The Contribution of Humor in
Organizational Team Performance
‘A theory linking effects of humorous interaction to organizational team performance, instrumentally applied and naturally occurring’
by Bart van der Spek
Faculty of Economics & Business, University of Groningen, the Netherlands Available on 22 June 2015
Abstract – This research provides a comprehensive theory on organizational team dynamics, linking humorous interaction in teams to performance. The results originate from a data gathering process of in-depth semi-structured interviews at 13 different firms in the Groningen area, the Netherlands. The findings provide implications in a number of key areas; 1). A synthesis of contextual variables affecting humorous interaction in teams. 2). The mix of contextual variables, the type of humor, in combination with the humor form determine the use and interpretation of humor in a team. 3). Discriminate natural and instrumental humor and the subsequent effects on team dynamics. 4). Linking the set of team dynamics to team performance. These findings result in propositions and a conceptual model of the humor mechanism for future empirical research in the field of humor.
Keywords: humor, humor types, organizational teams, team dynamics, team performance
Introduction
Humor occurs when- and wherever people interact and is described as a complex form of communication, characterized as indirect and ambiguous (Lang & Lee, 2010). But what does it imply to have a sense of humor and where does it come from? Literature has not come up with a specific, widely-accepted definition due to unknown implications, contexts, and dynamics over time (Ruch, 1998). Defined as the ability of an individual to take a childlike and playful approach to problems (Davis, 1999), humor is a common trait that creative people possess (Lang & Lee, 2010). „Humor consists of amusing communications that produce positive emotions and cognitions in the individual, group, or organization‟ (Romero & Cuthbirds, 2006, p.59). So why is it important to have fun and laughter in our professional environment? Although fun and laughter in the workplace have been a taboo in the past (Newstrom, 2002), humor is agreed to be an ever-returning natural phenomenon in social interaction and group dynamics (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006) and is associated with smoothening out group interaction, forming a collective identity, group autonomy development, and the formation & securing of general team behavior (Rothwell, Siharath, Bell, Nguyen & Baker, 2011). Humor is indicated to make routine tasks more interesting, while forming solidary relationships (Holmes & Marra, 2002).
Although humor has been presented as a singular concept, literature provides several theories on how to de-construct and attribute humor (Martin, R. P., Larsen, P.-D., G., Gray, J. & Weir, K., 2003). Martin et al. (2003) made a distinction between four types of humor, discussed in the literature chapter of this paper. The types of humorous interaction are presumed to have different effects on the individual and organizational level (Lang & Lee, 2010, Amabile, 1988) depending on whether these are the positive or negative type. Embedded in humor are implications that have the potential to be beneficial or injurious. Therefore, logic suggests humor in teams can either be used to enhance the relationship of team members, leading to positive results in team dynamics, but also has the potential for detrimental situations, deteriorating team dynamics (Martin et. al., 2003). The active application of humor shows the potential for humorous interaction to be utilized as an instrument.
While some occurrences of humorous interactions are natural and have no clear-cut preconceived intention (henceforth natural humor), humor is also applied as an instrument in social interaction (henceforth instrumental humor), with preconceived intentions and specific goals. Both forms are indicated to have effects on team dynamics, although how and the exact effects are unknown (Lehmann-Willenbrock & Allen, 2014). The use of humor as a social instrument in a business setting can imply from leadership to group members (and vice versa) or between equal group members. Literature has focused on the humorous interactions of leaders in performing their role (Romero & Cuthbirds, 2006, Avolio, Howell & Sosik, 1999), i.e. in theory of charismatic leadership (Bass, 2000), with the intention of eventually generating more performance through; motivation, cohesion (van Vugt & Kameda, 2013) and trust (Hampes, 1999). Past research illustrated that teams with a high sense of humor showed overall less stress, less anxiety and an increase in problem-focused coping strategies (Abel, 2002, Cann, Calhuon & Nance, 2000).
process of the team (i.e. effectivity, efficiency, productivity) and is dependent on the team‟s goals (Schilling, M. A. 2010).
The types of humor (Martin et. al., 2003), their impact on team dynamics (i.e. team creativity) (Holmes, 2007, Lang & Lee, 2010) and subsequently team performance (Couse & Spurgeon, 1995, Avolio, Howell & Sosik, 1999) indicate different results when dealing with positive and negative types of humorous interaction. The previous research of Dechesne (2014) suggests a relation between positive humor and innovativeness, while Decker & Rotondo (2001) indicate the humor effects to have boundaries. Logic suggests with an overload of humor, effectiveness and efficiency drops and becomes a negative influence on team performance. The effects of humor in an organizational team setting received limited attention, and no comprehensive theory has been developed to understand the mechanism at the team level. Literature linking humorous interaction in teams to team performance is incomplete and scattered (Couse & Spurgeon, 1995, Avolio, Howell & Sosik, 1999). Therefore, a synthesis of literature is needed to bring together the known elements of the contextual variables of humor in teams, what types of humor occur, how this is received, and what humor influences in team dynamics. The missing constructs of team dynamics need be researched through real-world data gathering and theory development in order to complete the relation between humorous interaction in teams and the subsequent team performance, both as a natural occurrence and as a social instrument, in a hierarchical relation as well as members reciprocally. Therefore, the following research question has been formulated:
What aspects of team dynamics are influenced by natural and instrumental humorous interaction, both in a hierarchical setting as well as team members reciprocally, and how does this subsequently influence team performance?
Literature
Why is humor for the individual different than humorous interaction in a team? The chances that people laugh are 30 times more likely in a group compared to an individual in isolation (Lehmann-Willenbrock & Allen, 2014). The difference resides in the flow of interactions between individuals. Positive and negative moods converge when people are in a group, which leads to a relatively homogeneous „collective mood‟ (Barsade, 2002).
Context - The combination of the collective mood and environmental characteristics influences a team‟s humor culture, i.e. task interdependencies due to more opportunities for social interaction, but also more abstract characteristics (i.e. industry characteristics and hierarchical relations) that help to create the group climate that supports humor (Robert & Wilbanks, 2012). The repeated occurrence of humor influences the group dynamics in future events in a spiral-like manner as described by Robert & Wilbanks (2012) in their model „The Humor Wheel‟. Here, humor contributes to human well-being and flourishing. Furthermore, it depicts humor, in order to have positive effects on team dynamics, not as an isolated event, but rather as a sequence of events resulting in what is known as emotional contagion. Humor as an isolated event does not affect the team-level dynamics. However, a sequence of humorous interaction does, and the cumulative process leads to an incremental build-up of effects (Robert & Wilbanks, 2012).
