The Path of Positive Humour: The Influence of Positive Humour on the Creative and Innovative Behaviour of an Individual

The Path of Positive Humour:

The Influence of Positive Humour on the Creative and

Innovative Behaviour of an Individual

R.D.R. de Graaf

1909282

University of Groningen

02-07-2014

Msc BA Strategic Innovation Management

Table of Content

Abstract  ...  3  

Introduction  ...  3  

1  Literature  Review  ...  5  

1.3  Identifying  potential  mediating  variables  ...  6

1.4  Organisational  creativity  ...  9

1.5  Innovation  ...  9

2  Hypotheses  &  Conceptual  Model  ...  11  

2.1  Positive  humour  classification  ...  11

2.2  Mediation  variables  ...  12

3  Research  Methods  ...  17  

4   Results  ...  22  

4.2  Bivariate  correlation  analysis  ...  24

4.3  Regression  analysis  and  hypotheses  ...  26

4.4  Mediation  analysis  ...  31

5.  Conclusions  ...  35  

5.1  Discussion  ...  35

5.2  Limitations  and  suggestions  for  future  research  ...  36

References  ...  38  

Appendix  A:  Variables  related  to  both  constructs  Table  ...  44

Appendix  B:  Possible  Mediating  Variables  Criteria  Table  ...  46

Appendix  C:  Studies  in  which  the  HSQ  is  used  ...  48

Appendix  D:  Original  Scales  ...  49

Appendix  E:  Measurement  Scale  Criteria  Mediating  Variables  ...  53

Appendix  F:  Introduction  letter  questionnaire  ...  60

Appendix  G:  Final  Questionnaire  ...  61

Appendix  H:  Factor  Analysis  ...  65

Appendix  I:  Cronbach  Alpha’s  of  the  variables  ...  70

Appendix  J:  QQ-­‐plot,  histograms  and  test  of  normality  for  age  and  tenure  ...  71

Appendix  K:  Histograms  and  P-­‐P  plots  for  all  dependent  and  mediating  Variables  ...  73

Appendix  L:  Schematic  overview  of  the  significant  relations  ...  77

Abstract

Literature has shown that humour has a substantial influence in the workplace. Based on a literature review and previous empirical research it became clear that a positive humour style influences the extent of innovative and creative behaviour of an employee positively. This research reveals if there are mediators for this relationship between positive humour and the innovative and creative behaviour and of an employee. The interaction between the dependent, mediating and independent variables was tested among 173 employees of two companies. The people who participated in this research performed activities that required innovative and creative behaviour. By performing regression analyses and Sobel tests this study empirically examines what variables could be mediators of this positive relationship. The main finding suggests that the self-efficacy of an employee is an essential link within the positive relationship between affiliative humour and the innovative behaviour of an employee. This means that affiliative humour does not have a direct positive effect on innovative behaviour but that the “route” goes via self-efficacy. Implications of this research for managers are discussed.

Introduction

Experiencing the use of humour is part of everyone’s life. Every day people are confronted with jokes or other sorts of humour usage. Humour is an important aspect of the interaction between people. The English writer and politician Joseph Addison once said “Man is distinguished from all other creatures by the faculty of usage of humour”. The usage of humour is also very important for organisations, it can provide many benefits (Ogunlana, Niwawate, Quang, & Thang, 2006). One of the benefits is addressed by Koestler (1964), he argues that the cognitive process involved in humour is identical to that of creativity: making a connection between seemingly unrelated matrices of thoughts. The ability to make these unrelated connections is beneficial for work related tasks. Another benefit of the usage of humour is addressed in a research of Ziv (1988). He tested the relation between humour and performance and concluded that humour has a positive influence on the creative performance of an individual.

In the literature, humour is approached from many different angles: theories on why humour is produced (Mindess, 1987), different styles of humour (Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray, & Weir, 2003), or what its effect is within organisations (Mesmer-Magnus, Glew, & Viswesvaran, 2012). More organisations are realizing that humour usage within their organisation can have beneficial effects. Humour can contribute to a better career but there is also the idea that people with a good sense of humour do a better job than people who do not have a good sense of humour (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012). There are many companies that try to use humour to enhance creative and innovative behaviour of their employees. A good example is the company Zappos, this organisation tries to establish a humorous culture so employees will think outside the box and will be more innovative and creative.

link between humour and creative and innovative behaviour is researched by Dechesne (2013). His research revealed that there is a positive relation between certain styles of humour and creative and innovative behaviour of an individual (Dechesne, 2013). There are four different humour styles an individual can have (Martin et al., 2003). Two styles are categorized as positive humour and the other two are categorized as negative humour styles (Martin et al., 2003). In the research of Dechesne (2013) the “positive” styles of humour have a positive relation with creative and innovative behaviour of an individual.

The research of Dechesne (2013) does not reveal how positive humour influences the relationship between the concepts positive humour style and creative and innovative behaviour of an individual. It could be the case that a positive humour style does not have a direct effect on creative and innovative behaviour of a person. It is imaginable that having a positive humour style influences certain concepts that subsequently influence the creative and innovative behaviour of someone. Although current literature is not clear about how this particular relationship works, there is a lot of research on factors that are influenced by positive humour and factors that influence creative and innovative behaviour.

