Humor and fun at workplace - Literature review Example

?2. Introduction Literature Review is a quick and easy method to gather information and data on the topic under study. It helps identify the strengths of the study and also the trends in a particular period. Changes can occur over a period of time and this can be identified through review of different studies, which is not possible through a single study (Toracco, 2005). It also helps identify what has been done from what needs to be done. Traditional form of literature review has been conducted wherein first the definition and concept of humor has been discussed after which its linkage to organizational performance has been reviewed. Organizational culture can enhance performance and literature on this has been reviewed in the next section. 2.1 Humor and Fun 2.1.1 Humor – definition and concept Humor, joke and fun have been interchangeably used by scholars and researchers although joke and fun is only one part of humor (Duncan, Smeltzer & Leap, 1990). The purpose of humor and fun at workplace is to attract and retain employees. Workplace fun culture comprises of joy, happiness, surprise, and enjoyment in the employment relationship (Chan, 2010). Malone (1980) cites Chapman and Foot who define humor as “a process initiated by a humorous stimulus, such as a joke or cartoon, and terminating with some response indicative of experienced pleasure, such as laughter”. Humor has been defined as a unique type of communication as it is presented in a way that causes laughter (Duncan, 1982). Dwyer (1991), through a synthesis of previous studies and literature, through personal interviews and through discussions, finds that “humor” is a carrier of serious values and a vector that reflects both stability and change in power equilibria. Conservatives, revolutionaries and scientists look at humor from different perspectives. This paper analyses that joking relationships have a content that reflects social relations. Dwyer analysed joking relationships based on Caplow’s Triad theory which allows humor to be seen as a product of power relations. Based on the theory it is possible to predict the joking relations between people with varying degrees of power. Workplace is now looked at as a fun place which has served to bring about changes in organizational power. This paper thus suggests that culture of fun and humor can enhance performance. Fun culture at workplace has been used to diagnose and treat workplace ills such as poor communication, lack of innovation, absenteeism, stress and lack of creativity (Fleming, 2005). Collinsom lays great emphasis to the phenomenon of humor and jokes. The author contends that through jokes people reveal much more about the culture and conflicts within the organization than can be gathered through surveys. Through jokes people reveal their innermost feelings, views and ambiguities. Humor is usually associated with jokes and laughter while fun encompasses much more than humor. It also includes activities such as public celebrations of private milestones, games/sports and competitions and community activities (Chan, 2010). 2.1.2 Impact of culture of humor and fun on organizational performance Various researchers and scholars have derived different benefits from introducing humor and fun at workplace. Malone states that laughter gives man’s spirituality another dimension, life becomes livable and bearable (Dwyer, 1991), humor helps overcome the monotony associated with earning, reduces tensions and gives rise to a sense of belonging (Duncan, Smeltzer & Leap, 1990) while also providing an ideal vehicle for collaborative verbal behavior (Holmes & Marra, 2002). Malone’s findings suggest that humor relaxes the mind, humor is kindly and sympathetic and inspired by a warm feeling of fellowship toward mankind. This perhaps is the reason that humor has been used as a tool to unmask organizational power relations as found by Dwyer. Humorous remarks by senior psychiatric staff can help the junior staff to learn the job without endangering the task performance (Dwyer, 1991) which conforms to Plato’s observation that serious things cannot be understood without laughable things (cited by Malone, 1980) . Humor also has the capacity to mask the authoritarian content of a message, emphasizes Dwyer. Humor has immense value as it eases social conflicts, relieves tensions and promotes order. Avolio, Howell and Sosik (1999) cite that humor improves employee morale, enhances group cohesiveness, creates a more positive organizational culture and increases motivation. Humor can construct and sustain relationships leading to workplace harmony but it can also lead to subversive attitudes or aggressive feelings (Holmes & Marra, 2002). Humor, fun and play at work can lower the levels of anxiety, alleviate boredom and reduce the perceived level of stress (Newstrom, 2002), and make life more enjoyable (Hudson, 2001) while also resulting in faster problem-solving, better teamwork and fewer personnel difficulties (Stauffer, 1999). Hudson divides the benefits of fun at work into three categories – probable, possible and uncertain. The probable effects include lowering anxiety and reducing levels of boredom while possible effects include a greater spirit of camaraderie, on-time attendance at meetings and greater participation. It is also possible that fun