Interpretation - The experience and interpretation of humor is very subjective and therefore perceived in different ways. While some would consider a specific humorous interaction to be playful and innocent, others could experience this as insulting, belittling and ridiculing (Galloway, 2010). The aspect of team‟s collective interpretation of humor results in the understanding that humor can be either enhancing or detrimental for group dynamics, showing humor is a „double-edged sword‟ (Malone, 1980). The humor creates social meaning in the team culture and reflects on values and interpretations of a team functioning within a certain environment (Fine, 1979).
Team Dynamics - Due to the influence on team culture, humor is associated with smoothening out group interaction, forming a collective identity, group autonomy development and the formation and securing of general group behaviour (Rothwell, Siharath, Bell, Nguyen & Baker, 2011). Humor has likely evolved over time as a mechanism that promotes team cohesion (Van Vugt & Kameda, 2013). When observing humorous interaction in groups, Homes & Marra (2006) stated: „Such amusing contributions typically strengthen solidarity or good relations between colleagues, as well as raising energy levels” (Homes & Marra, 2006, p.121), indicating motivational increase. Besides the influence on team cohesion and motivation, humor also determines behavior within teams. The occurrence of humor is believed to alleviate stress (Romero & Pescosolido, 2008), relieve tension and defuse anger (Homes & Marra, 2006) (i.e. to reduce conflict (Romero & Pescosolido, 2008)). As a condition for the individual to completely flourish and utilize its abilities in teams, humor has been identified as one of 24 character strengths (Ruch, 1998) and is closely linked to creative thinking (Newstrom, 2002).
individual‟s creativity sends out cues, resulting in a certain social expectation of behaviour and performance, creating a climate supporting creativity, enhancing it overall. The group, meeting these expectations and supporting them, will develop new ways of creating solutions (Anderson & West, 1998). The team aspect enhances the positive humor effects. Creativity however, is not the only construct in team dynamics influenced by humorous interaction. The communication between team members in an organizational setting can be enhanced through the use of positive humor and it can grab a person‟s attention and make an argument more persuasive. Humor can be integrated into conversations and interactions in teams, it serves the content and purposes of meetings, resulting in effective information transfer, relief from boredom in meetings, raising energy levels, and provides some entertainment. The humor can be both on-topic as well as off-topic without it being detrimental (Homes & Marra, 2006). Humorous interaction is expected that it can activate functional communication, making it more effective (Romero & Pescosolido, 2008), starting with a joke that results in work related information exchange. Here, humor is sometimes used as camouflage to cover criticism or a contumelious remark, indicating the use of humor as an instrument to modify behavior of team members or even the whole team.
Performance - Furthermore, humor enables leaders to be exerting both power and politeness simultaneously, making it an effective management tool for enhancing performance (Homes & Marra, 2006). Team performance can imply different measurements depending on what need be assessed; foremost it is the effectiveness or effectivity of a team (Romero & Pescosolido, 2008), the ability to achieve its‟ goals. Avolio, Howell & Sosik (1999) researched the relationship, with positive results on both individual and team-level, between humor and the performance of a leader, with humorous interaction as used by the leader to influence the followers. A leader‟s use of humor can lead to a humor pattern within the interaction process of the team, resulting in increased effectivity and works related information exchange. The opposite holds as well, when humor isn‟t received as humor, the continued pattern does not occur and no effects on performance as a result (Lehmann-Willenbrock & Allen, 2014). Therefore, humor must be received positively in order to achieve effects.
Methodology
Research Design - The objective of this study was discovering how humor in the organizational team environment affects team performance. In answering this research question in-depth semi-structured interviews were used as data gathering instrument. The logic behind this choice of instrument were social and historical practices, as interpreted by experiences of individuals, as a renowned method to understand the relationship between humour and teams performance (Rowlands, 2005), which can be obtained by conversing to team members. Interviews aid in understanding problems, recognizing processes and analysing situations more in depth. Humour is a concept often occurring between individuals, but experienced individually, resulting in a subjective interpretation rather than an objective uniform interpretation, due to the so-called „participation process‟ (Rowlands, 2005). Subjects develop their own perspectives and interpretations of organizational occurrences regarding social team dynamics, making the resulting data subjective without uniform dimensions or properties. Therefore, the interviews were held preferably with multiple team members simultaneously (Berger & Luckmann, 1967). The interviews provided independent real world sources of information, allowing utilization of the “replication” logic by Yin (1984). The second reason for the choice of specific interview type was the relatively limited available literature in humor research, specifically how, when, and to what extent humorous interaction contributes to team performance. Lack of theory resulted in the choice of a theory development structure. The relevant studies and available theory is reviewed in the Literature chapter of this paper.
In total, 13 semi-structured interviews with teams were held, all in different firms. The firms differ in industry, but all are established around the city of Groningen, the Netherlands. The interviews were constructed at one level of analysis; the team level (Yin, 1984). The following prerequisites were established for teams in order to be accepted in this study:
- Autonomous teams; full responsibility over actions & outcomes, determine own
activities to achieve goals.
- The team was not allowed to be in the start-up phase (>3 months tenure).
- Cross-functional teams; no single departments, rather collaborations of individuals
In order to establish generalizable theory, a diverse portfolio of firms was selected (Harris & Sutton, 1986); firms ranging from products to services (i.e. law, IT, broadcasting), and further elaborated in table 1. The pre-requisites for sampling are established with the intention to obtain data likely to replicate and extend the emergent theory. The characteristics in table 1 show industry, team composition and participant‟s function in the firm to provide an overview of sample characteristics. The main objective was to gather data on how and when humorous interaction in teams contributes to team performance.