This research will contribute to the literature in several ways. First of all by filling the gap in the literature concerning the nature of the relationship between having a positive humour style and creative and innovative behaviour of an

individual. The intention is to identify mediating factors between positive humour and creative and innovative behaviour. Second, a model of how positive humour influences the creative and innovative behaviour of an individual through these mediating variables will be presented and empirically tested. Besides these contributions to the literature this article will give managerial implications concerning this relationship. The positive effects of humour on creative and innovative behaviour are already known. But in order to use positive humour on the workplace in an effective way, it is important for management to know about mediating factors that can influence the effect of positive humour.

This study starts with a literature review that describes humour, workplace humour, creative and innovative behaviour and the identification process of the mediating variables. The second section will present the several hypotheses and the conceptual model drawn from the literature. The following methodology section explains how the empirical research is carried out and develops a model for regression analysis. Based on the regression analysis according to Baron and Kenny (1986) and Sobel tests the several hypotheses will be tested and will be concluded if there is a mediating effect. The last section discusses the implications for theory and practice and a final conclusion will be given. Also limitations of the study and suggestions for future research will be provided.

1 Literature Review

In this literature review several relevant concepts of this research will be discussed. First of all a general description of humour will be given. Humour is a common notion in the workplace, yet it is very difficult to define this concept precisely. The use of humour in the workplace will also be highlighted; the same will be done for the meditating variables and creative and innovative behaviour within the organisation.

1.1 Humour

The literature gives many different definitions of humour (Roeckelein, 2002). This is a result of the complexity and multifaceted nature of the construct (Chapman & Foot, 1976). In this research the definition of Romero and Cruthirds (2006) will be used: “humour consist of amusing communications that produces positive emotions and cognitions in the individual, group, or organisation”. Besides the many definitions of humour, much is written about the positive and negative outcomes of the usage of humour (Avtgis & Taber, 2006; Mindess, 1987; Samson & Gross, 2012). An example is the research of Samson & Gross (2012) that states that humour is a particularly healthy and effective way to cope with many different aspects of life, because humour is thought to be a powerful antidote to negative emotions (Vaillant, 2000). The usage of humour is commonly associated with jokes, pleasant emotions and much laughter. In this research only positive humour styles will be studied. As mentioned earlier, many studies relate positive outcomes to the usage of positive humour. Positive humour can be used to make oneself feel better (Martin, 2001), it can reduce stress levels and relieve pain (Dunbar & Bippus, 2012): there are many examples of the benefits of positive humour. Many authors also claim that using positive humour has the potential to offer many benefits to the workplace (Romero & Cruthirds (2006); Ogunlana et al., 2006). It is imaginable that when positive humour has a positive influence on an

individual’s state, it is important for the workplace as well. Dechesne (2013) shows that positive humour could indeed be important for the workplace. His research reveals that when an individual has a positive humour style, the extent of creativity and innovative behaviour of this individual is significant higher.

1.2 Workplace humour

Every day employees of an organisation are confronted with the usage of humour, whether they like it or not. According to Romero & Cruthirds (2006) employees can achieve many goals by using humour. These are goals like reducing levels of stress, enhancing the cohesiveness of a group, leadership and communication flows. Besides the idea that humour can be used to achieve several goals, humour is also associated with the physical and mental health of an individual (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012). It appears that humour has several functions in an organisation. According to Kahn (1989) the function of humour for individuals and groups within an organisation can be divided in five categories, which will each be discussed further.

Coping

threatening situation. Humour facilitated further detachment. Coping through humour is not only done at individual level, also groups can use this coping mechanism. For example when there is a reorganisation within a company. Employees are making jokes about the situation and among each other. This type of humour is used by people to maintain a positive attitude and to reduce the stress levels in these situations (Martin, 2001).

Reframing

This category is a cognitive function of humour. It allows individuals to look at something from more than one viewpoint. This is done by questioning the normal and embracing the ridiculous. Humour can enable someone to take some distance from an issue and look at it in another light. This is like “thinking out of the box” in an organisational context.

Communicating

Humour delivers messages, and allows them to be received in ways that other forms of communication cannot. The use of humour can euphemise messages; this is beneficial in situations when the message will hurt people. Through humour one can indirectly assess an issue, giving the recipient the opportunity to receive a difficult message while appearing not to do so. This will work when an employee does not want to harm the other. The benefit of humour is that the receiver of the message is directly confronted with the joke and responds to it, while this person can deal with the serious nature of the message later.

Expressing hostility

Humour can be a means of expressing aggression and wounding others. This is a form of negative

humour. People find it less risky to couch hostility within jokes, pranks, and other humorous media than express it directly. The humour here is used to give the sender a more secure feeling. Because of the ambiguity of the message the sender can say that it is a joke if the receiver replies seriously to it. The main difference between this category and communication is that the motivator here is to protect oneself instead of the other.

Construct identity

Humour provides a language that people can join to identify with a shared system, it is used to identify with groups and individuals. “Inside jokes” separate the ones who get it from the ones that do not, which results in an informal group. Humour helps sustain an organisation’s identity and culture.

