This chapter presents findings from an exploratory study on humor in Australian organizations where employees’ perception of (1) the frequency of humor occurrences in their workplaces, and (2) how employees perceive such behavior is examined, along with (3) the nature of humor events in Australian organizations in terms of the participants in humor behavior, channels used, and intentions and functions of humor use. The study also examines Australian employees’ expectations regarding the use of humor by their immediate managers. This study utilizes the WHEF developed in Chap. 2 of the book and provides the foundation for understanding the general humor behavior in Australian workplaces and whether a humor-conducive environment exists in Australian work contexts.

4.1 Why Study Humor in Australian Organizations?

Although workplace humor research seems at first glance blossoming, with increases in the number of publications and scholarly interest, the field is yet to make headway in achieving maturity (Westwood & Johnston, 2013). Workplace humor is still ‘comparatively under-researched and under-theorized’ (Westwood & Johnston, 2013, p. 220). The current literature lags far behind the level of theoretical and methodological sophistication seen in humor studies in more established fields such as psychology, philosophy, and sociology (Robert & Yan, 2007). The under-development of the workplace humor literature can be attributed to: (1) the narrow scope of workplace humor studies (Mesmer-Magnus, Glew, & Viswesvaran, 2012); (2) lack of theory development in the field; (3) isolation and fragmentation of studies within the field itself and with other disciplines; and (4) failure of researchers to fully grasp the importance of contextual factors (Westwood & Johnston, 2013).

Research on workplace humor to date has predominantly emerged from contexts in Western, English-speaking countries (Murata, 2014). A careful review of the literature reveals that of these workplace humor studies mostly tend to be conducted in the United States (US). Research on workplace humor originated in the 1950s and 60s as ethnographic studies conducted mainly in US work sites (e.g., Coser, 1959; Lundberg, 1969; Roy, 1958). The next decades witnessed a rise in workplace humor studies in the US but only a modest number emerged from other parts of the world (e.g., the UK: Taylor & Bain, 2003; Watts, 2007; New Zealand: de Bres, Holmes, Marra, & Vine, 2010; Holmes, 2000, 2006a, 2006b, 2007; Plester & Orams, 2008; Plester & Sayers, 2007). This not only limits the findings of these humor studies to one geographic region but also serves as a reason why a comprehensive theory pertaining to the use of humor at work has not been developed.

Humor is well-documented as a universal characteristic of social interaction (Wyer & Collins, 1992; Ziv, 1984) across all cultures and nationalities (Martin & Sullivan, 2013; Susa, 2002). It manifests itself anywhere people gather, including the workplace (Ojha & Holmes, 2010). Hence the literature needs to reflect this universality by dispersing workplace humor studies across diverse regions of the globe. This expands the workplace humor literature, creates awareness and understanding of the dynamics of humor events in different contexts, and allows non-US organizations to harness humor’s positive power in their workplaces. For example, Murata (2014) found in her cross-cultural study that members in New Zealand meetings created humor equally and jointly as reflected by the New Zealand cultural expectation of ‘egalitarianism’, while humorous remarks in Japanese meetings were mainly made by persons of authority at the meeting with other members responding to this humor. This was in line with the Japanese cultural expectations of being an individual as well as being part of a larger interactional process such that the person must improvise and play his/her appropriate role to contribute to the changing interactional situation.

Compared to the research output from other regions, workplace humor studies in Australian contexts are limited. The few exceptions in the literature are Anleu, Mack, and Tutton’s (2014) study on judicial humor in Australian courtrooms, Willis’ (2012) study on young lesbian, gay, bisexual and queer (LGBQ) employees witnessing the occurrence of homophobic exchanges (in the form of humor, expressions and commentary) in Australian workplaces, and, to some extent, Cheng and Wang’s (2014) study on exposure to humor and individuals’ persistence behavior.

Anleu et al. (2014) examine humor created by judicial officers during courtroom proceedings in Australia and describe the prevalence of such humor, the settings and contexts that warrant appropriate judicial humor, and the ability of such humor to achieve positive outcomes. Although there are formal and informal regulations in place to discourage inappropriate judicial humor that undermines core judicial values and causes loss of public confidence and legitimacy of the judicial system, humor does take place and ‘appropriate judicial humor can have a valuable role in the courtroom’ (Anleu et al., 2014, p. 621).

Anleu and colleagues’ study is useful in showing that even within a seemingly serious and decorum-bound Australian work context (the courtroom) humor transpires and appropriate judicial humor helps to serve a number of important functions. Findings from this study corroborate the counsel of philosophers like Aristotle and Plato on the importance of using humor appropriate to the situation to derive its benefits. The study, however, cannot be generalized to understand humor behavior in wider Australian workplaces given the unique nature of the courtroom and its proceedings and the type of employees employed there.

Willis’ (2012) study, while not specifically focusing on humor at work, relates to understanding young LGBQ employees’ experiences of witnessing homophobic exchanges at their Australian workplaces, how they deal with such discourse, and how they manage their sexuality at work. Study participants witnessed in their work environments humorous conversations and joke-telling focusing on mocking LGBQ identities. Such humorous exchanges were part of the informal work banter that helped to cultivate rapport at work, particularly in male-dominated work environments (Willis, 2012). In this study, participants reported that the homophobic humorous exchanges were initiated by male-managers in the presence of their younger employees, some of who, unknown to the manager, were individuals with LGBQ identities.

