CC BY
117© Marfo, Charles Ofosu, and Catrin Hill 2015 Research article
This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
Pragmatics of humor at the workplace: A case study
Charles Ofosu Marfo1, Catrin Hill2
1 Department of Modern Languages, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana
E-mail: cmarfo@gmail.com
2 Institut fur Anglistik und Amerikanistik, Universitat Potsdam, Germany
This paper presents a study of how humor impact the workplace and individual creativity following the position that humor is an important part of the corporate environment and quality of human personality (e.g. Bleedorn (1987), Plester (2009)). Workers of an advertising agency are observed with regard to the use of humor and its effects on their relationship with each other. From recordings, pieces of discourse that triggered at least a smile are identified as humor following Ruch (2008), and their contents are analyzed. We also critically look into each identified humor and look at how it is used with particular attention to the initiator, the target and the butt of the humor. We ultimately endeavor to underscore the commonly held view in the literature that creativity comes to bear in a positive humorous environment of a company and that creativity is positively linked to favorable humorous surroundings at the workplace.
Keywords
humor; incongruity; workplace; creativity For citation
Marfo, Charles Ofosu, and Catrin Hill. 2015. "Pragmatics of humor at the workplace: A case study." Language. Text. Society 5 (1): e9-e24. https://ltsj.online/2015-05-1-marfo-hill. (Journal title at the time of publication: SamaraAltLinguo E-Journal.)
Received: 1 March 2015
Reviewing editor: Andrey G. Kirillov Accepted: 15 March 2015
Published online: 1 April 2015
Abstract
1. INTRODUCTION
Scholars from various backgrounds and disciplines have observed that humor and other activities of fun are important part of the working life, and that humor is an important quality of a human personality (e.g. Bleedorn (1987), Plester (2009)). It is pretty simple, "Humor offers relief from boredom in the workplace" (Plester 2009, 89) and "almost nothing makes you more comfortable than sharing a laugh about something universal, like kids".1 Romero and Pescosolido (2008, 396) also argue that workers today simply expect their work to be pleasant and amusing. Following other scholars, Romero and Pescosolido (2008) further note that companies like Microsoft and Google offer a kind of campus environment as a relaxed and fun workplace in order to keep its youth workers, since workers between the ages of eighteen (18) and twenty-five (25) years in particular (would like to have fun at work and) are more likely to leave firms when the work or the workplace is boring. That is to say, people who have positive feelings about their jobs are less likely to resign. In recent past, there have been professionals with expertise in engendering workplace humor. Going by the description of humor consultants, these professionals go into companies to do presentations and workshops (Morreall 1991, 450). One of such professionals, Mike Kerr, particularly calls himself or is referred to as 'workplace energizer'.2
On the other side of the coin, studies have shown that employers also seem to favor job candidates with a good sense of humor. As Kerr (2006) points out, a Robert Half International survey observes that 84% of executives feel that people with a good sense of humor do a better job. It is also believed that a humorous person is more creative, more productive, has fewer sick days and better decision-making capabilities.3 As also elicited from working students, it is fun to be around friendly colleagues (at the workplace) and this evolves a relaxed working environment, which also motivates creativity. That is to say, the notion of creativity is positively linked to the idea of favorable humor. In this direction, we look at the use of humor in an agency (name withheld to mask the agency and to protect the identity of its employees) during its lunch breaks in particular. We endeavor to explore the positive and/or negative effects of humor in the agency. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: The following sections (i.e. Sections 2 and 3) combine literature review and insight into humor at the workplace, including taking a closer look at purposes, benefits, and dangers of the use of humor in the workplace. Section 4 does analysis of our data and brings to bear the substance of humor at the workplace, including an evaluation and explanation of humorous situations from the case. Section 5 concludes the paper.
2. INSIGHTS INTO HUMOR 2.1. Definition
Scholars have offered several definitions of the term 'humor'. Looking at a few of them, Duncan and Feisal (1989, 19) for instance look at humor as "any type of communication that intentionally creates incongruent meanings and thereby causes laughter". As a rather broader
1 http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-11-05/humor-in-the-workplacebusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice (retrieved: January 6, 2015)
2 http://www.mikekerr.com/humour-resources/free-articles/ (retrieved: January 13, 2015)
3 http://www.canadaone.com/ezine/oct06/humour_at_work.html (retrieved: January 13, 2015)
definition from the perspective of linguistics, psychology and anthropology, Attardo (1994, 4) states that humor is "an all-encompassing category, covering any event or humor that elicits laughter, amuses or is felt to be funny". On their part, Holmes and Marra (2002, 1693) define "humorous utterances as those which are identified by the analysis on the basis of paralinguistic, prosodic, and discoursal clues, as intended by the speaker(s) to be amusing and perceived to be amusing by at least some participants". Ruch (2008, 21) focuses on the idea of play or playfulness in humor and observes that there are different terms that describe humorous events or stimuli such as "witty, humorous, comical, hilarious, or droll" (21) ... and words such as wag, cynical or to tease describe and belong to different forms of humor (35). According to Bleedorn (1987, 10), these forms include satires, witticisms, caricatures, puns, riddles, comic similes, and impersonations. Attardo (1994) also presents a semantic field of humor involving other forms of humor such as irony, nonsense, whim, teasing, jokes, comic, mocking, and sarcasm.