alleviates mood, enthusiasm and diminishes interpersonal conflicts. The uncertain effects require further research and documentation. Duncan, Smeltzer and Leap (1990) examined the legal and arbitral aspects of humor as it relates to employee relations. The authors find that interest in humor by management has been sporadic but it has the potential to provide valuable insights into management and organizational behavior. The authors examine the pervasiveness aspect of humor and also provide a cognitive appraisal as to why an individual may appreciate humor. Gender differences also exist in the use and appreciation of humor, contend the authors. Like Collinson, Duncan et al also recognized the dichotomy in humor at workplace. While it can relieve employees from boredom it can also create safety hazards and accidents; it can lead to bodily injury or property damage. Humor may also have a pervasive effect on organizational culture and define the roles of employees at different levels. Humor also has the potential to reveal the organizational culture, emphasize Holmes and Marra (2002). The authors also explored the potential of humor analysis for identifying characteristics of workplace subcultures that develop in the organizations. They identified three aspects of how humor functions in workplace meetings. Accordingly they evaluated the type of humor which predominated, the style of humor adopted by participants and the amount of humor that characterizes different meetings. The study found that burst of humor was more supportive than contenstive, more collaborative than competitive in public organizations, which was also the case in factory meetings. In commercial meetings however, humor was sparky, contestive and competitive. These suggest the individual differences in value and orientation, the differences in workplace features, as well as the pressure to perform in a team. Therefore, humor by itself cannot be productive as there are several variables that influence the outcome. 2.1.3 Factors that influence the impact and interpretation of humor The benefits enumerated are many but humor being unique to every individual, its impact and interpretation may vary. The quality of humor depends upon the judgment of the listeners and here Malone cites five variables that influence a person’s judgment of what is funny – sex, age, language, education and culture. This suggests that managers cannot blindly apply humor in learning and training. Perhaps because of the cultural and class barriers humorous interchange across traditional authoritarian organizational structures are limited. Given the current turbulent business environment, the remedy appears to lie in using laughter as a tool to ease tensions. However, managers are not willing to take risks with this untested tool because of the many variables and little knowledge on the subject. Malone (1980) emphasizes that humor is an undeveloped resource that can contribute to the productivity and satisfaction of people at work. The author finds a gap as no research has yet been conducted to develop a set of instructions that managers could use humor to enhance performance. Malone also elaborates on the set of questions that could be researched particularly what types of humor could enhance performance or have an adverse impact, under what conditions could humor be effective or what type of people would most likely respond positively to humor. While Avolio, Howell and Sosik (1999) evaluated different leadership styles with humor, they did not measure the full range of behaviors associated with leaders’ use of humor. 2.1.4 Humor and leadership While Dwyer demonstrated positive impact of humor used by senior psychiatric staff in enhancing learning and thereby performance, Avolio, Howell and Sosik (1999) conducted an exploratory study to examine how the use of humor moderates a range of leadership styles. The authors find that sense of humor is frequently associated with leadership and with a leader’s ability to effect change in followers. Leaders’ use of humor in their cultures has led to higher levels of employee commitment, cohesiveness and performance in organizations such as Southwest Airlines and Ben & Jerry’s Ice creams. Use of humor can enhance the effectiveness of transformational leadership as humor makes the leaders feel reassured or gain confidence and control to joke about stressful situations. Humor also helps in contingent leadership as humor can lighten the atmosphere at work. This study however found that laissez-faire leadership is negatively associated with the use of humor. At the same time, the authors also found that contingent reward leadership is negatively related to performance when humor is used too often. However this study was limited to men, and the leadership style and gender could differ across gender. 