This study is useful in identifying the presence of discriminatory homophobic joke-telling in Australian workplaces and the impact such discourse has on LGBQ employees who witness it. However, the study does little to expand workplace humor researchers’ understanding of general humor behavior in Australian workplaces because it is not specifically focused on humor at work. Also, as with the previous study, it does not take into account all possible forms of humor and their functions that can transpire within work environments.

Another noteworthy study on humor at work in Australia is Cheng and Wang’s (2014) laboratory study examining the impact of humor on individuals’ persistence behavior. They used a sample of Australian university students to test the causal relationships between exposure to humor and subsequent persistence behavior. Exposure to humor was found to increase participants’ persistence behavior with participants’ positive discrete emotion of amusement mediating this relationship (Cheng & Wang, 2014). The authors use the findings to recommend that organizations create cultures that encourage the use of humor at work to increase employees’ persistence behavior.

Apart from these studies, much of the humor literature relating to Australia has focused on measuring and comparing Australians’ sense of humor (e.g., Martin & Sullivan, 2013), examining humor used in Australian English (e.g., Goddard, 2006, 2009; Sinkeviciute, 2014), analyzing joking relationships that exist within Australian aboriginal communities (see Garde, 2008) and using Australian samples to test relationships between humor and individual difference variables (e.g., personal humor styles and personality: Galloway, 2010; Schermer, Martin, Martin, Lynskey, & Vernon, 2013; humor and self-concept: Søbstad & Lillemyr, 2010). Such research, although contributing important findings to the fields of linguistics, anthropology, and personality studies, do not add much to furthering researchers’ understanding of humor behavior in Australian work settings.

Martin and Sullivan (2013) found that Australian respondents had more positive attitudes towards humorous people than either American or British respondents, and that their attempts at social uses of humor were only second to the American respondents. Australians tend to be gregarious and enjoy extroverted lifestyles and informal relations with acquaintances and workmates (DFAT, 2012). A number of studies in linguistics show that the mainstream Australian cultural prescription of ‘not taking yourself seriously’ (Goddard, 2009; Sinkeviciute, 2014) relates to having a sense of humor that sees the funny side of real-world situations. These findings support the notion that Australians show positive attitudes towards humor within their social circles. Yet these studies do not sufficiently provide a global view of humor behavior in Australian work sites as empirical findings on humor at work from other regions do.

Given that workplace humor is understudied in the Australian context, there are no data available to address several fundamental questions pertaining to employees’ perceptions towards humor, their intentions in using humor, and the important functions humor serves in Australian workplaces. Workplace humor studies in the US have already addressed these salient questions and are now progressing towards viewing humor as a possible managerial tool. The lack of research on humor behavior in Australian workplaces may limit researchers and managers in Australia from building on and tapping the rich opportunities presented by humor for achieving employee and organizational outcomes. To apply and further explore the use of humor in Australian work settings as a managerial tool, it is crucial for the literature to develop a foundational understanding of humor occurring in Australian organizations. Thus exploratory studies should be conducted to gain insights into workplace humor in Australia to comprehend the nature of humor behavior and to form a basis for future studies on humor in the Australian context.

4.2 Methodology of the Study

Diverse methods have been employed to study humor at work (Robert & Yan, 2007). Prior empirical research has collected data by using quantitative methods such as surveys (e.g., Avolio, Howell, & Sosik, 1999; Pundt & Venz, 2017; Vecchio, Justin, & Pearce, 2009) and qualitative methods such as interviews (e.g., Kosenko & Rintamaki, 2010), discourse analysis (e.g., Hatch, 1997), analysis of recorded spoken conversations (e.g., Holmes, 2000, 2006a) and ethnographic studies (e.g., Mortensen & Baarts, 2018; Plester, 2015). Each of these methods were chosen based on the type of data needed to address the specific research problems. For example, Pundt and Venz (2017) tested for the hypothesized relationships between leader humor, follower LMX, affective commitment and burnout; they used a survey method with established measures in a sample of employees working in Germany. Holmes’s (2006a) research, in contrast, studied how collaborative humor helped to build relationships at work with special attention to gender; to do so she analyzed the recording of conversations in meetings occurring in a number of New Zealand workplaces.

Since this study explores Australian employees’ perception of humor behavior at work and the components of humor events in different Australian organizations it employed a survey method to gauge data on these important areas. The survey design has a number of advantages. Surveys are a transparent research procedure allowing the presentation of succinct information and high comparability between variables (Veal, 2005). Ibert, Baumard, Donada, and Xuereb (2001, p. 172) further state that the survey method is a ‘tool for collecting primary data that adapts well to quantitative research as it allows the researcher to work with large samples and to establish statistical relationships or numerical comparisons’. A survey is a useful technique for data collection in situations in which the researcher is able to choose the variable of interest from well-established literature, the research question is explored within a large sample of people, and the research problem pertains to people’s reaction toward a real-life circumstance (Tharenou, Donohue, & Cooper, 2007).

A survey seemed to be the most suitable method for this study, given its exploratory nature and the intention of obtaining data from a large sample. Moreover, it was possible to derive the survey questions and survey items from the broad empirical literature on humor events, i.e., participants, channels, intentions, and functions. The literature review in Chap. 2 to develop the WHEF provided the basis for identifying the survey questions and items.