2.2. Theories of humor
Generally, scholars agree that the idea of incongruity is an essential condition for humor and, according to the incongruity theory (e.g. Roth (2002, 352)), the consequence of a perceived incongruity is a sudden increment of happiness. In connection with incongruity theory of humor, Ruch (2008, 25) notes that "humor involves the bringing together of two normally disparate ideas, concepts, or situations in a surprising or unexpected manner". Morreall (1991, 364) also observes that "something is incongruous if it does not fit our conceptual patterns and ordinary expectations". Perhaps, as an addition, Romero and Pescosolido (2008, 398) also bases incongruity on ". the premise that surprises and uncommon circumstances that engender humor". However, Morreall further and critically notes that incongruity by itself does not insure amusement; he notes, "to be funny, incongruity must be enjoyed" (364).
Other theories have been evolved towards the understanding of humor. One of them, the release theory (e.g. Lorenz (2002); Attardo (2008)) for instance explains that humor and laughter release tension and repressed emotions. Specifically, according to Attardo (2008, 103), "release theories claim that humor 'releases' some form of psychic energy and/or frees the individual from some constraints". Another one, the hostility or superiority theory (e.g. Meyer (2000); Romero and Pescosolido (2008)), which is connected to ideas of triumph, aggression and derision, also claims that humor is bound to a feeling of superiority over something, of overcoming something, or aggression toward a target, such that "people laugh outwardly or inwardly at others because they feel some sort of superiority over them or feel superior in some way to them" (Meyer 2000, 314). Romero and Pescosolido (2008, 398) observe that perceived superiority can be found in forms of ethnic or putdown humor as well as in mocking.
Considering the pragmatic aspect of humor, we realize that humor involves the violation of Grice's Cooperative Principle (Grice 1989). Following Attardo (2008), we observe that humor is non-cooperative (hence the violation of the Cooperative Principle (CP)) and that this violation of the CP is used for communicative purposes; one of them being that it enables the realization humor. The physical realization of or response to humor on the part of the target person or audience (often including the butt of the humor) is exhibition of laughter. However, there could be other responses to humor. Kuipers (2008, 385) notes that people might just smile, answer with
another joke, or groan in response. Also, a laugh may not be positive or may not be triggered by humor. Indeed, it may come from nervousness, friendliness, or tickling as well (Attardo 2008, 117).
2.3. Joke and humor
It has variously been illustrated that jokes are just one of the things that can be used to produce humorous situations. Following Lendvai (1993, 89), Laimute (2005, 81) looks at a joke as "a short humorous piece of oral literature in which the funniness culminates in the final sentence, called the punchline". The element of the punchline here is specific for jokes. Jokes may also become eminent by the violation of the cooperative principle or, at least, one of the four associated maxims. Furthermore, they may depend on the constitutive elements of conceptual incongruity, a lexical ambiguity, unexpectedness, implicitness of information and a sudden shift (Muschard 1999, 14). As we observed earlier with humor, all these about jokes go to suggest that they are part of or contribute to humor. However, as the present case study strives to make evident, it is important to understand that plain jokes do not play such an important role in humorous situations and conversations.
Certainly, there are jokes within dialogues; i.e. jokes that can miss their target because they are too unusual, too absurd or offensive, or jokes that are indeed really funny (Dewitte and Verguts 2001, 38). Nevertheless, within a conversation or dialogue, people usually do not say one joke after another. In other words, although jovial behavior and inside jokes may be commonplace at the workplace, we observe that they rather result from general utterances made by works and spontaneous teasing of one another. Thus, as will become evident in our data and analysis in Section 4, Romero and Cruthirds (2006, 59) partly observes that humor at the workplace "consist of amusing communications ..."
2.4. Humor in the workplace
In the past decades, there has been an increasing interest in humor at the workplace. Presently, "the traditional assessment of humor as frivolous and unproductive" (Morreall 1991, 359) is believed to be wrong. Ruch (2008) has referred to humor at the workplace as a kind of play as against the background that it was something opposite of work back in the industrial era. In that antiquated view, therefore, he suggested that "humor in work is an oxymoron". Today the importance and the impact of the use of humor at the workplace have widely been evolved and/or emphasized. In an organization, Romero and Cruthirds (2006, 59) in particular note that humor "consist of amusing communications that produce positive emotions and cognitions in the individual, group, or organization".