This categorization shows that humour can have several functions. It can have benefits for the individual from a social, cognitive and emotional point of view. Some categories are more related to positive humour than others, for example expressing hostility is a category that is not very related to positive humour.

significantly account for variations in the dependent variable and (c) when a and b are controlled, a previously significant relation between the independent and dependent variables is less significant, with the strongest demonstration of mediation occurring when there is no effect at all between the independent and dependent variable. This research tries to reveal the path of the relationship between a positive humour style and the extent of creative and innovative behaviour of an individual. To reveal this path, possible mediating variables in the relationship are examined. In order to find these mediating variables, two literature streams are reviewed. First the psychological literature is considered to find the influence of humour, especially positive humour, on an individual. Second the management and business literature is examined to find out what concepts influence the degree of an individual’s creative and innovative behaviour. The last step is to figure out if there are concepts that have a relationship with positive humour and as well a relationship towards the creative and innovative behaviour of an individual. Based on these two literature streams there are several variables found that are related to both concepts positive humour and creative and innovative behaviour of an individual. The variables that were found are; life (job) satisfaction, stress, (work) engagement,

self-esteem, creative thinking, individual performance, productivity, (group) cohesiveness, communication, individual status, establishing leadership, and lower turnover/retention of talented people. These variables that are related to both concepts, are presented in table 1. A more comprehensive overview of these variables is included in Appendix A. In this overview all the references of these variables are presented.

Table 1: Variables related to both concepts

Life (Job) Satisfaction

Diminishing Stress

(Work) Engagement

Criteria mediating variables

The variables that are presented in table 1 are not all necessarily possible mediating variables for the relationship between a positive humour style and the creative and innovative behaviour of an individual. These variables are only related to the concepts positive humour and the creative and innovative behaviour of an individual. Possible mediating variables are selected from this list on the following criteria:

1. According to the literature there is a strong relation between the included variable and positive humour style

2. According to the literature there is a strong relation between the included variable and the degree of creative and innovative behaviour of an individual 3. The variable must be a possible mediating variable

(not an outcome etc.)

4. The included variable has management importance 5. The overlap between the included variables is

minimal

Based on these criteria it is possible to select the possible mediating variables that meet the criteria. The table with possible mediating variables criteria is included in Appendix B. This table will give a comprehensive overview of the identification process. This table rates all the possible mediating variables to the five criteria presented here. The variables that meet all the criteria are included as possible mediating variables. The first three variables that certainly will not be included in this research are creative thinking, individual performance and productivity, because these concepts are outcome variables rather than possible mediating variables. The concept stress will also not be part of this research, because the overlap

1.4 Organisational creativity

There are many definitions of creativity in the literature. The overlapping aspects to describe creativity are ‘something novel’, ‘fresh’ and ‘ideas for something new’. In this research the description of Amabile (1996) is used. She defines creative behaviour as “the production of novel and useful ideas”. It is known that creativity is very important for organisations because the development of new products depends on the creativeness of ideas (Scanlon and Jana, 2007). Having a sense of humour is also associated with being creative (Humke & Schaeffer, 1996) because humour requires the same capacities as generating new ideas and humorous people are often more creative (Humke & Schaeffer, 1996). There are certain elements, which are essential to have some level of creative output. These elements are the level of expertise, creative thinking skills and motivation (Amabile, 1998). Expertise can be described as the relevant knowledge that an individual possesses to bear on a problem (Amabile, 1998). It is important that there are people from different backgrounds with different expertise within a company, because diverse knowledge stimulates the creative potential of individuals in groups by increasing the chance to make creative combinations (Amabile, 2005). The ability to experience cognitive connections between unconnected items is influenced by creative thinking skills (Amabile, 1998). This is also influenced by having a sense of humour. According to McGhee (1976), creative individuals have more affinity with humour. Being intrinsically motivated is essential for creativity. Without a good intrinsic motivation a person will not be able to realize creative output. Many studies show that intrinsic motivation is more related to creative behaviour than extrinsic motivation (Amabile, 1998). Humour

has a positive influence on intrinsic motivation (Kuiper, McKenzie and Belanger, 1995).

1.5 Innovation

As shown by the research of Dechesne (2013), having a certain positive humour style influences the extent of innovative behaviour of an individual. Innovation is an essential element for an organisation to survive. This research mainly aims at the “innovative work behaviour” and “innovative output” of an individual.

Innovative work behaviour and innovative output

implemented and this means converting the idea into an actual product, service or process before the diffusion phase begins. To successfully implement ideas, cooperation within different hierarchical levels and departments is needed (Anderson &

2 Hypotheses & Conceptual Model

In the following section a distinction will be made between two different styles of positive humour and the mediating variables and the concepts creative and innovative behaviour will be presented. These concepts are used to make hypotheses about the relations between positive humour, mediating variables and creative and innovative behaviour. First, the concept positive humour will be discussed; which will lead to two hypotheses that describe the direct effect of positive humour on the creative and innovative behaviour of an individual. Secondly the several possible mediating variables are presented, this includes the relation from a certain positive humour style to the mediating variable, as well the relation between the mediating variable and the creative and innovative behaviour of the individual. The hypotheses are illustrated in the conceptual model.