For this study the survey questionnaire was designed and administered online. The survey measured: (1) frequency of humor behavior in respondents’ workplaces; (2) the perceived acceptability, engagement and enjoyment of humor behavior; (3) the participants in humor at work; (4) the channels employed by the participants to engage in humor behavior; (5) the intentions of the humor behavior; (6) the functions of humor behavior; and (7) participants’ expectations regarding the use of humor by their immediate managers. Items 3, 4, 5 and 6 directly pertain to the components of the WHEF. The design and the procedure of this survey study are discussed in detail below.

4.3 Sample Selection

Sampling involves ‘selecting members/units (e.g., individuals, pairs, groups, organizations) from a population so that they are representative of the population’ (Tharenou et al., 2007, p. 53). The goal of sampling is ‘to obtain a sample that properly mirrors the population it is designed to represent’ (de Vaus, 2014, p. 67). The two main sampling techniques used in research are probability sampling and non-probability sampling.

Probability sampling techniques use random processes where every individual in the sample has a known and a non-zero chance of being chosen (Henry, 2009). Therefore primary data gathered using probability sampling allow the researcher to generalize the findings to the population from which the sample was generated (Buckingham & Saunders, 2004). Non-probability sampling techniques ‘allow human judgments, either purposefully or unintentionally, to influence which individuals or units are selected for the study’ (Henry, 2009, p. 78). These sampling techniques have ‘suspended the laws of probability which random designs rely on to generate what they hope will be representative samples’ (Buckingham & Saunders, 2004, p. 123). Therefore primary data collected through non-probability sampling approaches do not allow the researcher to infer findings beyond the chosen sample. However, non-probability sampling techniques are useful when the population is unknown or when the researcher is faced with time and cost constraints (Henry, 2009).

This study employed non-probability sampling techniques due to: (1) the unknown nature of the population being studied; (2) the desire to obtain a large sample; and (3) the explorative nature of the study. Convenience sampling was used to recruit participants. This allows the researcher to select a large sample at low cost based on the availability of subjects by placing an advertisement in public domains or using online survey techniques (Tharenou et al., 2007). Tharenou et al. (2007) further state that convenience samples are best suited for exploratory research. Due to time and financial constraint, this study recruited participants through convenience sampling.

The inclusion criteria for the sample were persons aged 18 or over and employed in an organization in Australia. The survey was open to participants from across Australia who met these criteria. Advertisements for recruiting participants were posted on social media sites and email lists that spanned all states in Australia.

4.4 Survey Questionnaire

The survey questionnaire contained three sections that separately measured respondents’ demographic information, humor behavior at work, and their managers’ humor behavior. Due to the lack of established measures in the literature to examine employees’ perception of humor in work settings, we developed survey questions to gather data for this study (see Orlich, 1978). Following Pearce’s (2009) work on humor in the tourism setting and Willis’ (2012) work on the experiences of young LGBQ employees witnessing homophobic exchanges in Australian workplaces, recent studies on workplace humor were reviewed to derive the most re-occurring and salient themes in the literature. These themes were used to develop question items to measure the participants in humor behavior, the channel of humor delivery, the intention of humor behavior, and the function of humor behavior according to the WHEF. Due care was taken to ensure the appropriate use of wording and consistent meaning of questions for participants (Fowler, 2014). The development of these items is discussed below.

Steps were taken to ensure that the questions in the questionnaire were directly related to gauging data on humor behavior occurring in Australian workplaces. Instructions were clearly given on what was expected from each question and how to respond to each. Due care was taken to ensure that the wording of the questions and their items were appropriate, specific, unambiguous, and easily understood by participants. The time taken to complete the questionnaire and the convenience of the participants when doing so were also taken into consideration when developing the questionnaire. A pilot study was conducted using a sample of 20 respondents to test the appropriateness of the questions, their understandability and ease of responding to them, and the time taken to respond. Based on the feedback received, further changes were made to the wording of the items and the questionnaire format.

  1. 1.

    Demographic section

This section gathered factual information on participants’ demographic characteristics. The questions included participants’ occupation, age group, gender, place of birth, native language (English or non-English), educational attainments, manager/non-manager status, and the Australian state participants were employed in. Participants born outside Australia were also asked to report the year of migration to Australia.

  1. 2.

    Humor behavior at work section

In this section, participants were asked to reflect on the humor occurring in their workplaces and then answer each question by selecting the item(s) that best described the humor in their workplace. The survey asked participants to state their views on the frequency, acceptability, engagement, and enjoyment of humor behavior at work. For instance, participants reported the frequency of humor behavior by answering ‘Which of the following statements would you say best describes the frequency of humor behavior in your workplace?’ (single-item selection). The survey also measured participants’ observation on the different groups that engage in humor in their organizations and the channels of humor delivery. For instance, groups engaging in humor were measured by asking participants ‘Which of the following groups of people have you seen engaging in humor behavior in your workplace? Select as many answers as deemed appropriate’ (multiple-item selection question). Participants were also asked to report the perceived intentions behind humor behavior and the functions derived from such behavior at work. For instance, perceived intentions of humor use were measured by the question: ‘Listed below are a number of intentions with which humor is created at work. Which of these intentions of humor creation do you generally observe in your workplace?’ (multiple-item selection question).