Table 1: Team Characteristics
Firm Industry Team Interviews Participants
Firm A Broadcast and content Project team 1 team 4 participants
Director, Creative manager, Technician, Communication- and Sales Manager, Lighting- Camera-Editor
Firm B Game development Project team 1 individual Owner, 2 project leaders/coaches, 2 Game developers
Firm C Game development Development team 1 team 2 participants
Programmer, 3D designer
Firm D Game development Project managers 1 team 2 participants
Entrepreneur, Project Leader
Firm E GEO-IT Consultant team 1 individual Owner / Director
Firm F Educational Account managers team
1 team HR projectleader, Manager Contract Education
Firm G Theatre Horeca team 1 individual Head Horeca/Hospitality and Sales
Firm H App development Project team 1 team 3 participants
Owner, Sales/account Manager, Operations Manager
Firm I Hotel/Restaurant Management Team 1 team 5 participants
Executive Chef, F&B Manager, Chef Cook, Assistant Manager, Chef Sous
Firm J Legal advisory Legal team 1 team 3 participants
2 Candidate Notaries, Notary
Firm K Architects Project team 1 team Owner, Architect
Firm L Conveyer belts & equipment
Firm team 1 team 11 participants
Director, Communications Manager Sales/project, Sales/account manager, Engineer, 2 Graduators, Secretary, Administrator, Administrative Accountant, Production manager
Firm M GEO-IT Management Team 1 team 6 participants
Data Collection - All data collection was recorded for subsequent transcript processing. The interview protocol (v1.1) (Appendix I) was established on a semi-structured basis as a list of preassembled open questions, with the possibility to divert whenever an interesting topic arose. Two researchers were present with a clear task description. The first researcher provided structure and efficiency by following the interview protocol. The second researcher was allowed diversion from protocol to go in-depth when opportunities arose, in order to increase data richness and search for potentially interesting unexplored research areas. Furthermore, this gave the second researcher the opportunity to enhance the creative potential of the study and diverge from the convergent task the first interviewer had, in order to increase confidence in findings.
The interview protocol was revised two times over the data acquisition period, initially after
the 1st interview and the second revision after the 9th interview. The 1st interview had a more
open character to establish a better baseline regarding the topic of interest, but because no
major changes were made after the 1st revision. Therefore, the data gathered from the 1st
interview was integrated into the analysis. After the interview, the initial version of the coding
scheme (v1.0) (Appendix IV) was developed. Based on the experiences of the 1st interview,
the following changed in protocol (v1.2) (Appendix II):
- A short introduction of the topic humor was added to describe the phenomenon, to
provide more focus for the subjects.
- A more comprehensive explanation on how the study contributes to literature and
management theory in general, in order to show the added value of the researchers to the field.
After the 9th interview, the second coding scheme was developed (v2.0) (Appendix V), aimed
- Questions concerning team dynamics and the team life cycle were separated from each other because subjects got confused.
- Questions concerning an optimum state and balance between positive humour and
negative humour were taken off, because subjects did not understand or could not give a proper answer due to lack of knowledge.
- Questions integrated concerning the team life cycle in an attempt to get a more
detailed view on it.
- Questions added and an overall integration (and separation) of natural and
instrumental humor.
(v3.0) (Appendix VI) was directed at the hierarchical influence on humor interpretation and contextual variables. Subsequently, in these versions cross-case analysis was performed to obtain recurring patterns and acquire ratios in findings (i.e. 5/13 teams instrumentally apply humor to correct behaviour), with the intention to go beyond impressions with cross-case searching (Meyer, 2001) and increase validity of findings. Important in this study was to evaluate whether emergent relationships in team dynamics fit in each case. If relationships were found, confidence arose in the validity of the relationships. In case of no relationship with literature the opportunity formed to refine and expand theory. Confirmations in data provided good insight in specific relationships and are presented in the Results chapter of this paper.
The link between analysis results and existing literature was the final part of this paper. This comparison was essential to determine what complies with existing theories and what contradicts. The connection of the emergent theory with existing literature increased generalizability and validity of the theory building approach. Two critical points emerged; 1). the moment to stop gathering data and 2). where to stop the process of gathering of and comparing with literature. The initial goal was between 12 and 15 interviews; reality showed that saturation started to occur after 9 interviews, followed by revising to a grant total of 13 interviews. Literature was limited by availability of humor research on team level.
Results
In this chapter the overall sentiment in teams with respect to different types of humor, the role of hierarchy in humorous interaction, and the recurring notions on the mechanisms linking humor to team performance are presented. Through the in-case and cross-case analyses an overview of recurring patterns emerges. Following each pattern description is the number of teams supporting the pattern compared to the total number of teams analyzed (i.e. (5/13)). The general consensus of teams regarding humor indicates the prevailing attitude and sentiments. Prevailing Attitude & Sentiments - The prevailing types of humor (Martin et. al., 2003) and the rate of importance differ from one firm to the next, but humor is always present in the daily interactions within the teams. Some firms go as far as to perceive; „Humor and fun are fundamental competencies in every sustainable company, especially in a fast-paced market with lots of pressure and desire for performance. We need it, because without the innovation we would be lost, and innovation is simply not possible if you are serious all the time‟ (Firm H, Founder/Owner, p.2). The rate of importance given to humor in general within teams and in the overall organizations can be described as “very important”. E.g. „I believe there is always room for humor, or at least there should be‟ (Firm B1, p.3) and „for us, it is the oil between the cogs‟ (Firm H3, p.3). Not a single subject considered humor to be insignificant in the social processes of a team. The importance of the humorous organizational culture goes as far as openly being proud of achieving this environment; E.g. „A lot of organizations probably don‟t have as much fun as we do‟ (Firm A, p.4).
Preceding interactions – Almost every firm (11/13) illustrated that there were either one or a couple of individual sparking the humor culture, creating a wrinkle effect in the team. These individuals had natural humor in their personality present all the time. E.g. „You just need a couple of people, a few initiators, to make humor. A reaction to a joke often is another joke‟ (Firm L6, p.3). This sentiment indicates humor to be dependent on a sequential pattern of preceding interactions and not as an isolated event, the first contextual variable influencing the process of creating (initiator) and interpreting (receiving) humor in teams.
Task requirements – Besides the preceding interactions, the requirements of the present task are indicated to influence the receptivity of humor. When the job-at-hand requires full
attention and focus, humorous interactions are regarded as distractions. E.g. „When production
so the type of job certainly influences the amount of humor allowed‟ (Firm A, p.3) and „We
have moments at work when it is “rush-hour”, at this time making jokes is a no-go, because everybody is at the high of their concentration‟ (Firm I1, p.6). In the moments where the present task requirements do not allow any deviation from the work, humor is out of place and does not contribute. However, when the task requires creativity and out-of-the-box solutions for problems, humor contributes. E.g. „When brainstorming on how to find solutions to problems, jokes tend to get ridiculous and serve sometimes as a solution‟ (Firm B, p.5). The humor occurring to stimulate the solution process partially depends on the team‟s tenure and their relation with each other.