2.5. Elements of joking behavior
Duncan and Feisal (1989, 23) examined elements of joking behavior at work through a system involving antecedent conditions, an initiator, a target, a butt and result. Besides these, they also observed friendship clusters, selected leaders and followers as well as peer perceptions of
performance as other factors that influence the joking behavior. They explain that antecedent conditions determine a joke's outcome and include the group's demography or the macro and organizational culture; i.e. people should explicitly be aware of antecedent conditions such as "the ethnic, racial, and sexual [orientation] composition of the work group" (Duncan and Feisal 1989, 20). Also, an initiator of the joke and a target of it are both or within the working group itself. The butt of the joke could be, but often is, the person the joke is about. It is worthy of note that "being the butt of a joke is not always negative" (Duncan and Feisal 1989, 28). Finally, as result, it is expected that a joke would engender and/or establish "cohesiveness, belonging, status, conflict" (Duncan and Feisal 1989, 23).
2.6. Benefits of humor at the workplace
Several benefits have been ascribed to humor and its use at the workplace. Among others, in a 2008 PENN Behavioral Health document, humor is described as healthy; it is supposed to have positive influences on the physical and the psychological health. Morreall (2008, 470) also observes that "companies which intentionally foster a spirit of humor and fun have found that their workers have higher morale, feel closer to their fellow workers, and are more loyal to the company". Plester (2009) also suggests that humor can build relationships between colleagues and improves camaraderie. As Kuipers (2008, 366) puts it, humor "[...] helps to build an identity within [a] group".
Morreall (1991), in particular outlines three basic benefits of workplace humor: combating stress, improving mental flexibility, and developing social relations. Morreall (1991) explains that, basically, humor and particularly the physiological response of laughter to humor reduce stress levels of workers and, as will become evident, our data suggest that indeed humor enables workers to have a more positive outlook at even seemingly unsurmountable issues. In other words, as Bleedorn (1987, 10) notes, humor can be used to release tension because of its ability to stimulate laughter. Romero and Cruthirds (2006) concur and further observe that when one jokes about a stressful situation, one develops a sense of dominance and control over the said stressful situation. Accordingly, if one reacts to a stressful situation with a joke or a humorous outlook, a physiological damage could be avoided. Morreall (1991, 360) again explains that "humor promotes workers' health, physical and mental state", hence improving mental flexibility, which ultimately engenders creativity.
The last but not the least among the benefits of humor Morreall (1991) points out is that it functions as a 'social lubricant' which reduces social distance. This social lubricant includes social connections and identities that enable cohesiveness; e.g. race and religion. Romero and Cruthirds (2006, 64), in particular identify this social lubricant as the similarities or common grounds that people within a group share despite their individual distinctions. For instance, leaders or bosses can use humor to reduce the importance of their status and to appear more approachable to their subordinates. Where a boss initiates and purposes to effect distance reduction, Duncan and Feisal (1989, 28) recommends self-disparaging jokes for example. On the other hand, as Romero and Cruthirds (2006, 63) and Kuipers (2008, 365) argue, this also suggests that a boss could use humor to secure and emphasize on his or her "power in hierarchical relationships".
2.7. Creativity and the downside of humor
Scholars observe a connection between humor and creativity and this seems to be suggested by Morreall (1991, 360) as well with a thought that "humor fosters mental flexibility". Particularly, he notes that humor fosters different activities and traits, such as "divergent thinking; creative problem solving; and risk taking" (Morreall 1991, 364). Thus, humor evolves an enabling workplace, which ultimately engenders creativity. On the other hand, Morreall also notes that "jobs that require creativity, such as advertising, are famous for their humor" (370). This clearly suggests that workplaces which involve creativity also naturally offer a humorous surrounding. Martin (2003) also observes that individuals who have a good sense of humor are not just thought to be socially competent, but are also said to be creative. On their part, Romero and Cruthirds (2006, 62) explain that humor styles often position people "to think in an incongruous manner, which is conducive to creative thinking", and that affiliative humor in particular increases creativity.4 Following these scholars, we observe that factors that define creativity may include fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration, all of which are also important for the production of a successful joke.
It is important to note that there are a few negative aspects of humor as well. According to Romero and Pescosolido (2008, 397-398), these include attempts "of humor that do not result in the positive emotions and cognitions" and ". humor that is intentionally negative in nature". Duncan and Feisal (1989, 21) explain that members of a working group "need to be sensitive to the cultural, historical, and demographic characteristics" of other people, since something that might be amusing to them may be offensive for another person. However, some people may intentionally use humor to 'attack' others. Kuipers (2008, 368) explains that this case is based on the conflict theory, which describes "humor as an expression of conflict, struggle, or antagonism". That is to say, humor could be used as a weapon. As weapon, humor may include ridiculing or teasing and the use of sarcasm, which are forms of put-down humor; i.e. using humor to derive relief or pleasure at the expense of another person.