Response items to the questions pertaining to the groups engaging in humor events, channels used, intentions of humor creation, and functions were derived from the most re-occurring themes in the humor literature. Each distinct theme was used as a response item. For example, the response items for the question pertaining to the different groups engaging in humor events included groups documented in the literature that engage in humor behavior (i.e., top managers, middle managers, work groups). A novel response item, i.e., administrative staff, was also included in this list to reflect that category of employees in Australian workplaces. Participants were given clear instructions to select as many items as they deemed appropriate for each question based on their perception of humor behavior occurring in their organizations. Multiple selection of items was needed because it was necessary to examine the occurrence of these components of WHEF in different organizations.

Similarly, for the question on functions of workplace humor, the functions most observed in the literature (e.g., creating an enjoyable work environment, creating bonds between colleagues, relieving work stress, creating group cohesiveness, alleviating boredom, highlighting problems/dissatisfaction with the work environment, management policies, workload etc.) were listed. This procedure was followed for the remaining three multiple item selection questions in this section. Given the fact that these lists of items are not exhaustive, an open-ended question with ‘Others. Please specify’ was also included for all multiple item selection questions.

Care was taken to ensure that the wording of questions and the items were specific, not subject to misinterpretation, clear, unambiguous, and gauged only participants’ perception of humor behavior at work. Items chosen were assessed by two independent researchers as to their suitability for inclusion, any ambiguity and difficulty of understanding for participants, and appropriateness of language used. Based on the independent researchers’ assessments, further changes were made to simplify the language used for ease of understanding.

This section also included the frequency of humor behavior observed in participants’ workplaces, the frequency with which participants engaged in humor behavior at their workplaces, participants’ views on the acceptability of humor behavior at work, and rating of participants’ enjoyment of humor behavior there. Sample questions included ‘Which of the following statements would you say best describes the frequency of humor behavior in your workplace?’ (single-item selection question); and ‘Do you engage in such humor behavior in your workplace?’ (single-item selection question).

The frequency of humor behavior was measured using an ordinal scale (i.e., ‘Humor behavior is widespread/happens occasionally/very rare sight at work’). Participants’ engagement of humor behavior was also measured using an ordinal scale (i.e., all the time, most of the time, some of the time, very rarely, never at all). A nominal scale was used for acceptability of humor behavior (i.e., very acceptable for work life, acceptable if it does not distract employees from serious responsibilities, acceptable if it does not harm employees, acceptable at certain times and situations of the day, acceptable in low amounts, not acceptable at all). To measure participants’ enjoyment of humor behavior at work, a 5-point Likert scale was used, with 1 representing ‘very unsatisfactory’ and 5 representing ‘very satisfactory’.

  1. 3.

    Managers’ humor behavior section

Questions in this section examined participants’ immediate managers’ gender, the immediate managers’ current humor behavior with the participant, and what participants expected of their immediate managers in regard to humor behavior. Sample questions included, ‘Does your immediate manager engage in humor behavior with you?’ (Yes or No answer selection); ‘Do you expect your immediate manager to engage in humor behavior with you?’ (Yes or No answer selection).

4.5 Administration of the Survey Questionnaire

The survey questionnaire used in this study was set up on Qualtrics, a web-based survey facility. This questionnaire was accessible only through a unique web link generated by Qualtrics. Web-based technology was used for conducting the survey due to its cost-effectiveness and the fact that computer and Internet usage is widely prevalent in Australian society (ABS, 2010). When compared to paper-based surveys, a survey using web-based technology reduces cost and eliminates the need to sort through large numbers of mail items (Ibert et al., 2001).

An invitation to participate in this study and the web link to access the questionnaire on Qualtrics were advertised on public notice boards, universities, trade and migrant association, public notice boards, and social media sites. Participants were asked to access the questionnaire via the web link and complete it online in their own time. The Explanatory Statement for this study was presented to participants as the front page of the survey questionnaire. It contained information on the aims and purposes of this study, possible benefits expected, how to access the survey and submit it, estimated time to complete the questionnaire, participants’ right to withdraw, confidentiality issues, storage of data, and how to obtain the results from the researcher. Participants were asked to read the Explanatory Statement carefully and familiarize themselves with this study before completing the questionnaire. Responses were saved on the Qualtrics server and they were only assessable to the researchers via a password.

The survey was administrated over seven months, from August 2013 to February 2014. The number of completed surveys saved on Qualtrics was monitored daily. Participants were slow to respond to the survey when it was first advertised in newsletters and public notice boards and circulated through email lists. This was evident in only gaining 46 completed surveys in the first two months of advertising. One reason for the poor response rate may be that the channels used for advertising the survey did not cater to a large audience. Also, participants needed to click the survey link to activate it. Although the link was properly advertised and slips of paper with the survey link printed were provided with the advertisements, participants nevertheless needed to manually enter the link onto their web browsers and access it. This may have proved cumbersome.

To make survey access more convenient and also bring it to a wider audience, social media sites were utilized. The main sites were Facebook, LinkedIn, and official blogs managed by Australian organizations. Once the advertisements were posted on social media, participants were able to directly click the survey link to activate the survey. The use of social media in this manner increased the response rate for this study considerably. Posting on social media sites was done continuously throughout the study period.