In several firms (Firm F and G) team members mentioned that in hierarchical situations, jokes related to gender diversity or with a sexual content were received in a negative fashion, more so than in non-hierarchical/equal interaction. In these instants the „boss‟ would initiate in sexually tinted joked, without any preconceived negative intention, but resulted in creating a terrible working environment for the woman in the office, up to the point of absenteeism of female team members (Firm G1, p.6 & 7). This clearly illustrates the different impact of a hierarchical relation compared to equal in (aggressive) humorous interaction and the effects on the team culture, even though no negative intention was present. In this case, the humor used was detrimental to the teams‟ dynamics and consequences were misunderstood. According to the data, the humor was a result of the manager‟s personality and not related to actual intension, therefore defined as naturally occurring.
The use by and stimulation of humor by the superior was found to have positive effects on group dynamics, especially on trust (8/13), cohesion (9/13), motivation (10/13), and stress reduction (11/13). When less accustomed to each other (i.e. a new team) the self-defeating humor (theoretically negative) used by the superior was received in a positive manner, it eased the situation and reduced stress with members, resulting in a positive effect. E.g. „At the same time people regard self-defeating humor as something charming, it sends out a signal that someone does not take his- or herself too serious, resulting in a win-win situation‟ (Firm B1, p.8). On the other hand, excess usage can be detrimental to the credibility in the team, and therefore should be used with caution. E.g. „I think self-defeating humor is good for a person, but used in excess results in counting yourself out, at the expense of detriment of one‟s self within the team‟ (Firm B1, p.8). This example perfectly portraits the sentiment of the team leader/director of the organization with regards to „mocking one‟s self‟ in team meetings and daily interactions. The role of self-defeating humor applied in a hierarchical situation was indicated to have increased positive effect (applied with limits of intensity) within team dynamics, increasing cohesion and trust. The increasing of cohesion and trust of team members is due to perceiving the leaders as “not taking his-/herself that serious”. Too much self-defeating humor results in loss of credibility and an adverse effect. The data revealed that the humor differs in a hierarchical relation, but varies as well, possibly even stronger, with familiarity amongst team members. If members of a team, regardless of their hierarchical position, have more of “a history” together, the humor becomes more outspoken due to trust, cohesion, experience and general knowledge of the other individuals.
These findings indicate that it is not only the type of humor applied that is relevant when linking to team dynamics, but rather the manner in which it is interpreted by the receiver(s). As over time the trust and cohesion within a team increases the negative effects seems to dilute (Firm D, H, and L), indicating influence by context in which humorous interaction occurs as a substantial determinant, along with the type of humor.
and the people are more familiar with each other, and used in a playful manner to challenge colleagues into competition. Aggressive humor can have positive effects if people are more familiar with each other, with non-work related content or when used to relativize and to reduce stressful situations. The aggressive humor type showed the widest variation in implications, although often interviewees evaluated this as the most favorable and prevalent humor type; mostly sarcasm related to relativizing (5/13). E.g. „The humor creates a certain culture. Slowly humor generates a joking style, with us this is usually negative humor in the form of sarcasm. Although I think in general this has a positive effect on people„ (Firm D4, p.6). The negative types of humor, self-defeating and aggressive, sparked debate amongst interviewees regarding the effects on team dynamics. E.g. „It depends on whether you apply positive or negative humor, both can have positive and negative effects. This does not mean that negative humor always has negative effects„ (Firm C2, p.3) and „Humor on the right moment, when dealing with a lot of work, helps a lot, usually the darker the better‟ (Firm I4, p.5).
The analysis of the data showed the four types of humor influence different constructs of team dynamics (elaborated later in this chapter), without regard for contextual variables. Table 2 provides an overview of the different types of humor and their relation with team dynamic constructs.
Tabel 2: Humor Types / Mediators
Naturally occurring humor – The humor that naturally occurs whenever team members interact without pre-determined intentions is regarded as natural humor. Natural humor is strongly dependant on previous humorous events and contextual situations. E.g. „Humor creates the culture. Slowly but certain it generates a style of jokes‟ (Firm D4, p.6). Only one firm (Firm A) regarded humor as a phenomenon that always has an ambiguous (instrumental) element and a certain intention. E.g. „We believe that our humor is always used with a certain thought behind it, at least never only to make someone laugh‟ (Firm A, p.4).
Humor as an Instrument – Humor used as a social instrument is defined as humor with preconceived intentions and a goal. In some cases, interviewees reported (Firm B, I, and L) humor to occur without a preconceived specific goal, but with all the characteristics of use as an instrument. E.g. „Whether you do it consciously I do not know it has become a second nature‟ (Firm L6, p. 5). The humorous interaction emerges in an ad-hoc impulsive manner, so on the surface seems natural occurrence, although used to influence or manage a specific social interaction with preconceived intention, thereby having the effect of an instrument. When answering more in-depth questions regarding this topic, it turns out the individuals do use the humor as a tool, but it was so incorporated and reused in daily interaction that it felt natural. In these cases the humor is still regarded as an instrument.
The variation with respect to humor actively applied as a social instrument varied in the gathered data from teams openly stating they do this on a daily bases (10/13) as far as denying ever consciously applying it (1/13). E.g. „If I‟m working with someone who is a little more structured and conservative, I try to stimulate them with humor to loosen them up. I implore a number of methods, humor amongst others, as an instrument to steer people. Humor is something I actively use in a team‟ (Firm G1, p.6). This quote thoroughly describes the overall sentiment of teams regarding humor application as a social instrument.
Table 3: Dominant Humor Form
Construct/Mediators Dominant Form Natural Instrumental
Behavioral Modification Instrumental 1/13 12/13
Cohesion Natural 11/13 9/13
Communication / Information Instrumental 3/13 10/13
Competition Instrumental 2/13 8/13
Conflict Natural 9/13 0/13
Creativity Natural 8/13 3/13
Motivation Instrumental 4/13 10/13
Stress / Relativize Instrumental 3/13 11/13
Trust Natural 8/13 3/13
As illustrated in the table 3, almost all constructs occur as both a natural occurrence and as instrumental use, due to the fact that the data consisted of recollections of subjects (biased) and it was not always clear whether humorous interaction just occurred or whether it was with a goal. In order to discriminate, if three or more teams indicate instrumental or natural humor in a construct it is accepted as valid. The discrimination will now be further elaborated in the construct description.
In some cases saying the exact opposite of what is actually mend, in a sarcastic manner, is applied to make a point. E.g. „You use humor very specifically to mirror behavior that you don‟t want to see, shedding light on it in such a way that it becomes explicit„ (Firm F2, p.4). A word of caution emerged, in the sense that playing with language, stating the opposite, and using sarcasm to communicate should be handled with care to avoid confusion among the receiver(s). E.g. „I occasionally do that with jokes, but not too often. The problem is, some people don‟t understand what you mean, resulting in an adverse effect‟ (Firm C2, p.2). Although, usually this kind of humor is “so over the top” that misinterpretation is more of an exception than the rule, because the literal interaction does not make any sense. In this example, caution is given for instrumental humor leading to communication error and misinterpretation.