Besides put-down humor, a distinction is also made between lubricant humor and abrasive humor; while lubricant humor facilitates relationships and seeks to reduce tension, abrasive humor acts to propel the wheels of irritation to the social machinery (e.g. Duncan and Feisal (1989)). Abrasive humor, which includes sexist and ethnic jokes, therefore, may hardly contribute to the well-being of the working group or the butt of the joke, except where it is used with a prior knowledge of all, particularly the butt of the humor/joke. Referring to abrasive humor as aggressive humor, Romero and Cruthirds (2006, 63) claims it is used to demonstrate power over colleagues or subordinates. Holmes and Marra (2002, 1687) respectively refer to lubricant humor and abrasive humor as supportive humor and contestive humor. In what seems to be a further description of or distinctions in abrasive humor, Ruch (2008: 21) also explains that "humor also seems to have different 'flavors', such as bitter, salty or dark". In particular, the dark flavor of humor includes irony and satire, as well as misinterpretations, failed humor, and especially put-downs (Romero and Pescosolido 2008, 397-398).
4 Affiliative humor is one that facilitates interpersonal relationships and reduces interpersonal tensions. It is part of what has been termed adaptive humor, which is beneficial to the psychological well-being.
3. THE CASE STUDY
3.1. Data profile
This study was conducted with data from a small but growing advertising agency located in Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany. In a bid to hide the identity of participants, we have not used the real names of the participating workers. Neither can we give the name of the agency. The agency is, however, involved in helping companies to build attractive brands and to maintain the good image that comes with a well-functioning brand. Employing about thirty people, at work, all employees are called by their first names as part of the agency's corporate culture and this is supposed to set the stage for a comfortable work atmosphere.
Another significant culture of the agency is its daily lunch time for a home-cooked meal (by the wife of the agency's owner, Roy) at the company's conference room. All employees, including the owner of the company, happily attend this lunch time and enjoy the company of others. It is at this lunch times that the data of this study were recorded considering the fact that informal, casual and even 'loosed' conversations were prevalent.
3.2. Data and methodology
The data for the study were recorded on five working days with each conversation lasting between 24 and 36 minutes. These recordings were then analyzed with the aim of identifying positive and negative humorous utterances. It is important to point out that since the study included no video-recording, facial expressions and other gestures could not be particularly taken into consideration. That is to say, our data consists of only voice recordings, with a few necessary gesture descriptions.
Following Ruch (2008, 21), we observe that "smiling is the most frequent response to jokes" considering that smiling roughly occurs "five times more often than laughter". Therefore, in our bid to gather an adequate data for analysis, we strived to include attempts of humor even if their positive response was only a smile. Furthermore, following Holmes and Marra (2002, 1694), data used in this study capture single and extended humor contributions. That is, we will look into short individual humors (e.g. quips or brief humorous comments) and extended or sequences of humor, which includes contributions from several participants. Considering the context of each discourse, including the relevant topic and other salient co-text, we will then present the most humor-interest utterances or chunks of speech and analyze the humor content.
3.3. Analysis
3.3.1. Day I
On this day, several humorous utterances were identified and documented, but we will attempt to observe few. The first topic from which we captured humor-incidence utterances was an incident that happened the previous Friday. A mentally ill person broke into the agency's premises with the help of an axe. Two people - i.e. Mir and Roy - were in the building at that time.
With salient background information that Mir is an interpreter in the company, the humor-incidence utterances were captured as follows:
Roy: Yes, you are really lucky that he didn't think that your office was the CIA headquarters for wiretapping ...
Mir: Yes, exactly!
Roy: ... and that you are the chief commissary, to wiretap him.
This piece of utterance contains humor based on incongruity; i.e. every one of the workers knew the butt of the joke, Mir, as an interpreter. So, the present description and/or thought of her as being a CIA agent caused laughter. In connection with background information, this could be described as affiliative humor because everyone there knew the story of the break-in, to the extent that the present description of Mir as a CIA agent could only be a description by Roy that seems to indicate the importance of Mir in the company. Furthermore, it could be seen as self-enhancing humor on the part of the initiator, Roy, who was part of the incidence, in the sense that he is also using humor as a kind of trauma coping devise considering the fact that he could have been hurt by the intruder. Generally, however, the humor could be described as lubricant because it is beneficial to the group's cohesion based on a new shared experience.
The second humorous utterance for the day we subject to analysis also centered on the axe-bearing intruder story. Of what could also be described as self-enhancing humor, in this case, Mir narrated how she came to the company premises to find the back door opened and the following ensued.
Mir: ... awesome! So the car is gone ... I called, went to the back porch. You [Roy] are not here right!