All responses were kept confidential and anonymous. No identifying information such as names or addresses was collected and codes for each participant were used when entering data for analysis. Care was taken to ensure that ethical standards were met and data were sufficiently confidential to prevent revealing of the identity of any individual in the entry, storage and reporting of data.

4.6 Findings

4.6.1 Preliminary Analysis of the Data

Five hundred and twenty responses were recorded on the Qualtrics server for this study during the data period August 2013–February 2014. Of these, 433 were deemed complete and usable. The discarded responses were either completely left blank or only had the demographics section filled. Thus they were excluded from the data analysis. The 433 questionnaires chosen for data analysis either had all sections completed or at least three-quarters completed.

The data were manually entered into IBM SPSS Statistics Version 22. Appropriate codes were used when entering data. The data was initially screened and cleaned to ensure accuracy, completeness and consistency. An audit technique was used in which 20% (87 surveys) of the original questionnaires were randomly selected and checked with the entered data to identify data entry errors, inconsistencies, and completeness of data entry. No data entry error was found during the audit.

Once the data set was cleaned, frequencies of the demographic variables were calculated. Next the nominal and ordinal data were organized into appropriate frequency tables and later into cross-tab tables to examine patterns in the data. Means were calculated for the Likert-scale type data and t-tests were done on the means.

4.6.2 Sample Characteristics

Table 4.1 shows the age and gender of the survey participants: 62% fall within the age groups of 20–29 years and 30–39 years, with a mean age of 37 years (SD = 11 years); females account for 70% of the total. Hence this sample has a greater number of female participants.

Table 4.1 Participants’ age and gender (N = 433)
Full size table

Table 4.2 shows survey participants’ place of birth: 55% were born in Australia and 45% born outside Australia, with the majority (58%) of migrant respondents being born in the Asian region. The high percentage of migrant participants in the sample can be attributed to the advertisement of the study in various migrant associations and newspapers. This percentage of migrant respondents is salient as their perception could be used to examine whether Australia-born respondents and migrant respondents view and perceive workplace humor differently. This is important given the advocacy for multiculturalism in Australia.

Table 4.2 Participants’ place of birth
Full size table

Table 4.3 shows the year that the migrant participants first migrated to Australia. The year of migration for participants ranges from 1958 (earliest) to 2013 (latest). The majority of these (61%) first migrated between 2000 and 2015. This period coincides with the Australian government’s initiative to attract migrant skilled labor to Australia.

Table 4.3 Year of migration of participants born outside Australia (N = 193)
Full size table

Table 4.4 shows the native language (English and non-English) and the highest level of education achieved by participants. Of the 433 respondents, 69% were native English speakers. Accounting for the high percentage of migrant participants, the high percentage of native English speakers suggests that those migrant participants born in non-Asian regions were largely from native English-speaking countries such as the US and the UK. The majority of participants were degree holders, with 44% holding undergraduate qualifications and 40% holding post-graduate qualifications. Thus, the sample is mainly from an educated background.

Table 4.4 Participants’ native language and education (N = 433)
Full size table

Table 4.5 shows the employment status of the participants. The majority of participants hold non-managerial positions (79%) in their organizations and are employed on a full-time basis (70%).

Table 4.5 Employment details of participants (N = 433)
Full size table

Table 4.6 shows participants’ place of employment according to the states in Australia. Participants are mainly from organizations in Victoria (78%). The larger concentration of participants in Victoria can be attributed to the fact that the researchers were situated there and recruitment advertisements were mainly placed in Victoria. One disadvantage of this is that it is not possible to compare employees from different Australian states. There were no participants from the Northern Territory.

Table 4.6 Australian states participants employed in (N = 433)
Full size table

Table 4.7 shows the industries the participants were employed in. The top two industries were education (32%) and health (13%). Positions in the education sector include university academics, university administration staff, primary and secondary school teachers, and school administration staff. Positions in the health sector include doctors and registered nurses.

Table 4.7 Industries participants employed in (N = 433)
Full size table

4.6.3 Frequency of Humor Occurrence in Australian Workplaces

In Table 4.8, the majority of participants identified that humor does in fact occur in their workplaces in different frequencies from being widespread throughout the day (26%) to occurring occasionally (59%) and being a rare sight in their workplaces (14%). This shows that humor behavior occurs in varying degrees in the sample participants’ workplaces.

Table 4.8 Participants’ perception of frequency of humor at work (N = 433)
Full size table

4.6.4 Employees’ Acceptability, Engagement, and Enjoyment of Humor at Work

Table 4.9 shows survey participants’ views towards humor behavior at work: 41% viewed humor as something very acceptable for work life; but the majority accepted humor if it was non-harmful (58%), non-distracting (52%), and at certain times and situations of the day (24%); 6% of responses indicated that humor was acceptable if in low amounts; 0.5% viewed humor as being not acceptable in the workplace at all.

Table 4.9 Participants’ views on humor behavior at work
Full size table

Table 4.10 shows survey participants’ engagement of humor in their workplaces. The majority (52%) stated that they engaged in humor at work some of the time. This is followed by 33% who engaged in humor behavior at work all the time and most of the time; 1% indicated that they never engaged in humor behavior at work.