Communication & Information alignment - E.g. „Humor really is a means of communication instead of a singular instrument, you can really get stuff done with it‟ (Firm H2, p.3). Humorous interaction is often used to make difficult to handle information or critique on a colleagues work, and even failure, easier to discuss. People tend to be more relaxed and open to critique if the conversation opened with a joke, and subsequently accept that changes have to be made or work has to be re-done. Furthermore, besides communicating this difficult to handle information the initiation with humor also provided an easy path for behavioural correction, possibly due to removing the serious load of the content of the information and the fact that it wasn‟t perceived by the receiver as a direct critique or „attack‟. E.g. „The humor is used to express some people‟s mistakes from the past. This is used both in a serious manner as well as in a playful manner to make that person relativize his/her mistakes‟ (Firm A, p.3). This example portraits elements of instrumental use of humor to communicate, correct behavior and relativize difficult communications otherwise possibly interpreted as criticism. The humor smoothens the social interaction process within the team.
them, or responding to them, it provides me with a lot of information about you and whether you understand my line of reasoning‟ (Firm A, p.3) and „A sense of humor really tells me how confident a person is‟ (Firm H3, p.8). These quotes clearly indicate humor, when used right, to be an effective social tool in the team functioning. E.g. „I am under the impression that if humor is a part of the central backbone of the firm, the more information is shared and if you keep it strictly professional this is more limited‟ (Firm H1, p.11). Furthermore, humor was indicated to communicate direct and indirect competitive statements between members. Competition – Embedded in team dynamics there is often an element of competition. The competition takes place on different levels and can be directed towards other members of the team, competition amongst different teams within an organization, or even a team differentiating themselves against other organizations. Internally the competition mostly takes place in a teasing fashion, with positive effects as a result. E.g. „Mostly to improve, you keep each other focused‟ (Firm L9, p.8). Inter-organizational competitive humor was mentioned most of the times. E.g. „Humor is used to trade opinions with each other, but also to pluralize ourselves against certain big clients, but within the team there is no room for competition‟ (Firm A, p.7) and „Definitely externally, mostly again other offices, they‟re tinkers‟ (Firm J1, p.6). Humor related to competition was typically instrumental (8/13). Although this humor is presented in a playful manner, it has a differentiating effects resulting in more cohesion within the team. Bad examples of other firms in the industry (competing firms) proved often to be a target of humorous expressions to relativize own achievements and create contrast.
Motivation – In order to actively motivate a team or team members humor is used in 10/13 firms. E.g. „Often we motivate each other with humor‟ (Firm C3, p.3). If the humor culture is healthy, motivation comes more natural to the team; „We use humor to get the motivation back if it is not present‟ (Firm I4, p.5). E.g. „Feeling joy when going to work increases performance, so if there is a pleasant atmosphere in the team it provides some sort of indirect motivation‟ (Firm J2, p.7). Subsequently, the humor results in team cohesion and affiliation amongst team members. People who like going to work will be more happy, and therefore more efficient and effective.
Cohesion - The atmosphere and the way the team functions as a whole is greatly influenced by humor, both as a natural occurrence as well as actively managed instrumentally applied humor. Here the cohesion differentiates itself from other constructs, partially because it is a broad definition, but mostly due to the fact that both natural and instrumental are indicated 9 out of 13 times or higher. E.g. „Humor brings people together‟ (Firm H3, p.10) and „humor can be some sort of social lubricant product in these first stages of formation. With the big changes we‟ve experienced around here I‟m convinced that is was one of the major contributing factors that helped us shape the new company culture‟ (Firm A, p.4). The people within a team whom possess a sense of humor, albeit subjective interpretation, are generally experienced as “easy going” and “fun to be around”, resulting in easier cooperation within the team and receive even a higher threshold in patience from colleagues (Firm H). Often these people have the benefit of the doubt. All the teams indicated that humor is, in one form or another, part of the selection process when acquiring new people in the team/organization and often used to determine whether a new applicant has the right personality suited for the team. Thereby it is used as an instrument to determine whether a new person will add to the teams‟ social atmosphere. E.g. „Humor is good for the atmosphere, good for cohesion within the team‟ (Firm B, p.4). However, when not interpreted in the right way, humor potentially causes conflict in the team.
Humor has a certain time and place, and in some situation people within feel left out when they are not part of the group that is having fun, causing irritation and conflict. E.g. „We are working really hard and stressing out and in another office the colleagues were not as busy, so they were joking and laughing. This immediately caused tension, because we were hearing laughter while working hard the entire day‟ (Firm F2, p.6). All teams reporting on similar situations indicated that these kinds of conflicts were easily solved with communication and understanding. The conflict usually occurred from a buildup of several irritation factors or incidents, linking it to previous interactions. E.g. „I don‟t think it immediately results in conflict and maybe that is part of the risk, because it leads to a tension buildup and at some point the bubble bursts‟ (Firm H1, p.4). Although, with higher levels of trust among team members the risk of conflict is indicated to decrease.
Trust – Humor in teams inspires and increases trust. The trust increases the sense of familiarity when members are added to the team or when a new team is formed. E.g. „I think humor is important for a good working atmosphere, also due to the trust with my colleagues‟ (Firm J3, p.4). Humor is often used to “break the ice” and generate a bond between unfamiliar people (Firm I, J, L, and M).
The last construct indicated to be influenced by humorous interaction is creativity.
Performance - The results linking humor to performance were overwhelming. Every firm indicated that humorous interaction was part of the success of the team; some even claimed it to be „the fundament of success in the organization, at least in the first ten years‟ (Firm K, Founder/Owner, p.10). Regardless of the predominant usage; the cohesion, communication, reduction of stress, relativizing, and motivation humorous interaction causes the team to function better. E.g. „humor makes the entire synchronization process on the job become a lot more efficient and effective, it is used complementary to the work that has to be done‟ (Firm A, p.3). A healthy humor climate makes tasks that are perceived as boring and not interesting “bearable” and people whom are judged to have a sense of humor are perceived to perform better; „People who have a good sense of humor together have a higher chance to perform better, although this is not a universal law‟ (Firm E1, p.10). Especially with firms active in creative industries (i.e. game development or broadcasting) humor is essential to the effectiveness of the team, and without it the team would be crippled, due to their dependence on creativity. Several firms (A, E, F, H, I, J, K, L) found humor to be effective in all kinds of organizational interaction processes (i.e. with stakeholders, clients and even rival companies), influencing the team performance both in internal and external interaction, although this falls outside the scope of this research.
