, we are careful to avoid drawing causal conclusions and suggest the need for further inquiry into these issues.
The limitations, though, are helped by the fact that the data represented multiple supervisor-subordinate dyads. This methodology helps to average out such sources of bias and to afford a better sense of generalizability in the results. Using a smaller number of supervisor-follower groups, though better able to address issues not contained in this study, may be more subject to the aforementioned distortion factors and may place greater limitations on external validity. In addition, the presence of significant interactions found in this study make it more difficult to argue the results are due to perceptual bias which disadvantages one group, say women, at the expense of another. Still, the need for additional inquiry that considers more extensive aspects of leadership style, behavior, and performance is clear. Identifying subtle differences that may cumulate into larger differentials measured by power, position, and status in organizations may significantly improve our understanding of the role of gender, hum or and leadership. Future research should go beyond the study of subordinate perceptions and investigate possible performance differences as a function of supervisor gender and humor. Further, exploring the role of subordinate gender, in addition to manager gender, may shed new light on the conclusions reached in this study.
On the assumption that humor use is considered inappropriate or unprofessional, some women feel they must stifle their sense of humor in the business world. Our results suggest this should not be the case, at least in the work environments in which many business school alumni find themselves. Though negative humor is generally unproductive, positive humor seems to be a useful managerial tool for both genders. Though used more frequently by males than females, it is females who benefit most in terms of perceptions of desirable leader behavior and leader effectiveness when using positive humor. Managers (and especially female managers) may find subordinates quite receptive to humor and may be able to enhance their overall effectiveness by using humor to enrich their communication style with subordinates.
(1.) Because males and females differ on use and appreciation of humor, we explored the possibility that the gender of the respondent may be an important variable in explaining differences in perceived humor and leader outcomes. We ran various specifications to test for interactions between respondent gender and humor on the dependent variables and found no statistically effects. We are grateful to the anonymous reviewer who raised this issue.
Alvesson, M. and Y. D. Billing. 1992. "Gender and Organization: Towards a Differentiated Understanding." Organization Studies 13: 73-97.
Avolio, B. J., J. M. Howell and J.J. Sosik. 1999. "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Bottom Line: Humor as a Moderator of Leadership Style Effects." Academy of Management Journal 42(2): 219-227.
Barbour, G. 1998. "Want to be a Successful Manager? Now That's a Laughing Matter!" PM. Public Management 80(7): 6-9.
Bass, B. M. 1990. Bass and Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership. New York, NY: Free Press.
Brotherton, P. 1996. "The Company That Plays Together" HRMagazine 41 (12): 76-82.
Collinson, D. 1988. "Engineering Humor: Masculinity, Joking and Conflict in Shop-Floor Relations." Organization Studies 9:181-199.
Decker, W. H. 1986. "Sex Conflict and Impressions of Managers' Aggressive Humor." The Psychological Record 36: 483-490.
Decker, W. H. 1987. "Managerial Humor and Subordinate Satisfaction." Social Behavior and Personality 15: 225-232.
_____ and D. M. Rotondo. 1999. "The Use of Humor at Work: Predictors and Implications." Psychological Reports 84: 961-968.
Duncan, W.J. 1982. "Humor in Management: Prospects for Administrative Practice and Research." Academy of Management Review 7: 136-142.
_____, L. R. Smeltzer and T. L. Leap. 1990. "Humor and Work: Applications of Joking Behavior to Management." Journal of Management 16: 255-278.
Dwyer, T. 1991. "Humor, Power, and Change in Organizations." Human Relations 44(1): 1- 19.
Groch, A. S. 1974. "Generality of Response to Humor and Wit in Cartoons, Jokes, Stories and Photographs." Psychological Reports 35: 835-838.
Hassett, J. and J. Houlihan. 1979. "Different Jokes for Different Folks." Psychology Today 12: 64-71.
Hatch, M,J. and S. B. Ehrlich. 1993. "Spontaneous Humour as an Indicator of Paradox and Ambiguity." Organization Studies 14(4): 505-526.
Heath, R. P. 1997. "Humor is Serious Business." Electric Perspectives 22(5): 68-80.
Korabik, K. and R. Ayman. 1989. "Should Women Managers Have to Act Like Men?" Journal of Management Development 8(6): 23-32.
Lippitt, G. L. 1982. "Humor: A Laugh a Day Keeps the Incongruities at Bay." Training and Development Journal 36(11): 98-100.
Malone, P. B. 1980. "Humor: A Double-Edged Tool for Today's Managers?" Academy of Management Review 5: 357-360.
Marshall, J. 1993. "Organisational Cultures and Women Managers: Exploring the Dynamics of Resilience." Applied Psychology: An International Review 42 (4): 313-322.
Powell, G. N. 1988. Women and Men in Management. Newbury, CA: Sage.
Shamir, B. 1995. "Social Distance and Charisma: Theoretical Notes and an Exploratory Study." Leadership Quarterly 6: 19-48.
Smeltzer, L. R and T. L. Leap. 1988. "An Analysis of Individual Reactions to Potentially Offensive Jokes in Work Settings." Human Relations 41: 295-304.
Stogdill, R. M. 1974. Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of the Literature. New York, NY: Free Press.
Sykes, A. J. M. 1966. "Joking Relationships in an Industrial Setting." American Anthropologist 68: 188-193.
Thorson, J. A., F. C. Powell, I. Sarmany-Schuller, and W. P. Hampes. 1997. "Psychological Health and Sense of Humor." Journal of Clinical Psychology 53: 605-619.