2.1 Positive humour classification

The literature provides several approaches to categorise the use of humour. To measure positive humour styles the Humour Style Questionnaire of Martin et al. (2003) is used, from here referred to as HSQ scale. Appendix C shows the several studies in which this construct is used. The HSQ measures a person’s individual style to express humour.

Humour style questionnaire

This research is focused on the role of positive humour in the creative and innovative behaviour of an individual.

Affiliative humour

This is a positive non-hostile style of humour that is used to initiate or enhance relationships (Martin et al., 2003). Individuals that use this type of humour are usually perceived as non-threatening by others (Vaillant, 2000). Affiliative humour can increase group cohesiveness, confidence and tends to be associated with individuals who possess higher levels of extraversion and openness to experience (Martin et al., 2003; Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). The social factor of this humour style is likely to improve the number and quality of work relationships, enhancing an employee’s

chance to find the support needed to develop an idea. A larger network also increases sharing knowledge (Weiss, 1999), which stimulates creative behaviour (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw, 2005). Confidence and extraversion cause individuals to speak up more (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003), increasing the likelihood that they express their ideas. The ability to produce ideas and have the courage to express them is called “creative confidence” (Kelley & Kelley, 2012). Without the right amount of confidence, potentially innovative ideas could go to waste because they are never spoken out. Finally, openness to experience suggests that individuals with an affiliative humour style are less afraid of the unknown, which is an important characteristic knowing that innovation is associated with risk taking (Euchner, 2009). Thus in line with this theory:

Self-enhancing humour

Self-enhancing humour is used to cope with factors such as stress to maintain a positive perspective (Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warren, & de Chermont, 2003). This style facilitates relief of tension (Meyer, 2000). Self-enhancing humour is used by people who have a humorous outlook on life, enabling them to laugh about themselves and the anomalies of life (Martin et al., 2003). It is positively related to favourable emotions and negatively related to neuroticism (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). In these positive states, employees are more committed to their work and feel more intrinsically motivated (Amabile & Kramer, 2011). As with affiliative humour, this style is also associated with higher levels of self-esteem and openness to experience (Martin et al., 2003). Thus in line with this theory:

Hypothesis 1b: Self-enhancing humour is positively related to creative and innovative behaviour of an individual

2.2 Mediation variables

The selected possible mediating variables of this research are discussed here. The definitions of the several variables are given as well as the reasons it is expected that both or particularly one positive humour style is related to the mediating variable. Besides this, the relation between the mediating variable and the creative and innovative behaviour of an individual is also discussed.

Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction is a general attitude and feelings a person has or holds toward his or her work (Kawada & Otsuka, 2011). There are two kinds of job satisfaction: affective job satisfaction and

Mathieu (2008) showed that having a positive sense of humour increases a person’s life satisfaction. Recent research suggests that there is a positive relationship between life satisfaction and job satisfaction. As Judge & Locke (1993) noted, “An obvious reason for job satisfaction playing a causal role in subjective well-being is that it represents a part-whole relationship, that is, the job is a part of life and thus is taken into account when rating overall life satisfaction”. With this knowledge it is understandable that the use of positive humour is associated with job satisfaction (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012). Thus:

Hypothesis 2a: A positive humour style is positively related to the extent of job satisfaction of an individual

Stress is an important part of job satisfaction (Kawada & Otsuka, 2011; Sivesan & Karunanithy, 2012). Because of the importance of stress it is expected that especially self-enhancing humour has even a stronger positive effect than affiliative humour on job satisfaction because self-enhancing humour is a way to cope with factors like stress (Thoresen et al., 2003). Thus:

Hypothesis 2b: Especially self-enhancing humour is positively related to the extent of job satisfaction of an individual

The study of the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance is one of the most

known research traditions in

industrial-organisational psychology. This relationship has been often described as the “Holy Grail” of organisational psychology. To most managers, it appears only logical that a more satisfied employee

will perform better and many managers swear by the notion that if they manage to increase the satisfaction of their employees, increased performance will soon follow (Moorman, 1993). There are many studies that show the positive relationship between the job satisfaction of an individual and his or her performance (Bakoti, 2012). Not only the relation between job satisfaction and performance is recognized, also the relation between job satisfaction and the creative and innovative behaviour of an individual (Bakoti et al., 2012; Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2012). Thus:

Hypothesis 2c: The job satisfaction of an individual is positively related to creative and innovative behaviour of an individual

Self-efficacy

self-efficacy (Schyns & Von Collani, 2002). Because this research will be conducted in a business setting, self-efficacy will be used, because it is about beliefs in one’s ability and competence to do one’s job successfully. Self-efficacy is also associated with humour, as individuals with a positive style of humour score higher on self-efficacy (Galloway, 2010). Affiliative humour can increase the confidence of individuals (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). This style of humour can also affect the “Creative Confidence” of someone, this is the ability to produce and have the courage to express ideas. As with affiliative humour, the style self-enhancing humour is also associated with higher levels of self-esteem (Martin et al., 2003). Based on this information the following hypothesis is formulated. Thus:

Hypothesis 3a: A positive humour style is positively related to the extent of self-efficacy of an individual

Abraham Maslow (n.d.) writes ‘the concept of creativeness and the concept of the healthy, self-actualizing, fully human person seem to be coming closer and closer together, and may perhaps turn out to be the same thing’. Yau (1991) states that there is a strong relationship between healthy self-esteem and creative behaviour. Self-efficacy leads to a performance enhancing spiral (Fisher, 2010). Confidence in one’s own ability, self-efficacy, is an important cognitive and social trait determining and sustaining work performance (Chong & Ma, 2010).