2.1.5 Developing a culture of humor Traditionally fun has been excluded from being a part of the workplace culture because it was believed that it interfered with productivity; it was considered to be a distraction (Hudson, 2001). In addition, people may have lacked the skills to facilitate fun at workplace. Duncan (1982) maintains that the effect of humor on performance has not been systematically examined. Humor appreciation is uniquely individual which makes its application challenging at workplace by managers. Duncan provides a list of guidelines for management in matching humor with the situation. Humor can be offensive but this can be overcome by creating an environment of trust. However, here the manager credibility also matters. Through humor group cohesiveness can be influenced which would enable employees of all levels to engage in joking behavior and eliminate authority differences. This can be done through reciprocal humor. Aggressive or “put down” humor should be avoided as it results in dysfunctional responses from both sexes. Hudson adds how a culture of fun can be created very simply. Simple gestures such as welcoming employees at work, joyfully engaging them in activities and creating positive memories for them to take back home at the end of the day would help “make someone else’s day”. Stauffer (1999) elaborates how fun should be introduced at the workplace. Stauffer suggests modeling the behavior of someone whose humor you admire. Fun is within everyone’s reach and hence no assumptions should be made of acceptance or non-acceptance. Stauffer suggests a top-down corporate-wide effort to make humor happen at work. Similarly, Chan (2010) developed the four S-factors’ typology – Staff-oriented workplace fun, Supervisor-oriented workplace fun, Social-oriented workplace fun and Strategy-oriented workplace fun – to develop a workplace fun environment. This study was meant to guide the hospitality sector where employee burnouts are very common and hence workplace fun activities can act as motivator. At the core of the strategy is employee well-being and job satisfaction. Collinson (2002) too examined the relationship between humor, power and management. Finding it to be a double-edged sword, Collinson maintains that direct managerial control can lead to suppression and censorship of humor and laughter where as Fleming (2005) maintains that fun cultures are associated with empowerment and empowered employees experience fun at work. Collinson emphasizes that far from being a tool for social cohesion humor can actually reflect and highlight workplace division, conflicts, tensions, power asymmetries and inequalities. In the long run manufacturing humor can actually be counter-productive, elaborates Collinson. Fleming (2005) focuses on managing fun which blurs the traditional boundary between work and non-work. Humor and fun is serious business but driven by sober corporate motives. Fleming contends that employees have been cynical of the current trend of blurring the boundaries of work and non-work. This study conducted in communication firms, concludes that the secret of organizational fun resides in the organic process of self-management and genuine anatomy. Cynicism may be based on several factors but nevertheless, the relationship of fun to respect, dignity and integrity need to be explored in an organizational context. Making fun an integral part of the culture can actually break barriers and help people transcend over emotions such as jealousy, and encourage camaraderie in teams (Hudson, 2001). Through a pleasant work environment and through innovation even unpleasant tasks can be accomplished. Important corporate messages can be communicated in memorable ways. Fun makes an organization more flexible and dynamic; it makes the people more creative and enthusiastic. 2.2 Organizational culture and Performance Organizational culture is a variable that has been linked to organizational effectiveness as it is believed by scholars that cultural factors play a role in determining organizational outcomes (Marcoulides & Heck, 1993). However, there is lack of agreement on theoretical formulations linking organizational culture with performance. 2.2.1 Definition of culture and organizational culture Culture has often been conceptualized either as a system of shared cognitions or as a system of shared symbols and meanings (Lee & Yu, 2004). Organizational culture is the “basic assumptions and beliefs shared by the members of an organization, that operate unconsciously and define in a basic taken-for-granted fashion an organization’s view of itself and its environment” (Edgar Schein cited by Johnson, Scholes, Whittington 2005: 196). Culture in an organization is about collective behavior. Each culture has its own collection of patterns that become so embedded and imprinted in the system that it occurs naturally without people being conscious of it (Rapaille, 1999). However, cultures are deep-seated, pervasive and complex; it is not possible to bring about adaptation and changes without bringing about change in the culture. Culture permeates an organization at three different levels – at the surface are the visible artifacts such as the structure, technology, rules of conduct, dress codes or stories and rituals (Marcoulides & Heck, 1993). Beneath this is the level of organizational values and then the underlying assumptions that are deeper manifestation of values. 