Roy: No, I'm not.
Mir: Alright,you left the door open?
Roy: Oh, maybe.
Mir: Hmm!... Ok. Now down into the basement, always leaving the door open and then I thought, ah, you know what, now you're gonna watch some TV and I closed the back door.
In order to have a better grasp of the humor content here, it is important to know that Mir laughs and giggles throughout the narration. These, for us, suggest that she was scared or at least edgy when she saw that the back door was left wide open. Indeed, Mir's disposition explains and/ or confirms the release theory which, as explained earlier, suggests that humor and laughter enable release of tension and repressed emotions, and frees the individual from some constraints (Attardo 2008, 103). We observed from the discourse that Mir was frightened by the axe-bearing intruder to such an extent that even things that usually would not have scared her - e.g. the opened back door - did. Therefore, we contend that telling the story to the group enabled her to release the fear and other repressed emotions. To put it differently, it was probably a way to come to terms with what happened and to cope with its aftermath. One way or another, Mir's
disposition can also be analyzed as self-defeating humor; i.e. laughing at oneself is a kind of self-ridicule.
Another humor was also observed this day and, in this case, as last but not the least, the group talked about a strike action that had been taken by the pilots of the Lufthansa airline and drivers of the Deutscher Lokomotivführer. Particularly on the humor aspect, members compared the work of a pilot with that of a train driver and argued about the enormity of the individual tasks involved in piloting an aircraft and driving a train, as could be observed below.
Luc: Yes sure, but, but... that is, I would say that one simply expects that he ... well all he basically has to do is accelerate, brake and look at the signs.
Mir: And he has to be awake.
Luc: Exactly.
Roy: And that means he has a high responsibility towards the people that are on the train.
Jul: Definitely not doing anything else!
Luc: Oh, please, we're all awake at work.
One may ask, where does the humor lie in the above? We observed that the group started laughing after Jul's comment - 'definitely not doing anything' - in an ironic support of what Luc has said earlier. Explaining further, Luc apparently belittles the work of the train driver; she notes three tasks as all that they do. Jul indicates a disagreement to Luc's position through sarcasm; 'definitely not doing anything else', and that triggers the laughter. We observe this as an abrasive humor, although it could also be immediately described as a mild aggressive humor considering that Jul indicates her disagreement playfully. The abrasiveness of the humor is, however, clear from the fact that Luc attempts to defend himself after Jul's disagreement; 'Oh, please, we're all awake at work', a response that remotely relates to Mir's contribution and indicates that Luc felt 'attacked'. That is to say, Luc probably felt that Jul is trying to ridicule him and his position on train drivers.
3.3.2. Day II
Lunch on this day almost ended up a silent one, as members hardly introduced and talked about anything. A long period of silence was however broken by Roy, the boss of the company, who knew one of the researchers (a worker at the agency) needs a recording of their interactions at lunch. Responses also followed Roy's intervention. One recorded humor-interest discourse is as follows.
Roy: Silence! It is interesting as well. One can also analyze it.
Cat: That doesn't matter. There will be less for me to transcribe and translate.
Jul: Hmm! That's what I just though t; less work.
Cat: Yes!
Roy: There will be no result (for your work) if no one talks.
Jul and Cat were gripped with laughter. The sort of humor we realize here is self-enhancing humor; i.e. despite Roy's advice, the two ladies select to prefer a positive view of less work to getting data for Cat's research. Indeed, this realization is buttressed by the fact that Jul, who has experiences in transcription and translation, understands Cat's situation and particularly understood her response to Roy; i.e. 'That doesn't matter. There will be less for me to transcribe and translate'. In other words, Jul knows how much work is involved in transcription and/or translation, and indicates her agreement with or sympathy for Cat through laughing along with her. We also realize here that humor advances some group cohesion. Between Jul and Cat in particular, a sense of shared stance is established. Where the result of humor here could be described as facilitation of relationship between the two, it could also pass as a good example of lubricant humor.
The next topic this day was child labor. During a long and intensive discussion, Cat argued that one cannot compare the situation in Germany with those in other countries, because the German society works differently as compared to some others; e.g. children are not expected to be put to work in Germany. Jul and Roy responded as follows.
Jul: Well, children here were also, well... 'used' differently.
Roy: Back in the days.
Jul: Well, I don't know, in a different century.
The group started laughing with the use of the verb 'used' by Jul. This suggests a good example for incongruity in the sense that the use of the verb is misplaced or misused, causing the laughter. That is, the group agrees on the fact that things can be used, but persons are not. Jul's argument, therefore, contains an incongruent idea about children. It is also important to note that, in Germany, where prostitution is legal and for that matter sex is openly sold, it is a common knowledge that prostitutes are often seen by men that patronize them as commodities because they are used by these men. This reinforces the association of the word 'used' to things and this, we observed, further fueled the extent of laughter when the word was unexpectedly used in connection with children and/or child labor.