Table 4.10 Participants’ engagement of humor at work (N = 433)
Full size table

Table 4.11 shows participants’ enjoyment of the humor occurring in their workplaces. The mean for participants’ enjoyment of humor behavior (1 = very unsatisfactory, 5 = very satisfactory) occurring in their workplaces is 3.8 (SD = 0.95). The findings show that participants are satisfied with the enjoyment they derive from humor behavior occurring in their workplaces. This is indicative of the liking that the survey participants have towards humor at work.

Table 4.11 Participants’ enjoyment of humor at work (N = 433)
Full size table

The next sections examine survey participants’ acceptability, engagement and enjoyment of workplace humor based on their age groups, gender, place of birth, and manager/non-manager statuses. Cross-tabulations are used to uncover possible underlying relationships between participants’ views on workplace humor and the chosen demographic characteristics.

Table 4.12 shows a cross-tabulation of participants’ acceptability of workplace humor based on participants’ age. Only two participants perceived workplace humor as unacceptable. When compared to other age groups, there is a higher percentage of participants in the age groups of 20–29 and 30–39 perceiving workplace humor as acceptable when it does not distract workers from serious responsibilities. There were also a higher percentage of participants in age group 18–19 perceiving workplace humor as acceptable when it does not harm others.

Table 4.12 Acceptability of workplace humor by participants’ age
Full size table

In Table 4.13, male and female participants viewed humor as acceptable for work life. More male participants perceived humor behavior as acceptable if it did not distract others, was being used only at certain times and situations, and in low amounts, compared with female participants’ responses. On the other hand, a slightly higher percentage of female participants indicated that humor behavior at work was acceptable when it was non-harmful to others, compared to male participants’ responses.

Table 4.13 Acceptability of workplace humor by participants’ gender
Full size table

Table 4.14 categorizes participants’ acceptability of workplace humor based on their place of birth. Participants born in and outside Australia did not differ greatly in their responses toward the acceptability of humor at work.

Table 4.14 Acceptability of workplace humor by participants’ place of birth
Full size table

Table 4.15 shows participants' acceptability of workplace humor based on their manager/non-manager status. Compared to non-managers, slightly more managers perceived humor behavior at work to be acceptable. More non-managers indicated that humor behavior in the workplace was acceptable when it was not harmful to others than managers. There was no notable difference between managers and non-managers on the perception of acceptability of workplace humor in other contexts.

Table 4.15 Acceptability of workplace humor by participants’ position
Full size table

Table 4.16 shows survey participants’ engagement of humor based on their gender. As can be seen from Table 4.16, a greater number of female participants in the sample (86%) engaged in humor at work (from all the time, most of the time, and some of the time) than did the male participants (78%). A slightly higher percentage of male participants responded that they either engaged in humor at work very rarely (13%) and never at all (2%) than the female participants (12 and 1% respectively).

Table 4.16 Engagement of humor at work by participants’ gender
Full size table

Table 4.17 shows survey participants’ engagement of humor at work based on their manager/non-manager statuses. A greater number of non-managers in the sample (85%) engaged in humor at work all the time, most of the time and some of the time than did managers (83%).

Table 4.17 Engagement of humor at work by participants’ position
Full size table

Table 4.18 shows survey participants’ engagement of humor at work based on their place of birth. A greater number born in Australia (87%) engaged in humor at work all the time, most of the time and some of the time than did their counterparts born outside Australia (82%). The percentage of outside-born participants (16%) engaging in humor from very rarely to never at all was higher than this category for Australia-born participants (14%).

Table 4.18 Engagement of humor at work by participants’ place of birth
Full size table

Table 4.19 shows participants’ enjoyment of humor behavior at work when categorized into gender; t-tests were carried out on the mean values relating to enjoyment of humor amongst male and female participants. The Hypotheses are:

Table 4.19 Enjoyment of humor at work by participants’ gender
Full size table
$$\begin{aligned} & {\text{H}}0 :\;\upmu1 =\upmu2 \\ & {\text{H}}1 :\;\upmu1 -\upmu2 \ne 0 \\ \end{aligned}$$

The t-statistic calculated for the mean enjoyment of humor by males and females is 1.05. Therefore t = 1.05, df = 398, p > 0.05. Hence the null hypotheses can be retained and there is no statistically significant difference between the enjoyment of males and females.

Table 4.20 shows survey participants’ enjoyment of humor behavior at work when categorized into manager/non-manager status; t-tests were carried out on the mean values relating to enjoyment of humor amongst managers and non-managers.

Table 4.20 Enjoyment of humor at work by participants’ position
Full size table

The Hypotheses are:

$$\begin{aligned} & {\text{H}}0 :\;\upmu1 =\upmu2 \\ & {\text{H}}1 :\;\upmu1 -\upmu2 \ne 0 \\ \end{aligned}$$

The t-statistic calculated for the mean enjoyment for managers and non-managers is 0.8304. Therefore t = 0.83, df = 401, p > 0.05; the null hypotheses can be retained and there is no statistically significant difference between humor enjoyment of managers and non-managers.