Hypothesis 3b: The self-efficacy of an individual is positively related to creative and innovative behaviour of an individual

Group cohesiveness

Cohesiveness can be defined as a process that reflects a group’s tendency to stick together and remain united to reach a common goal (Craig & Kelly, 1999). It can also be defined as the degree to which an individual feels a sense of belonging to a particular group and his/her feelings and values are closely associated with other members of the group (Bollen & Hoyle, 1990). Groups that work together on a regular basis are able to achieve bonding through positive humour (Buhler, 1991). Thus:

Hypothesis 4a: A positive humour style is positively related to the cohesiveness of a group

Humour can put everyone on equal footing and provide the basis for the bonding process of a group (Buhler, 1991). Especially an affiliative humour style is associated with the process of getting everyone on an equal foot (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). That is why it is expected that affiliative humour has a stronger effect on the cohesiveness of a group. Based on this information the following hypothesis is formulated. Thus:

Hypothesis 4b: Especially affiliative humour is positively related to the cohesiveness of a group

these relations between cohesion and creativity it is also imaginable that an individual will find more support for his or her ideas in general when he or she works within a cohesive team or department. Thus:

Hypothesis 4c: The cohesiveness of a team is positively related to the creative and innovative behaviour of an individual

Workplace communication

Communication behaviours are composed of actions, interactions, and double interactions, or sets of them (Fisher, 1980). Behaviours initiate a sequence of actions (or interactions) that work together to make progress (or regress) in reaching conversational goals (Keyton et al., 2013). Employee communication behaviours are work, or contribute to the accomplishment of work. It is important that employees are satisfied with the communication with each other because this influences their work performance (Keyton et al.,

2013). The use of humour facilitates

communication and people who share humour are more apt to listen to each other (Cruthirds, Kevin, 2006). This can lead to the understanding and acceptance of a message from a co-worker for example. A well placed joke or anecdote can be an icebreaker that helps the parties to communicate. When it is necessary to convey difficult or distasteful messages, adding affiliative or self-enhancing humour can temper a negative reaction (Cruthirds, Kevin, 2006). Humour is an important part of communication, these two concepts are highly related (Robert & Wilbanks, 2012). The usage of humour influences the perceived quality of communication within a group for example Thus:

Hypothesis 5a: A positive humour style is positively related to the satisfaction with the way of communication that takes place in a department or organisation

The satisfaction concerning the communication that takes place within an organisation influences the performance of the organisation. There is a strong relationship between communication and job performance (Dunbar & Bippus, 2012). At an individual level the way of communicating has also a positive and important influence on the extent of innovation, because problem solving is an integral part of the process of innovation and therefore communication and information processing are very important (Ebadi, Utterback, Science, & May, 2014). Thus:

Hypothesis 5b: The satisfaction of the way of communication that takes place in a department or organisation is positively related to creative and innovative behaviour of an individual

2.3 Control variables

2.3 Conceptual model

Figure 1: Conceptual Model

3 Research Methods

The first section of this chapter describes how the constructs are measured, based on several criteria. In the second section the setup of the research is discussed and the last sections discuss the data collection and the data analysis.

3.1 Measures

Independent variable

Positive humour is measured with the revised HSQ scale of Martin et al. (2003). The original scale of Martin et al. (2003) is adjusted by Dechesne (2013) to make the scale suitable for a business environment. The scale consists of sixteen items, divided in eight items for each positive subscale. These subscales are affiliative and self-enhancing humour. The scale used in this research is included in Appendix D, the MSHS scale items are also included in this original scale.

Mediating variables

Because these variables are not measured in the research of Dechesne (2013) suitable scales are searched in the literature. To be able to select suitable scales from the literature, several criteria are formed for these possible scales. The criteria are:

1. The content of the scale must correspond with the definition of the construct

2. The scale is already tested in the literature

3. The scale is used in articles of Academic Journals with high impact factors

4. The items on the scale must not be in conjunction with the other included scales

5. The number of items on the scale is realistic, less than 20 items

For every mediating variable possible measurement scales are assessed and rated on these criteria. In Appendix E the “criteria” table.

Job satisfaction

This research aims at affective job satisfaction instead of cognitive satisfaction, so this is an

important consideration for selecting a

measurement scale. One of the first scales to measure job satisfaction is the scale of Brayfield & Rothe (1951), this scale has an affective orientation (Moorman, 1993). This scale includes questions about the degree to which the respondent is bored, interested, happy, enthusiastic, disappointed and enjoying work. These questions focus not on specific appraisals of job conditions, but on the emotional reactions and feelings towards work. The scale of Thompson and Phua (2012) is overtly affective and builds further on and improves the scale of Brayfield (1951). This scale has a very high reliability, internal consistency and it consists of four items. The combination of these characteristics makes this scale the optimal one to use in this research.