3.3.3. Day III
The first humorous utterance of the day involved Kay. She had just returned from a vacation and had to work on a new project. She had two issues with the project; that it is very time intensive and that she does not really understand what the client is asking for. So, she had asked Pat, the agency's web designer, for help. Her concerns adduced the following discourse.
Kay: Yes, haha, he just sent me some pages in which the font sits very, very close in the lines. Would it be ok that way?
Roy: Pat?
Kay: Yes, he always does everything according to what he is told, but...
Roy: . sees it himself .
Kay: ... that this looks like shit. Oh, well.
We observed Kay laughing whiles she speaks, suggesting that her utterances are attempts to induce humor. Having observed earlier that Kay is stressed up by the issues mentioned, we explain that she was using laughter and for that matter humor as a means to cope with her current situation of stagnation. Hence, her sense of humor here can be analyzed as self-enhancing humor; it is as if she is telling herself that 'I shouldn't stress myself up on this project because it is due to others' fault that I'm not making any headway'. The laughter also seems to be an attempt to indicate to her boss, Rol, that she will make the project work. Considering that Pat is the butt of the humor, it could also be seen as an aggressive one. That is, Kay somewhat belittles Pat in the discourse; she criticizes Pat and laughs at him because he supposedly lacks a sense of independence and aesthetic acumen. However, since Pat was not present in the room, this aggressive aspect of the humor can hardly be the case.
The second situation of humor occurred when Roy and Cat talked about a seminar that Cat attended the previous week. Cat told Roy that the course instructor, who Roy knows very well, was 47 years old and wanted to know from Roy if that is true.
Cat: Is, was he?
Roy: He probably still is.
Cat: He probably still is, yes.
The two persons laughed throughout the discourse. The humor here is, however, particularly triggered by Cat's use of 'was' instead of an earlier option of 'is'. Specified for past tense, the use of 'was' implies that the instructor either just turned a year older or passed away. Since none of these is the case, this statement causes the humor and we realize that it is based on incongruity; i.e., Cat's contribution simply surprised Roland who apparently knows that the course instructor is older than 47. Moreover, humor like this can be evaluated as lubricant because it impacts positively on the mood of the people involved and the workplace atmosphere in general.
3.3.4. Day IV
There were a lot of humorous utterances and/or cases this day. However, we selected a few for the obvious reason; for want of space. In the first case, the group asked Tina about her time in Finland, where she had spent the last couple of months. Before, Tina could respond, Tess asked if it is all right for the conversation to be recorded since Tina was not around when Cat requested these recordings. The following ensued from Tina's concern.
Roy: If Tina doesn't talk about her erotic adventures in Finland.
Tess: Oh.
Tina: If ... Not anymore though.
Luc: Did you have an affair with a snowman or what?
We observed that Luc evolved a typical joke here and this caused the group to laugh, especially Tess. Certainly, the humor here was based on incongruity since Tina did not engage in
any amorous relationship in Finland, particularly not with a snowman. Also, the joke resulted in affiliative humor in the sense that it created a positive surrounding and an increased social interaction, which were typically indicated by a chorus of laughter. Accordingly, Tina, the supposed butt of the joke, was not offended by Luc's question at all.
Later on, someone in the group asked Tina for Joe, who also used to work for the company as a graphic designer. Apparently, Tina is still friends and in contact with him. Members were told that Joe just passed an important examination. Our interest was in the following discourse.
Tina: But after that, yes, he looked pretty good again.
Luc: Eyes, in the form of hexagons?
Tina: Ha-ha-ha! Yes!
The humor that triggers Tina's laughter (and, in fact, that of the whole group) is an example of an inside joke. This is because, if someone is not part of the group, he/she cannot get the humor here at all. A little background information here is, therefore, necessary if we are to get the joke. Having worked in the agency before, everybody in the group knew that Joe was obsessed with hexagons. This is evidenced by the fact that, in any project he was involved, he tried to include as many hexagons as he could, which often incurred colleagues' conspired make-of-fun at him. So, Luc's rhetorical question - Eyes, in the form of hexagons - only brought back those memories and set the stage for the present humor. Undoubtedly, this humor then passes as an affiliative one considering that it brought into memory those fond moments that describe the group's strongest social cohesion. In other words, people's ability to understand a message, which is incomprehensible by others outside a group, and partake in the effect it leaves boast people's sense of acceptance and encourages the need to belong. It is the strongest form of lubricant humor that facilitates social relationships.
The third case of humor for the day occurred when the group talked about the Heidelberger Herbst (i.e. a big flea market) that is organized by the city every year. Roy told members about a friend of his who had a booth to sell self-made bags there. The discourse went as follows.
Roy: It's gifts, think about it! 360 Euros stall fee.