Essential to the effectiveness of teams, several indications of concern regarding efficiency emerged. The level of contributory humorous interaction is clearly indicated to have limits in the sense that an acceptable equilibrium need be found and status quo maintained. E.g. „Maintaining the balance in such a way that the team works together and has fun, instead of a team that has fun and also works together. This is the point where humor threatens the culture and it is a difficult challenge to find that sweet spot‟ (Firm H3, p. 10). The consensus among interviewees, in all cases superiors of the teams, indicated humor to have positive effects on the team performance, with boundaries of intensity to maintain productivity. The mechanism to maintain an optimal equilibrium in the trade-off between productivity and the positive effects humor brings through the mediating constructs, is self-regulating (3/13), the role of all team members (3/13), or the responsibility of the team leader (6/13). This indicates an inverted u-shape in the link between humor and team performance.
Discussion
This research addresses three gaps in literature regarding humor in the organizational team context. First, the study explores the different contextual variables influencing the types of humor, the form of humor (intention), and how humor is received (interpretation). Second, once received, what constructs of team dynamics are influenced by humor. Third, how these team dynamics contribute to team performance and its boundaries. The literature review and data collection both indicate humorous interaction, no matter how subtle or obtuse, always to be present in teams. The understanding of humor as a concept, how it occurs, and the effect it has on the team dynamics showed variation, both in interpretation and implications between the different firms, but with recurring sentiments and relations throughout. These will now be compared with the literature findings and result in propositions and conceptual model.
context. Therefore, the humor types are better referred to by only their names as when observed in isolation; self-defeating & -enhancing, aggressive, and affiliative humor. These findings on contextual variables and humor types result in the following propositions:
Proposition 1a: The combination of contextual variables influences the types of humor
instrumentally applied in teams and the manner in which humor is, positively or negatively, interpreted by team members.
Proposition 1b: The combination of contextual variables influences the types of humor
naturally occurring in teams and the manner in which humor is, positively or negatively, interpreted by team members.
The interpretation of humor by team members determines the effects to be positive or negative on team dynamics. Whether it is naturally occurring or instrumentally applied humor, a different set of constructs in team dynamics is influenced, providing a clear distinction between the two forms. In the case of instrumental humor, the sender has a goal when applying humor, differentiating partially from natural humor in effects. Instrumental humor serves as a function of behavioural modification among team members and is used as a means of provoking competition, while natural humor can spark conflict among members. Team Dynamics - The conflict can affect multiple members in a team, influencing team dynamics as with the work of Barsade (2002), describing the “collective mood” of teams. Inversely, when team members inspire each other, team motivation becomes an upwards spiral, as observed by Couse & Spurgeon (1995), and turns into a collective emotion the more humorous communication takes place (Rothwell et al., 2011) and a greater sense of cohesion (van Vugt & Kameda, 2013) and trust (Hampes, 1999). Active communication and information alignment with humor turns out to be an effective tool, as earlier described by Romero & Pescosolido (2008), although lots of information is shared, often work related, in humor occurring naturally. The simple fact that more communication in general takes place if humor is present, results in more exchange. Starting with a joke results in work related information exchange and relieves stress and anxiety in the process (Abel, 2002, Cann, Calhuon & Nance, 2000).
this phenomenon was the literature on the use of humor by leadership to inspire and motivate subordinates (Holmes & Marra, 2006) and the instrumental use of humor to stimulate creativity (Lang & Lee, 2010). The effects of humor on the creativity of a team is analysed in previous literature (Gong et al., 2013, Anderson & West, 1998, Newstrom, 2002) and concluded to have a positive influence. The data supported this although a discrepancy resides in the notion this literature presents humor as a management tool to stimulate creativity, while the data showed only 3 out of 13 firms agreeing. The teams agreeing found that humor was actively applied to “get the creativity going”, as long as it was not perceived as “forced”. Other teams illustrated when performing creative tasks, the humor started occurring naturally, due to the fact that the creative process consists of making connections where prior there were none. This resulted in a re-enforcing spiral aiding the creativity and divergent thinking. The continuous use humor throughout the team interactions, not just in creative processes, is considered to be training for associative abilities, supporting creativity.
The constructs (communication, cohesion, motivation, stress reduction, trust, and creativity) are influenced by both natural and instrumental humor, the presence of intension by the initiator affects team dynamics, resulting in the following proposition:
Proposition 2: The instrumentally applied and naturally occurring humorous interactions
affect a partially different set of constructs of team dynamics.
The findings show all types and forms of humor can have positive consequences on team performance, depending on the context and manner in which the humorous interaction is interpreted by receivers. Therefore, the following propositions are formulated:
Proposition 3a: The instrumentally applied humor in teams, when positively received, has
bounded positive effects on team performance, mediated by a specific set of constructs in the team’s dynamics.
Proposition 3b: The naturally occurring humor in teams, when positively received, has
bounded positive effects on team performance, mediated by a specific set of constructs in the team’s dynamics.
Conclusion
The objective of this paper is to provide a comprehensive theory on team dynamics, linking humorous interaction in teams to performance. The findings provide implications in a number of key areas.
First, a synthesis of contextual variables is presented. The humorous interaction in teams dependents on the situational context, herein resides the notion that humor is not an isolated occurrence, but rather a sequential chain of events, aligning with Robert & Wilbanks (2012). In addition, the task requirements (i.e. high levels of focus) of the job-at-hand influence how humor is received. The hierarchical relationship between the initiator of the humor and the receiver(s) is described to be “delicate”, due to the fact the team leader‟s humorous interactions entail a more intense impact on the team, potentially positive or detrimental (Holmes & Marra, 2006). The analysis showed that familiarity of the team members, the team tenure, is the last contextual variable influencing what type of humor occurs or is applied, and subsequently how this humor is interpreted.
Second, differentiation in types of humor (Martin et al., 2003) when attributing impact on team dynamics was excluded from literature until this moment (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). However, while the different types of humor influence other sets of constructs in team dynamics, the types did not implicate positive or negative effects by definition. Rather, the mix of contextual variables, the type of humor, in combination with the form determined the interpretation by the receiver(s).