Self-efficacy

and Eden (2001). All the different scales are suitable for this research. However the best option for this research is the New General Self-Efficacy scale. First of all this scale is an improvement of the initial General Self-Efficacy Scale of Sherer and Adams (1982), it shows a higher construct validity and high reliability. It is also compared to the Self Generalized Efficacy Scale, a more

recently developed scale. For a more

comprehensive overview, the criteria table is include in Appendix E and the original scale of self-efficacy in Appendix D.

Group cohesiveness

For the construct cohesiveness three scales are found in the literature: The Group Environment Questionnaire of Widmeyer, Brawley and Connan (1985), Revised Scale of Cohesion (Carless & Paola (2000) and Perceived Cohesion Scale (Bollen & Hoyle, 1990). The Revised Scale of Cohesion and the Perceived Cohesion Scale are both good options to measure the cohesion of a group because they measure both the intended construct and have a high internal reliability (Bollen & Hoyle, 1990). In this research the Perceived Cohesion Scale will be used because this scale contains the most relevant questions: the questions are more applicable to the work circumstances of the approached companies. The questions are slightly changed so the items fit in this research. An example of such a change is that the original item “I feel that I am a member of the community” is changed to “I feel that I am a member of the department where I work”. A more comprehensive understanding about the selection of the scales and the original scale can be found in Appendix D and E.

Workplace communication

The goal here is to measure to what extent employees are satisfied with the way of communication within the company, especially about communication between colleagues. There are not many scales that measure precisely this construct. To obtain a good scale with items that measure exactly the intended construct, the Communicating Satisfaction Scale of Downs & Hazen (1977) is used to select the relevant dimensions. This original scale of Downs & Hazen consists of eight dimensions: organisational integration, supervisory communication, personal feedback, corporate information, communication climate, horizontal and informal communication (co-worker communication), media quality and withdrawal cognitions. The two dimensions that measure this construct are communication climate and horizontal and informal communication. Based on these dimensions several items are developed to measure this construct accurately. In Appendix D and E the original scale and the selection criteria tables are presented.

Dependent variables

Bisociative thinking

The earlier discussed reframing function of humour can encourage this type of thinking by highlighting discrepancies in logic and beliefs (Ziv & Gadish, 1989). The three items strongest correlated to the bisociative dimension derived from Jabri (1994) are included in the questionnaire to measure bisociative thinking. This is the same method Shalley, Gilson, & Blum (2009) used: they used the three strongest items of previous research in their own research.

Innovative work behaviour

Innovative work behaviour (IWB) can be defined as “an individual’s behaviour that aims to achieve the initiation and intentional introduction (within a work role, group or organisation) of new and useful ideas, processes, products or procedures” (Farr & Ford, 1990). IWB is measured as one construct, as recommended by De Jong and Den Hartog (2010). The original scale is slightly changed so it can be used as a self-reporting scale: for example “how often does this employee” is changed in “how often do you”. The original scale is included in Appendix D.

Innovative output

This scale assesses how often an employee offers suggestions, contributes to innovations or new product developments, or acquires new customers or new knowledge. The scale consists of six items and is derived from the same article as the scale for IWB (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010). In Appendix D the original scales can be found.

Control variables

The control variables in this research are age, gender, company and company tenure. These

control variables are measured at the end of the questionnaire.

3.2 Setup

The final questionnaire measures 12 variables using a total of 60 items, including the control variables. The response scale that is used is the 5-point Likert Scale on account of two important reasons. The first reason is the original scales that were used for the dependent and mediating variables were also 5-point Likert Scales. The second argument to use this scale has to do with the time respondents have to fill out this questionnaire. The variables are measured using self-report ratings, as was also done by Dechesne (2013). Employees are likely to be in the best position to assess their own creative and innovative behaviour (Ng & Feldman, 2012). To prevent the order effect bias, all the items in the questionnaire are randomised and intermixed (Goodhue & Loiocono, 2000). The scales include negatively keyed items to control the effects of acquiescence (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2005).

3.3 Data collection

To be able to research this subject, the questionnaire was carried out at two organisations. The questionnaire had to be filled out by people who performed activities that are related to creativity and innovation on a daily basis. The first

organisation is a research centre with

who received the questionnaire was 326 and 106 people filled out the questionnaire. So the response rate of this organisation is 32,4 percent. The second organisation is a semi-public organisation with approximately 400 employees that controls the water management in the Netherlands. In this organisation only the departments and people that perform creative and innovative activities were approached to fill out the questionnaire. This are departments that analyse new ways of working and departments that give long-term strategic advice. Departments that perform mainly executing and maintenance tasks were excluded from this research. This selection process was made with collaboration and input from two managers of this company. In the end 150 people were approached to fill out the questionnaire and 82 people completed the questionnaire. So the response rate for this organisation was 54,7 percent. These organisations were selected because they meet the earlier mentioned criteria’s and they were willing and interested to participate in this research.