Tess: 63 or 360?
Roy: 360! Oh damn, you all don't have a clue about economic key figures! Really...
Kay: No, but...
Roy: ... you all believe that something is for free? Socialism is not gratis.
Rol and the whole group laughed throughout the discourse. The laughter started from the point of misunderstanding by Tess; she did not expect a booth to be that expensive and, therefore, asked Roy whether the cost is 63 Euros or 360 Euros. The laughter intensified when Roy answered her. We observe that, in his answer, Roy used mild aggressive humor to tell Tess and the rest of the group that they do not know anything about money and the economy. He playfully told them that even Socialism is not gratis, and the laughter shot to its peak. In a way, Roy's
contribution also served to secure his status as the boss; i.e. the boss knows more than everybody else about business, money and the economy.
3.3.5. Day V
On this day, Rol and Pete were away in Bavaria for a meeting at a place close to a large thermal bath. This became the first topic of discussion among the group and the humorous utterance we captured is what Kay said as follows.
Pete and Roy? Thank God I don't have to do that. Imagine me in a bathing suit with Roy in
such a thermal bath. Well he, not me, well it doesn't matter.
Kay's comment caused laughter because of an apparent incongruity. That is, the idea of the boss in a bathing suit or swimming trunks is incongruous because his employees usually see him in a suit or a jacket. Thus, the thought of him wearing a bathing suit is unusual to his employees and, as humor, causes them into laughter. One could observe an aggressive or abrasive humor here; i.e. ridiculing or making fun of somebody in a bathing suit is clearly not an act of kindness. However, since Roy is not present, this could hardly be the case. Rather, it could be analyzed as a form of lubricant humor among those present as they all burst into laughter. The statement can be described as affiliative humor and positive for the cohesion as well, since only the people in the group will understand why the thought of the boss in a bathing suit is so funny.
The group also talked about a project that might come up if the meeting Roy was attending becomes successful. Group members generally thought that the time for the realization or completion of the project would be very short. In connection with humor, Kay and Tess particularly had a disagreement on how manageable the project could be, as captured in the following.
Tess: Why? They sometimes managed to do this guerrilla thing in, I don't know, two, three weeks. It's possible.
Kay: Says the consultant.
Kay was laughing while she was responding. We observed that she responded in a sarcastic manner, in which case she somewhat mocked Tess. The sarcasm follows from the fact that Tess is not a graphic or motion designer and, therefore, she does not have the expertise or experience to judge the period of time it takes to do such a project. Sarcasm, however, is used here good-humoredly to express disagreement. Hence, Kay's response exemplifies mild aggressive humor, which one way or the other then functions as lubricant to the warm relationship between Kay and Tess who are also known to be very good friends. Otherwise, Kay's statement could be taken as very aggressive.
The last utterance and humor situation we discuss in this study involves Tess telling a story about how Zoe called and talked to her on the phone about a cake the group had ate at lunch the day before; specifically, if there were leftovers. Zoe only spoke Spanish, a language Tess could speak and understand some appreciable amount. Of our interest is given below.
I thought she wanted to ask if we could not just eat the leftovers from yesterday. So, I said, no
there's nothing left. And then she said ... then she was so sad and told me, oh well, next time.
And then I thought, is she sad now because she will have to cook something for lunch today.
But, just then I realized that she probably meant the cake.
This piece is a good example of misunderstanding that is based on language problems and it caused laughter in the group. Tess simply did not get the point Zoe was putting across because she was speaking very fast. Considering the funny side of the utterance, it could exemplify affiliative humor, which results in and enriches a positive surrounding. Also, since Tess has a degree in Spanish, but failed to have immediate grasp of what Zoe put across, this can be seen as self-defeating humor. That is to say, she put herself out as the butt of the humor before her colleagues and, in a way, laughs at herself as well all in the interest of workplace humor and facilitation of group cohesion.
4. CONCLUSION
This paper has endeavored to show that a creative workplace is positively linked to a favorable humorous surrounding. After looking at some of the examples and the uses of humor at a workplace, one can see that the number of humorous utterances varies. These, however, revolved around few people among a working force of about thirty (30) people. This is partly due to friendship clusters in the agency. Cases of humor we observed, particular on Day 2, indicate that some of the people at the agency (or in the group) feel more comfortable around colleagues with whom they share friendship. Thus, if these 'friendship-partners' are not present, they are less likely to talk let alone produce something humorous. The other part could be ascribed to 'bad days' at the agency. That is, when projects do not run well or fail, they affect the whole workplace atmosphere, including the humorous dispositions of group members during the lunch break. We observed that inside jokes and stories, particular to the working group, occurred fairly often.