2.2.2 Organizational Culture & Performance Bezrukova et al (2012) contend that cultural alignment across different levels in the organization may influence performance. While culture is a set of norms and values shared and strongly held by a group of people, the dominant paradigm in culture research has emphasized on the homogenous and undivided nature of organizational culture. Often faultlines occur within a group when the engineers are all fresh graduates and the designers are just about to retire. In such instances alignment becomes difficult which adversely impacts performance. However, Google has developed a culture of perfection by encouraging engineers that are diverse (faultlines) to be exposed to projects and ideas across organizational levels. All members receive a common message about the organization, roles and appropriate responses. Through this strategy Google has been able to receive cultural alignment. With a result-focused approach it is possible to achieve alignment if the faultline groups align with outside groups. This study thus suggests that change in culture can be effective even when people from different levels interact and work in cohesion. Lee and Yu (2004) investigated the relationship between corporate culture and organizational performance focusing the study on Singaporean companies. The study found that culture impacts several organizational processes and performance. This study demonstrates the power that culture has in enhancing organizational performance. When the culture is widely shared among employees an organization is said to have a strong culture. The study used organizational cultural profile as the primary data. The study was conducted over 72 companies in the manufacturing, hospitals and insurance sectors. The dominant themes in organizational cultures were team orientation, degree of innovation, task orientation, degree of supportiveness and degree of humanism. In the insurance and the manufacturing sector culture of innovation helped enhance performance. This culture may be essential for the sectors in order to deal with the competitive environment. The hospitals had more team-oriented values which is descriptive of the current industry characteristics. The outcome of the study supports previous studies that cultural fit accounts for some amount of organizational performance. According to Lee and Yu this linkage between cultural strength and organizational performance is not strong enough to develop a pattern that can be applicable to all industries. The authors are also not supportive of a strong culture as it is short-term and can stifle creativity. However, the authors point out that if an organization has a rare culture that is not shared by a large number of companies, this culture can be a source of sustained competitive advantage. Marcoulides and Heck (1993) conducted a study that found organizations might improve performance if they can strategically manage particular aspects of their culture. When managers understand the direct effect of certain processes in the organization they can guide the organization to enhance certain cultural elements that are considered to be critical to improve performance. At the same time it would also be possible to identify and discard the elements that are dysfunctional. Practices such as employee selection methods, performance appraisal, remuneration strategies all follow a set pattern but changes in these can have a direct effect on the organization’s level of performance. The study also found direct impact of organizational value system and employees’ perception of climate in the workplace on organizational performance. All these suggest that management’s use of organizational design can improve organizational performance. Ogbonna and Harris (2000) examined the link between three concepts – leadership, performance and culture in the UK business environment. While organizational culture and leadership have been independently linked to performance, few studies have examined the association between the three concepts. The authors surmised that leadership style is only indirectly associated with leadership style and is not directly associated with performance. However, competitive and innovative cultural traits are directly linked to performance. Bureaucratic and community cultural traits are not related to performance. This implies that strong cultures or internally-oriented cultures are not directly linked to performance. The outcome of this study indicates that the management should focus on competitive and innovative forms of culture with a view to enhance performance. Competitive and innovative cultures are sensitive to the external environment and hence the focus should be on these cultural traits to achieve sustained competitive advantage. Prajogo and McDermott (2011) examined multidimensional relationships between organizational culture and organizational performance at the operational level. Organizations have more control over operational performance than over financial performance. Performance was evaluated against quality and innovation and both these performance dimensions are complimentary. The authors used the competing values framework (CVF) (group, developmental, hierarchical, and rational cultures) and investigated its relationship with quality and innovation performance dimensions. This was a study based among 194 middle and senior managers of Australian firms. Development culture was found to be the strongest predictor among four cultural dimensions. This dimension has relationship with three of the performance measures – product quality, innovation both as in product innovation and process innovation. All the other three dimensions of culture have a relationship only with product quality. The link development culture is justified as this denotes flexibility, growth, innovation and creativity. Innovation requires freedom and flexibility without which growth can be stifled. This finding can guide the managers to evaluate their strategy based on the cultural dimensions. It would also help managers to focus on particular cultural traits and not have a multidimensional approach within the organization. 