Fourth, each type of humor influences a different set of constructs in team dynamics, building on the work of Couse & Spurgeon (1995) and Avolio, Howell & Sosik (1999). These construct are a result of a synthesis of literature and data analysis, in turn are linked to team performance, both effectiveness and efficiency. The positive influence of humorous interaction in teams with regard to team performance is indicated to be bounded, too much humor will results in less effectiveness and efficiency, lowering productivity. These findings provide an understanding that there is an individual “humor sweet spot” for each team that should be found and maintained.
Limitations - In the data gathering process, types and forms of humor were clearly distinguished. However, fundamentally humor is verbal and verbal interaction. This non-verbal aspect is not included into this research and might possibly be a determinant in the interpretation of humor. Data Tool - The tool applied for data gathering, in-depth semi-structured interviews, is suited for a first indication in a field were literature is limited, but limits objectivity. Furthermore, because only one type of data was gathered, triangulation is not possible. Firms - The characteristics of the selected firms used as input for the data analysis process were not strict, in the sense that no single company profile was enforced. Therefore, operating industries, size, age, performance and other measure of discrimination were not incorporated in the selection process. Teams - A similar approach was applied when selecting teams. Large variations in team diversity, size, tenure, goals, hierarchy, performance, and overall structure provided broad data, but limiting specific firm profile findings, due to the increased amount of variables. Individuals – humor is very subjective and is regarded to be heavily influence by personal characteristics (i.e. male/female, introvert/extravert, educational level, profession etc.). The data gathered for this research only included very limited attention to personal characteristics. On multiple occasions (9/13) the data indicated the influence of cultural background on humor, due to geographical differences and personal characteristics. The data gathering was conducted only in Groningen, the Netherlands. This indicates a limitation in cultural richness of data deteriorating generalizability.
dynamics in multiple contextual settings, as described in the conceptual model. An integrated model is required incorporating basic communication models of sender and receiver, depicting intention and interpretation of humor as a main focus in order to explain humorous interaction effects. The results of this paper indicate that application of humor as a social instrument is effective, but the intensity of use and result varies per individual. Further research is required regarding the variables influencing this behavior (i.e. social context, educational level, personality characteristics, and function within firm) and a description of the determinants to successful application. Analysing humor within context is required to attribute effects on both team dynamics as well as team performance. Specific team performance measurements to attribute the effects of humor need be integrated on order to get quantifiable data.
Managerial Implications - This research shows the importance for managers to develop an understanding of humor in practice as a concept, when humor has positive and negative effects, and what types of humor are helpful in specific situations. Furthermore, the positive effects of humor are indicated to be bounded and an equilibrium has to be found and maintained. Humor in teams has its limitations; too much is detrimental to performance. 7/13 teams indicated it to be the task of the team leader to maintain an optimal equilibrium in order to keep productivity levels up. In organizations with less hierarchical structure (flat) teams lean more towards self-regulation and responsibility of all team members.
References
Abel, M. H. (2002) Humor, stress, and coping strategies. Humor. 15(4): 365-381.
Amabile, T. M. (1988) A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in
organizational behavior. 10: 123-167.
Anderson, N. R. & West, M. A. (1998) Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational
Behavior. 19: 235-258.
Avolio, B. J., Howell, J. M. & Sosik, J. J. (1999) A funny thing happened on the way to the bottom line: humor as a moderator of leadership style effects. Academy of management
Journal. 42(2): 219-227.
Barsade, S. G. (2002) The ripple effects: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly. 47(4): 644-675.
Bass, B. M. (2000) The Future of Leadership in Learning Organizations. The journal of
leadership studies. 7(3): 18-40.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge.
Cann, A., Calhoun, L. G. & Nance, J. T. (2000) Exposure to humor before and after an unpleasant stimulus: Humor as a preventative or a cure. Humor. 13(2): 177-191.
Cheng, G. H. L. & Chan, D. K. S. (2008) Who suffers more from job insecurity? A meta-analytic review. Applied Psychology. 57: 272-303.
Clouse, R. W. & Spurgeon, K. L. (1995) Corporate analysis of humor. Psychology – A
Quarterly Journal of human Behavior. 32: 1-24.
Deal, T. E. & Kennedy, A. A. (1982) Corporate Cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. MA: Addison-Wesley.
Dechesne, I. (2014) Effects of Workplace Humour on Creativity and Innovativeness. 1-40. Dekker, W. H. & Rotondo, D. M. (1999) Use of Humor at Work: Predictors and Implications.
Psychological Reports. 84: 961-968.
Dekker, W. H. & Rotondo, D. M. (2001) Relationships among gender, type of humor, and perceived leader effectiveness. 450-465.
Fine, G. A. (1979) Small groups and culture creation: The idioculture of little league baseball teams. American Sociological Review. 44: 733-745.
Gong, Y., Kim, T., Lee, D. & Zhu, J. (2013) A multilevel model of team goal orientation, information exchange, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal. 56(3): 827-851. Harris, S., & Sutton, R. (1986). Functions of parting ceremonies in dying organizations.
Academy of Management Journal. 29: 5-30.
Hampes, W. P. (1999) The relationship between humor and trust. Humor. 12(3): 253-259. Holmes, J. & Marra, M. (2002) Having a laugh at work: how humor contributes to workplace culture. Journal of Pragmatics. 34(2002):1683-1710.
Holmes, J. & Marra, M. (2006) Humor and Leadership Style. Humor. 19(2): 119-138.
Holmes, J. (2007) Making Humor Work: Creativity on the Job. Applied Linguistics. 518-537. Lang, J. C. & Lee, C. H. (2010) Workplace Humor and Organizational Creativity. The
international journal of human resource management. 21(1): 46-60.
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. & Allen, J. A. (2014) How fun are your meetings? Investigating the relationship between humor patterns in team interactions and team performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology. 99(6): 1278-1287.
Malone, P. B. (1980) Humor: A double-edged tool for today‟s managers? Academy of
Management Review. 5(3): 357-360.
Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J. & Weir, K. (2003) Individual Differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality. 37: 48-75.
Mesmer-Magnus, J., Glew, D. J. & Viswesvaran, C. (2012) A meta-analysis of positive humor in the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 27: 155-190.
Newstrom J. W. (2002) Making Work Fun: An Important Role for Managers. SAM Advanced
Management Journal. 67(1): 4-21.
Meyer, C. (2001). A Case in Case Study Methodology. Field Methods. 13:, 329-352.
Priest, R. F. & Swain, J. E. (2002) Humor and its impact on leadership effectiveness. Humor. 15:169-189.