Considering the overall data, however, it is evident that there were appreciable amount of humorous utterances from the group on each day. Clearly, most of them were positive ('lubricant' and 'affiliative' humor) utterances even where they could have been described as or resulted from aggressive and abrasive humors. That is, only a few of them could be analyzed in one way or another as negative utterances (in other words, abrasive or aggressive humor). We have observed that negative humor used by the group includes sarcasm and irony. Others are ridiculing, mocking and belittling.
Mild aggressive humor was also commonplace. As expected, people use it during discussions to show their disagreement in a playful way. Self-enhancing and self-defeating humor were only used a few times during the five days of recording. Thus, we can clearly contend that the amount of positive humor overweighs negative humor used in the agency. Furthermore, most of the humor used was based on incongruity, something that has been explained as closely linked to a creative way of individual and corporate thinking. Finally, we observed that creativity really exists in positive humorous environment of the agency and that creativity is positively linked to a favorable humorous surrounding at the working place.
References
Attardo, Salvatore. 2008. "A primer for the linguistics of humor." In The primer of humor research, edited by Victor Raskin, 101-155. Humor research 8. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Attardo, Salvatore. 1994. Linguistic theories of humor. Humor research 1. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bleedorn, B. D. 1987. "Humor and creativity: Clues to human possibilities." In Save Conference Proceedings, 9-11.
Dewitte, Siegfried, and Tom Verguts. 2001. "Being funny: A selectionist account of humor production." Humor—International Journal of Humor Research 14 (1). https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.14.137.
Duncan, W. Jack, and J. Philip Feisal. 1989. "No Laughing Matter: Patterns of Humor in the Workplace." Organizational Dynamics 17 (4): 18-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(89)80024-5.
Grice, Herbert Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Holmes, Janet, and Meredith Marra. 2002. "Having a Laugh at Work." Journal of Pragmatics 34 (12): 1683-1710. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00032-2.
Kerr, Michael. 2006. Inspiring Workplaces. Canmore, Alta.: Humour at Work Institute.
Kuipers, Giselinde. 2008. "The sociology of humor." In The primer of humor research, edited by Victor Raskin, 361-398. Humor research 8. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Laimute, S. 2005. The Anatomy of a Joke. Klaipeda: Klaipeda university.
Lendvai, E. 1993. "Translating 'Untranslatable' Russian Jokes." In Translation - The Vital Link: Proceedings of XIII FIT World Congress, Vol. 1, 105-109. London: Institute of Translation and Interpreting.
Lorenz, Konrad, Marjorie Kerr Wilson, and Julian Huxley. 2002. On Aggression. Routledge Classics. London: Routledge.
Martin, R. A. 2003. "Sense of humor." In Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures, edited by S. J. Lopez, and C. R. Snyder, 313-326. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10612-020.
Meyer, John C. 2000. "Humor as a Double-Edged Sword: Four Functions of Humor in Communication." Communication Theory 10 (3): 310-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2000.tb00194.x.
Morreall, John. 2008. "Applications of humor: health, the workplace, and education." In The primer of humor research, edited by Victor Raskin, 449-478. Humor research 8. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Morreall, John. 1991. "Humor and work." Humor—International Journal of Humor Research 4 (34). https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.1991A3-4.359.
Muschard, J. 1999. "Jokes and their relation to relevance and cognition or can relevance theory account for the appreciation of jokes?" Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 47 (1): 12-23.
Plester, Barbara. 2009. "Healthy Humour: Using Humour to Cope at Work." Kotuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online 4 (1): 89-102. https://doi.org/10.1080/1177083X.2009.9522446.
PENN Behavioral Health. 2008. Using Humor in the Workplace: Understanding the Importance of Healthy Workplace Humor as a Tool to Develop Positive Relationships. PENN Behavioral Health Corporate Services.
Romero, Eric J., and Kevin W. Cruthirds. 2006. "The Use of Humor in the Workplace." Academy of Management Perspectives 20 (2): 58-69. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2006.20591005.
Romero, Eric J., and Anthony Pescosolido. 2008. "Humor and Group Effectiveness." Human Relations 61 (3): 395-418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726708088999.
Roth, Gene L. 2002. "Humor, Humor Theory, and HRD." Human Resource Development Quarterly 13 (4): 351-55. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1037.
Ruch, Willibald. 2008. "The psychology of humor." In The primer of humor research, edited by Victor Raskin, 17-100. Humor research 8. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Treadwell, Yvonne. 1970. "Humor and Creativity." Psychological Reports 26 (1): 55-58. doi:10.2466/pr0.1970.26.1.55.
Vinton, Karen L. 1989. "Humor in the Workplace: It Is More Than Telling Jokes." Small Group Behavior 20 (2): 151-66. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649648902000202.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article. Author information
Charles Ofosu Marfo is a Visiting Professor at the Universitat Potsdam, Germany. Catrin Hill works at the Universitat Potsdam, Germany.
Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author, with publication rights granted to the journal.