Yukl, G. 1998. Leadership in Organizations, 4th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations Variable Mean St.Dev. Gender Manager Manager Gender Task 1. Gender .39 .49 1.0 2. Manager Gender .32 .47 .189 (**) 1.0 3. Manager Task 11.79 2.21 -.009 .070 1.0 4. Manager Relationship 11.57 2.30 -.019 -.003 .513 (**) 5. Manager Effectiveness 3.53 1.09 -.033 .024 -.703 (**) 6. Positive Humor Use 3.43 .75 -.031 -.164 (**) .377 (**) 7. Negative Humor Use 1.26 .41 -.159 (**) -.182 (**) -.021 Variable Manager Manager Positive Negative Relation. Effect. Humor Humor 1. Gender 2. Manager Gender 3. Manager Task 4. Manager Relationship 1.0 5. Manager Effectiveness .659 (**) 1.0 6. Positive Humor Use .587 (**) .465 (**) 1.0 7. Negative Humor Use -.029 -.006 .280 (**) 1.0 N = 321 (*)p < .01 (**)p < .001 Ranges: Gender Respondent (0,1), Manager Gender (0,1), Task and Relationship Behavior (3-15), Effectiveness (1-5), Positive (1-5) and Negative Humor (1-2) Table 2 Hierarchical Regression Results of Humor and Gender on Leader Outcomes Task Behavior Beta t Model 1 F = .023 n.s. Constant 11.80 Gender -.01 -.15 Model 2 F = 15.79 (***) Change [R.sup.2] = .174 (**) Constant 8.15 Gender -.03 -.58 Manager Gender .12 2.19 (*) Positive Humor .43 7.85 (***) Negative Humor -.13 -2.27 (*) Model 3 F = 11.09 (***) Change [R.sup.2] = .009 n.s. Constant 8.26 Gender -.03 -.61 Manager Gender .16 .16 Positive humor .39 5.49 (***) Negative Humor -.08 -1.30 MG x PH .27 1.12 MG x NH -.31 -1.62 Final Model Adj. [R.sup.2] .166 Relationship Behavior Beta t Model 1 F = .11 n.s. Constant 11.63 Gender -.02 -.33 Model 2 F = 48.5 (***) Change [R.sup.2] = .39 (***) Constant 6.34 Gender -.05 -.97 Manager Gender .07 1.44 Positive Humor .65 13.88 (***) Negative Humor -.21 -4.50 (***) Model 3 F = 33.91 (***) Change [R.sup.2] = .013 (*) Constant 6.65 Gender -.05 -1.03 Manager Gender .02 .10 Positive humor .58 9.84 (***) Negative Humor -.16 -3.09 (**) MG x PH .38 1.92 (*) MG x NH -.34 -2.11 (*) Final Model Adj. [R.sup.2] .388 Leader Effectiveness Beta t Model 1 F = .34 n.s. Constant 3.54 Gender -.03 - 58 Model 2 F = 24.3 (***) Change [R.sup.2] = .24 (***) Constant 1.47 Gender -.06 -1.10 Manager Gender .09 1.72 (+) Positive Humor .51 9.82 (***) Negative Humor -.15 -2.77 (**) Model 3 F = 17.8 (***) Change [R.sup.2] = .02 (*) Constant 1.69 Gender -.06 -1.17 Manager Gender -.01 -.02 Positive humor .43 6.47 (***) Negative Humor -.09 -1.47 MG x PH .50 2.24 (*) MG x NH -.41 -2.25 (*) Final Model Adj. [R.sup.2] .245 All coefficients are standardized. (+)p<.10 (*)p<.05 (**)p<.01 (***)p<.001 Appendix 1 Results of Factor Analyses Humor Scale Item Factor 1: Positive Humor Has Good Sense of Humor .858 Communicates with Humor .777 Enjoys Jokes .827 Tells Jokes .725 Uses-Non-Offensive Humor .757 Uses Sexual Humor .155 Uses Insult Humor .003 Percent of Variance 50.62 Humor Scale Item Factor 2: Negative Humor Has Good Sense of Humor .005 Communicates with Humor .248 Enjoys Jokes .135 Tells Jokes .472 Uses-Non-Offensive Humor .008 Uses Sexual Humor .900 Uses Insult Humor .903 Percent of Variance 22.04 All items were measured on a five-point scale of agreement to statements beginning with "My Supervisor...." Lender Behavior Scale Item Factor 1: Relationship Behavior Is Popular at Work .736 Is Friendly at Work .878 Shows Concern for People .849 Shows Concern for .008 Production .260 Is Decisive .577 Accomplishes what His/Her Superiors Expect Percent of Variance 59.81 Item Factor 2: Task Behavior Is Popular at Work .428 Is Friendly at Work .128 Shows Concern for People .168 Shows Concern for .858 Production .703 Is Decisive .849 Accomplishes what His/Her Superiors Expect Percent of Variance 17.21 All items were measured on a five-point scale of agreement to statements beginning with "My Supervisor...."
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Decker, Wayne H.; Rotondo, Denise M.|
|Publication:||Journal of Managerial Issues|
|Article Type:||Statistical Data Included|
|Date:||Dec 22, 2001|
|Previous Article:||Do Supportive Organizations Make For Good Corporate Citizens?|
|Next Article:||When Do Feedback, Incentive Control, And Autonomy Improve Morale? The Importance Of Employee-Management Relationship Closeness.|