Table 4.21 shows survey participants’ enjoyment of humor behavior at work when categorized into place of birth; t-tests were carried out on the mean values relating to enjoyment of humor amongst participants born in Australia and outside Australia. The Hypotheses are:

Table 4.21 Enjoyment of humor at work by participants’ place of birth
Full size table
$$\begin{aligned} & {\text{H}}0 :\;\upmu1 =\upmu2 \\ & {\text{H}}1 :\;\upmu1 -\upmu2 \ne 0 \\ \end{aligned}$$

The calculated t value is 0.27; t = 0.27, df = 399, p < 0.05; there is a statistically significant difference between the enjoyment of humor by these two groups. Hence, it would appear that Australian-born respondents enjoy humor more than the outside-born respondents. This could be because the Australian-born respondents better understand and identify with subtle cultural values and norms embedded in the humor in their workplaces than the outside-born respondents.

4.6.5 Participants and Channels of Humor Events

Table 4.22 shows the different organizational groups that participate in humor at work as reported by the participants. All types of organizational groups engage in humor behavior within the workplace. Most participants observed work groups as participants of humor behavior (79%), followed by middle managers (69%), administrative staff (61%), and top managers (38%).

Table 4.22 Participants’ perception of organizational groups that engage in humor at work
Full size table

Table 4.23 shows the channel used for engaging in humor behavior at work as perceived by the participants. Spoken words are perceived as most used for engaging in humor; 96% of the participants perceived humor behavior delivered through spoken words. This was followed by behavior and facial expressions (47%), emails (34%) and printed material (12%).

Table 4.23 Participants’ perception of channels of humor delivery
Full size table

4.6.6 Intentions of Humor Creation and Functions

Table 4.24 shows the intentions of humor use in Australian workplaces sorted according to a descending order of frequency of responses. The nature of the intentions has been categorized as positive and negative. The three most commonly observed intentions of humor use are positive in nature: (1) humor intended to make daily task enjoyment; (2) jokes intended to reflect the industry the participants are employed in; and (3) jokes intended to make fun of the joke teller him/herself. When compared to positive intentions, negative intentions of humor behavior in workplace are observed at a lesser frequency. The three most commonly observed negative intentions of humor creation are: (1) humor intended to bring oneself into favor with others; (2) humor created with negative intentions; and (3) humor intended to make fun of ethnic groups.

Table 4.24 Participants’ perception of intentions of humor creation at work
Full size table

Table 4.25 shows the functions of humor behavior at work as perceived by participants. The functions have been categorized into four main types: Relationships and Bonding, Stress Relief, Effective Communication, and Challenge Management. The functions for each type are shown in a descending order of response frequency. Creating an enjoyable work environment and creating bonds between work colleagues were observed as the most common functions of humor behavior in workplaces. Relieving stress and boredom at work were also perceived as common functions of humor behavior. This is consistent with the findings in the previous section that common intentions of humor behavior include using humor to make work tasks enjoyable and general teasing at work. These intentions mainly act as social lubricants that foster friendships, relieve tension and bring people together in the workplace.

Table 4.25 Participants’ perception of functions of humor at work
Full size table

4.6.7 Employees’ Expectations of Managers’ Humor

Participants were asked to provide information on the gender and humor behavior of their immediate managers. Table 4.26 shows that most participants reported that their immediate managers engaged in humor behavior with them some of the time (65%) or all the time (19%). Sixty-eight percent expected their immediate managers to engage in humor behavior with them. The survey questionnaire asked if management in their organizations had taken steps to create a ‘fun’ work environment (e.g., casual clothing days, morning teas, games during work hours) within the workplace. Although 35% of the participants did not answer the question, the majority of those who did (35%) stated that management has created a fun work environment in their workplaces.

Table 4.26 Participants’ immediate managers’ gender, humor behavior, and participants’ expectation of humor behavior from immediate manager
Full size table

Tables 4.27, 4.28, and 4.29 show participants’ expectation of humor behavior based on their gender, manager/non-manager status, and place of birth, respectively. It is interesting to see that a higher percentage of male than female respondents expect their immediate managers to engage in joking behavior with them. Similarly, a higher percentage of managers in the sample expected their own immediate managers to engage in humor behavior with them than did the non-managers. Also, a higher percentage of respondents born outside Australia expected their immediate managers to engage in humor behavior with them than did those born in Australia.

Table 4.27 Expectation of immediate managers’ humor by participants’ gender
Full size table
Table 4.28 Expectation of immediate managers’ humor by participants’ position
Full size table
Table 4.29 Expectation of immediate managers’ humor by participants’ place of birth
Full size table

4.7 Discussion of Findings

4.7.1 Frequency of Humor in Australian Organizations

Findings reveal the prevalence of humor behavior within the sample participants’ organizations: 85% of sample participants identified humor as occurring frequently and occasionally within their organizations. Workplace humor researchers agree that humor occurs in varied work organizations (Duncan & Feisal, 1989). Findings from this study show that, within this sample of participants employed in varied industries (i.e., education, health, manufacturing, retail, IT, hospitality), humor occurs with different frequencies.

4.7.2 Employees’ Perception of Acceptability, Engagement and Enjoyment of Humor at Work

Findings show that participants view humor at work as acceptable for the workplace: 99% of the responses indicated humor as both acceptable and acceptable under certain conditions in work life. Martin and Sullivan’s (2013) work shows that Australians display positive attitudes towards humor in general. This study shows that these attitudes extend to Australians’ work domains as well. Tellingly, participants advocated the judicious use of humor at work, with 32% of responses indicating humor as acceptable if non-harmful to employees and 29% indicating it is acceptable if it is non-distracting at work. This shows that the employees within these organizations were both aware of and accepted the judicious use of humor at work.