Robert, C. & Wilbanks, J. E. (2012) The Wheel of Humor: Humor events and affect in organizations. Human Relations. 65(9): 1071-1099.
Romero, E. J. & Cruthirds K. W. (2006) The Use of Humor in the Workplace. Academy of
Management Perspectives. 20(2):58-69.
Rothwell, E., Siharath, K., Bell, S., Nguyen, K. & Baker, C. (2011) Joking Culture: The Role of Repeated Humorous Interactions on Group Processes During Challenging Course
Experiences. Journal of Experimental Education. 33(4): 338-353.
Rowlands, B. (2005). Grounded in Practice: Using interpretive research to build theory.
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methodology. 81-92.
Ruch, W. (1998) Foreword and overview: Sense of Humor: A new look at an old concept. W.
Ruch (1st Ed.) Humor research 3. The sense of humor: Explorations of a personality
characteristic. 3-14.
Smith, W. J., Harrington, K. V. & Neck, C. P. (2000) Resolving conflict with humor in a diversity context. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 15(6): 606-625.
Thorson, J & Powell, F. (1993a) Sense of humor and dimensions of personality. Journal of
Clinical Psychology. 799-809.
Van Vugt, M. & Kameda, T. (2013) Evolution and Groups. In J. M. Levine (Ed.) Group
Appendix I: Interview Protocol v1.1
Interview
ProtocolThis interview is prepared as information gathering tool for the thesis for the MSc Business
Administration – Strategic Innovation Management. The interview is structured on a semi-open basis, leaving the opportunity for the respondents to give additional input or the researchers to ask follow-up questions. The estimated time for conduction of every interview is around 30 min. Over the period of the investigation the interview will evolve and be adapted according to the different directions and results provided by previous interviewees.
Interview Objectives
Retrieving information regarding;
- The general use of humor in the project/development team
- The concepts humor influences, which can be related to team performance - How in general the humor is perceived by the individual and the group - The effects of the use of humor on group functioning
- The source(s) of humor
A. General Information
Interview characteristics
Place : Name of place
Date : 1/3/2015
Name(s) Interviewer(s) : Family name(s), Initial(s)
Information Company
Company name : Chamber of Commerce registration
Company age : Years
Number of employees : Number
Industry : Industry name
National/Multinational : Active markets Number of subsidiaries : Number
Information Interviewee / Team
Name Interviewee(s) : Family name, Initials
Age : Years
Sex : M/F
Function within company : Official function Years with current employer : Years
Length of team cooperation : Months
B. Introductory Part How was the team selected? Did the team work together before? What was the specific goal of the team? How did you experience the team functioning?
Did the team reach the pre-set goals of the project? Within the set time? Within budget? Was the team performance as expected of better than expected?
C. Humor
How would you describe the humor used in the team? (i.e. what kind of jokes) Compared to average, was there more humor used in this team or less?
How did this humor affect the team / what were the consequences? How did the humor evolve over time during the project?
What kind of jokes / humorous interaction was mostly used (example)? How was the humor perceived by the team members in general?
Did the humor used differ per functional background? And between different functions? How would you describe the intensity of use of humor within the team?
How did the team experience the humor from within generally positive?
Were it always the same people making the jokes? How did they function within the group?
How do you consider positive and negative humor, as substitutes of each other or do you see them more as mutually exclusive?
How do you see positive and negative humor within the team, as both exclusively positive and negative or with an optimum?
Affiliative humor: non-threatening, non-hostile humor used to enhance social interactions
How is the attitude within the team towards jokes and laughing with each other inside and outside the team?
Do individuals within the team try to make each other and people outside the team laugh? What kinds of individuals are more open to jokes within the team and which are not? Are there people within the team who are naturally humorous?
To what extent do individuals within the team with positive humor styles have more cohesion towards each other than those who not?
Self-Enhancing humor: Humor centered internally that is used as a coping mechanism to buffer against stress
Does the team try to cheer itself up with humor by certain individuals saying something funny in a less fun situation?
Are there individuals within the team with a humorous outlook on life whereof you think it might be used for team purposes for not getting overly upset or depressed?
Does the group lose its sense of humor in a negative setting?
Do you experience that the team focuses mainly on amusing aspects of a situation to cope with problems?
Aggressive Humor: humor used to victimize, ridicule or belittle others
How do you perceive teasing around making mistakes between individuals within the team?
In what way do you see individuals or the team as a whole by its environment getting hurt by sense of humor?
Does the team care about how team members or other individuals or groups take jokes or funny things?
Does the team know when it goes too far in making jokes and laughing at each other or other outside individuals?
Is it accepted when humor is used to criticize or put down the team or certain individuals in or outside the team?
Self-defeating humor: humor used to lower one’s own social status so as to be more approachable Does the team or individuals let make fun of them/ or make fun of itself more then it should? How is the team positioned in putting itself down to make others laugh?
Does the team accept humor aimed at its weaknesses or blunders?
In what extend does the team try to cover its feelings or cover problems by joking around? Do individuals or even the whole team let other people laugh at them to keep good spirit at other parties?
E. Closure
If needed, could we contact you in the near future if there are any issues or questions about the interview?
Appendix II: Interview Protocol v1.2
Interview Protocol
This interview is prepared as information gathering tool for the thesis for the MSc Business
Administration – Strategic Innovation Management. The interview is structured on a semi-open basis, leaving the opportunity for the respondents to give additional input or the researchers to ask follow-up questions. The estimated time for conduction of every interview is around +/- 60 min. Over the period of the investigation the interview will evolve and be adapted according to the different directions and results provided by previous interviewees.
Research Question
How is positive and negative humor, originated from either the team leader or the team members, associated with innovation team performance over the different stages in the team’s life cycle, mediated by the group dynamics?
Interview Objectives
Retrieving information regarding;
- The general use of humor in the project/development team
- The source(s) of humor (i.e. leaders, members) and how this differs from one another - How in general the humor is perceived by the individual and the group
- How humor influences different concepts related to team performance - The effects of the use of humor on group functioning
A. General Information
Interview characteristics
Place : Name of place
Date : 1/3/2015
Name(s) Interviewer(s) : Family name(s), Initial(s) Information Company
Company name : Chamber of Commerce registration
Company age : Years
Number of employees : Number
Industry : Industry name
National/Multinational : Active markets Number of subsidiaries : Number
Information Interviewee / Team
Name Interviewee(s) : Family name, Initials
Age : Years
Sex : M/F
Function within company : Official function Years with current employer : Years
Length of team cooperation : Months