Pilot questionnaire

A pilot questionnaire was carried out before the main study in order to evaluate three things: the length, quality and the adequacy of the questionnaire (Larossi, 2006). Four people of each company were personally approached to fill out the pilot. The feedback was discussed personally and one thing was slightly changed, adding two other departments to the list of answers. The people who did the pilot were excluded from the final study. Because the participants of the pilot worked at four different departments, there was no important consequence of excluding them from the final data. The final questionnaire can be found in Appendix G.

Procedure

Through the online software Qualtrics it was possible to distribute the questionnaire online. For each organisation an introduction letter and online link were distributed to the people who were selected to participate in this research (Appendix F). After a week the response was less than expected because only 31 people of the research centre filled out the questionnaire, so it was necessary to personally approach people to ask if they wanted to fill out the questionnaire and to approach a second company. This second company was the water management company. After a period of five weeks and several phone calls and e-mails, there were enough responses, 188 in total. Subsequently the results of the questionnaire were exported to SPSS and after coding and recoding several questions the dataset was complete.

3.4 Data analysis

there was any difference between the responses given by employees of the two different companies.

Factor and reliability analysis

It was important to conduct a factor analysis for the different scales of the independent, mediating and dependent variables. To be able to conduct a factor analysis to assess the scales of the variables, a rotated component matrix was used because this matrix gives the most valuable insights. The factor loadings of the items should be above 0.50 for them to stay in the list of items (Hair, Anderson & Tatham, 1998). The Cronbach’s alpha scores are acceptable above 0.70 (Mertler & Vannatta, 2004).

Independent variables

Two of the four dimensions of Martin et al. (2003) are used in this research: affiliative (AFH) and self-enhancing (SE) humour. Therefore the number of factors to extract is two. All the items of the scale affiliative humour exceed the factor loading of 0,50 (Appendix H). For the dimension self-enhancing humour one item is excluded, item 23 (Appendix H). After excluding this item 23 the Cronbach Alpha of this dimension increased from 0,768 to 0,835 (Appendix I).

Mediating intrapersonal variables

The intrapersonal variable consists of two dimensions: affective job satisfaction (AJS) and self-efficacy (SE). The fixed factors of extract are therefore set to two. All four items of the affective job satisfaction scale exceed the threshold of 0,50 (Appendix H). Almost all the items of the self-efficacy scale exceed the threshold except item 38 and 53 (Appendix H). Because there are enough

items left on this scale, these items can be excluded without compromising the ability to measure the important underlying dimension. After deleting these two items, all four remaining intrapersonal items are above the threshold 0,50 (Appendix H). The Cronbach Alpha of self-efficacy increased from 0,75 to 0,77 (Appendix I).

Mediating interpersonal variables

The interpersonal variable consists of two dimensions: group cohesiveness (GC) and workplace communication (WC). The fixed numbers of factors is therefore set to two.

One item of group cohesiveness does not exceed the threshold of 0,50: this is item 39 (Appendix H), there are still five items left. For workplace communication it was necessary to delete two items, item 48 and 52 (Appendix H). After deleting these items it is still possible to measure the constructs because there are still four items left. The Cronbach Alpha of group cohesiveness increased from 0,887 to 0,890 and for group communication the Cronbach Alpha increased from 0,795 to 0,809 after deleting the discussed items (Appendix I).

Dependent variables

To be able to do this factor analysis the component matrix is used because the number of extract is one. All the factor loadings of the three dependent variables are above 0,50 (Appendix H). The Cronbach Alpa’s of the three dependent variables are above 0,70 (Mertler & Vannata, 2004). The Cronbach Alpha’s could not be higher after deleting items (Appendix I).

4 Results

The following section describes the descriptive analysis and bivariate correlations. Additional, it will display the results of the regression analyses and elaborates the justification of the hypotheses. The last section will describe the mediation analysis, based on Baron and Kenny (1986) and Sobel tests.

4.1 Descriptive statistics

Table 2 shows all the descriptive statistics of the variables. In this research the standard deviations of the independent, mediating and dependent variables are low. Innovative work behaviour, for instance, has a standard deviation of 0,60 with a mean of 3,33. This indicates that about 88,6% of the respondents score between 2,14 and 4,45. This implies that the real lower end of the scales is not often used. This may have to do with the few sample differences. All respondents have at least a higher education certificate, most people even graduate from University. This could explain way the scores on the dependent variables are concentrated at the higher level of the scales. The average age of the respondents is 39,96 and the average years people work at the relative company is 8,88 years (Appendix J).

Ideally all the variables are perfectly normally distributed, but in reality this is often not the case. The variables age and company tenure show anomaly, both variables have high standard deviations. The histograms and the QQ-plots suggest that these variables are not normally distributed. This is confirmed by the Shapiro-Wilk test, which exposes that they are both significant for non-normal distribution. To eliminate effect extremes, the variables age and company tenure, are transformed with log. After transformation both variables are still significant for non-normal distribution, however LNage and LNtenure are preferred because they show considerably less outliers. These two transformed variables will be used in the regression analyses.

.

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics

!