2.3 Conclusion Different studies linking culture and performance have been reviewed. These studies have been conducted in different environments but the outcome is consistent. Strong cultures are not supportive cultures as they tend to be bureaucratic and hence stifle innovation and creativity (Bezrukova et al, 2012). However, rare culture can be a source of competitive advantage (Lee & Yu, 2004). Organizational value system and employees’ perception of the work climate directly impact performance (Marcoulides & Heck, 1993). Focus on innovative and competitive forms of culture can enhance performance (Ogbonna & Harris, 2000). Development culture was found to be the strongest predictor among four cultural dimensions of the CVF framework (Prajogo & McDermott, 2011). All these indicate that a culture of fun and humor can give an organization sustained competitive advantage. Fun and humor tend to motivate and empower employees; it fosters a spirit of team work and promotes cohesiveness. It enables people to vent their feelings and interact with different levels of people within the organization. This work climate can promote innovation and growth. All the cultural studies indicate the innovation, creativity, development and freedom are essential to enhance performance. A culture of fun and humor can relieve people from boredom and monotony and steer them towards innovation and creativity. While some researchers argue that humor can be destructive, this cannot be universally applicable because appreciation of humor varies across cultures and individuals. However, a culture of humor can bring in quality enhancement, and product and process innovation, the dimensions against which performance is measured. References Avolio, B.J., Howell, J.M. & Sosik, J.J. 1999. A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE BOTTOM LINE: HUMOR AS A MODERATOR OF LEADERSHIP STYLE EFFECTS. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 219-227 Bezrukova, K., Thatcher, S.M.B., Jehn, K.A. & Spell, C.S. 2012. The Effects of Alignments: Examining Group Faultlines, Organizational Cultures, and Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 97, no. 1, pp. 7-92 Chan, S.C.H. 2010. Does workplace fun matter? Developing a useable typology of workplace fun in a qualitative study. International Journal of Hospitality Management, vol. 29, pp. 720–728 Collinson, D.L. 2002. MANAGING HUMOUR. Journal of Management Studies, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 269-290 Duncan, W.J. 1982. Humor in Management: Prospects for Administrative Practice and Research. Academy of Management Review, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 136-142 Duncan, W.J., Smeltzer, L.R. & Leap, T.L. 1990. Humor and Work: Applications of Joking Behavior to Management. Journal of Management, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 255-278 Dwyer, T. 1991. Humor, Power, and Change in Organizations. Human relations, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 1-19 Fleming, P. 2005. Workers' Playtime? : Boundaries and Cynicism in a ''Culture of Fun'' Program. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, vol. 41, pp. 285-304 Holmes, J., & Marra, M. 2002. Having a laugh at work: how humour contributes to workplace culture. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 34, pp. 1683–1710 Hudosn, K.M. 2001. Transforming a Conservative Company- One Laugh at a Time. First person. Harvard Business Review. July-August 2001. pp. 45-52 Johnson, G., Scholes, K. & Whittington, R. 2005. Exploring Corporate Strategy. Seventh Edition. Prentice Hall, Financial Times. Lee, S.K.J., & Yu, K. 2004. Corporate culture and organizational performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 340-359 Malone, P.B. 1980. Humor: A Double-Edged Tool For Today's Managers? Academy of Management Review, vol. 5. no. 3, pp. 357-360 Marcoulides, G.A., & Heck, R.H. 1993. ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND PERFORMANCE: PROPOSING AND TESTING A MODEL. ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 209-226 Newstrom, J.W. 2002. Making Work Fun: An Important Role for Managers. Sam Advanced Management Journal. Winter 2002 Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L.C. 2000. Leadership style, organizational culture and performance: empirical evidence from UK companies. Int. J, of Human Resource Management, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 766-788 Prajogo, D.I., & McDermott, C.M. 2011. The relationship between multidimensional organizational culture and performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 712-735 Rapaille, C. 1999. Cultural imprints. Executive Excellence, vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 20 Stauffer, D. 1999. Let the Good Times Roll: Building a Fun Culture. Harvard Management Update, October 1999, pp. 1-5 Toracco, R.J. 2005. Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples. Human Resource Development Review, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 356-367 Read More