Another important finding is that 85% of participants engaged in humor at work for some of the time, most of the time, and all of the time. Participants also reported they were satisfied with the enjoyment they derived from humor behavior at work. These findings are indicative of the occurrence of humor at work and the enjoyment participants’ derive from humor at work. Cross-tabulations performed on different groups and t-tests on mean enjoyment rates (male/female, manager/non-manager, and Australian born/outside born) indicated no significant difference in the way humor was accepted and enjoyed based on gender and manager/non-manager status. In regard to the engagement of humor at work, cross-tabulations indicated that comparatively a greater number of female participants (86%) engaged in humor at work, a greater number of non-managers (85%) engaged in humor at work and a greater number of Australian-born participants (87%) engaged in humor at work.

All in all, an important empirical contribution gained from these findings is that workplace humor in Australia is a reality, with employees in different demographic groups accepting and enjoying humor at work.

4.7.3 Participants, Channels, Intentions, and Functions of Humor

This study also provides insight into the nature of humor events (i.e., participants, channels, intentions, and functions of humor) within Australian organizations. Findings indicate that different organizational members engage in humor behavior. This finding is consistent with the current humor literature, which shows humor occurring amongst the numerous organizational actors. Another important finding from this study reveals top management and middle management as participants of humor events. The implication of this finding is that, since Australian managers currently use humor in their daily work life, it is feasible for them to use humor as an aid at work.

Findings provide insight into the intentions behind humor creation within sample participants’ organizations and what functions they achieve. The survey participants mainly engaged in humor with positive intentions (i.e., humor used to make daily work tasks enjoyable, industry specific humor, joking about the joke teller himself/herself, non-work-related teasing). These basically corresponded to humor used with the intention of building relationships and getting things done at work. Humor used with negative intentions was not prevalent in this sample. Hence a tentative implication that can be drawn here is that, given the positive intentions behind humor used within these work domains, there is the possibility for gaining positive workplace outcomes through humor.

Findings also provide insight into the functions achieved by humor behavior in the survey participants’ work organizations. The main functions achieved related to relationship building/bonding and stress relief. This is consistent with survey participants’ perception of intentions of humor creation discussed above.

4.7.4 Employees’ Expectations of Their Immediate Managers’ Humor

This study makes an important and novel contribution in regard to what Australian employees expect in their immediate managers’ use of humor. A number of studies have looked at employees’ perceptions of managers’/leaders’ humor and their performance and task and relationship behaviors (e.g., Priest & Swain, 2002). However, no prior study has examined whether managers actually engaged in humor behavior with their employees or whether employees expected their immediate managers to engage in humor behavior with them.

Findings indicate Australian employees’ expectations of their immediate managers in regard to humor. Findings show that 19% of the survey participants’ immediate managers did engage in humor behavior all the time and 65% engaged in humor some of the time. Findings also indicate that 68% of the survey participants expected their immediate managers to engage in humor behavior with them. This could be due to participants’ perception of humor behavior at work serving bonding and stress-relieving functions and employees expecting their immediate managers to contribute to these functions through humor. These findings have two important theoretical implications. First, the finding that participants welcome their managers’ humor towards them provides an impetus for managers to engage in humor behavior with their employees. Second, the finding that managers do engage in humor behavior with their employees indicates the feasibility of conducting research on the effects of managerial humor on employees in Australian work contexts.

Findings also showed that men (compared to women), managers (compared to non-managers), and migrants (compared to non-migrants) expected humor behavior from their immediate managers. This finding is novel and adds value to the literature such that, although these groups accepted and enjoyed humor behavior more or less equally, a difference exists in regard to their expectations of humor behavior from their immediate managers. The reasons for these differences may be that men tend to exhibit more contestive humor styles (Holmes, 2006b) than women, which leads to vying with their male colleagues to establish superiority. Hence they may be in need of greater affiliation and bonding from persons other than their peers and hence may look towards their immediate superiors (managers) to achieve this end. Women tend to have collaborative humor styles that affirm and build on each other’s anecdotes and banter, thereby achieving better rapport with their female colleagues. Managers may expect to build better relationships with their immediate superiors. Their position as authoritative figures in the organization and duties towards its operations may not allow them adequate time to interact with peers and enjoy lighter moments. Hence they may expect their superiors to engage in humor with them to build better relationships. Migrants, being newcomers to Australia, may also want to build better rapport with their immediate superiors as a way of affirming their place in the organization and being accepted into work life.

4.8 Summary of Findings

Overall, findings from this study reveals the prevalence of a conducive environment for humor within Australian workplaces. Workplace humor occurs within a number of diverse Australian workplaces and employees within these organizations view workplace humor as acceptable, engaging in it and enjoying it. Hence there is scope for designing and conducting more specific topic-based workplace humor studies in Australian organizations. The findings relating to the participants of humor events in Australian organizations and Australian employees’ expectations relating to their immediate managers’ humor show that managers in Australia do engage in humor behavior at work and the majority of employees within these organizations welcome their immediate managers’ humor. These findings provide greater justification for the use of humor by managers in Australian organizations for employees’ benefit.