N Minimum Maximum Mean

Std. Deviation Cronbach Alpha Affiliative Humour _{173 1,63 5,00 3,81 ,64 ,86} Self-enhancing Humour _{173 1,86 4,86 3,60 ,58 ,84}

Affective Job Satisfaction _{173 2,00 5,00 3,63 ,74 ,83}

Self Efficacy _{173 2,00 5,00 3,84 ,42 ,77}

Group Cohesiveness 173 1,60 5,00 3,68 ,64 ,89

Workplace Communication

173 1,50 4,50 3,44 ,76 ,81

Innovative Work Behaviour

173 1,60 4,90 3,33 ,60 ,90 Innovative Output _{173 1,60 5,00 3,60 ,64 ,82} Bisociative Thinking _{173 1,33 5,00 3,69 ,76 ,73} Age 173 24,0 63,0 39,96 9,18 Gender _{173 1 2 1,18 ,38} company _{173 1,00 2,00 1,28 ,44}

Company Tenure in years (how many years you work

at this company) 173 0,0 40,0 8,88 7,67

4.2 Bivariate correlation analysis

In table 3 all the bivariate correlations between the variables are shown. These correlations show how each variable on its own relates to other variables. The variable creative and innovative behaviour of an individual is measured by three concepts: innovative work behaviour, innovative output and bisociative thinking. With this bivariate analysis it is possible to observe if these three aspects of the dependent variable correlate with each other. Innovative work behaviour and innovative output that measure the innovative behaviour of an individual are significantly correlated (0,84**). Innovative work behaviour and bisociative thinking are also significantly correlated (0,72**). For innovative output and bisociative thinking the same applies, they are also significantly correlated with each other (0,66**). It is not surprising that these three concepts are highly correlated with each other. That they are correlated means that when a respondent seems to score highly on innovative work behaviour, he or she also scores highly on the concepts innovative output and bisociative thinking. The concepts innovative work behaviour

and innovative output measure the extent of innovative behaviour of an individual and bisociative thinking measures the creative behaviour of an individual. Creativity and innovation are concepts that go hand in hand because creativity is needed to be innovative (Martin et al, 2003).

Observable from table 3 is that affiliative humour significantly correlates with all the mediating variables and two of the three dependent variables, for example affiliative humour and innovative work behaviour correlate with 0.21**. It was unexpected that self-enhancing humour is not significantly correlated to one of the dependent variables, this founding is not in line with some findings of the research of Dechesne (2013). This is unfortunate because when the dependent and one of the independent variables do not significantly correlate, it is not possible to say that there are mediators for this relationship. The regression analysis will give a more decisive answer about this finding.

4.3 Regression analysis and hypotheses

In order to test the hypotheses and to see if there is a basis to assume there are mediators for some relations, a regression analysis is executed. Based upon results of this paragraph the mediation analysis will be performed in the next paragraph.

Independent variables to dependent variables First the regression results will be shown for the direct relationship between the independent variables, affiliative and self-enhancing humour style, and the dependent variables of innovative and creative behaviour. As you can observe in table 4 there is a significant relationship between affiliative humour and the dependent variables innovative work behaviour and innovative output, both significant effects are < 0,05. There is no significant relationship between affiliative humour and bisociative thinking. So hypothesis 1a is partially accepted, because bisociative thinking is not significant. The positive humour style self-enhancing humour is not significantly related to one of the dependent variables, all significant levels are above 0,05 and the standardized betas are low. This finding is in line with the results of the bivariate correlation analysis. Based on these regression results hypothesis 1b is fully rejected.

Mediating variables

There is a mediating effect when the effect on de dependent variable is not directly from the independent variable but indirectly through a third variable. The regression results of the possible mediating variables will be discussed here.

Affective job satisfaction

As in the table 5 is shown, there is no significant relationship between affiliative humour and the affective job satisfaction of an individual,

significance is 0,37. This means that there is no direct relationship between an affiliative humour style and affective job satisfaction. On the contrary there is a significant relationship between a self-enhancing humour style and affective job satisfaction, significance of 0,02 with a ß of 0,22**. This means that there is a direct relationship between a self-enhancing humour style and affective job satisfaction. Hypothesis 2a is partially supported: self-enhancing humour is positively related to affective job satisfaction but affiliative humour is not related to affective job satisfaction. Hypothesis 2b is supported, self-enhancing humour does not only have a stronger relationship with affective job satisfaction but is even the only positive humour style that influence affective job satisfaction.

Based on table 6 it is clear that there is a significant relation between affective job satisfaction and all the dependent variables, the significant levels are all beneath 0,05. So there is a direct relationship between affective job satisfaction and innovative work behaviour, innovative output and bisociative thinking: hypothesis 2c is fully supported.

Self-efficacy

contrary there is no direct significant relationship between a enhancing humour style and self-efficacy of a person. Hypothesis 3a is partially supported, only one positive humour style is significantly related to the self-efficacy of an individual.

Based on the regression result observable in table 7 it is clear that self-efficacy is significantly related to all the dependent variables, all have a significance of 0,00 and a high beta. So there is a direct relationship between self-efficacy and the three dependent variables, hypothesis 3b is fully supported.

Group cohesiveness

Table 5 shows that there is a direct significant relationship between a self-enhancing humour style and group cohesiveness, with a significance of 0,02 and with a ß of 0,24**. There is no significant relationship between affiliative humour and group cohesiveness. Based on this analysis hypothesis 4a is partially supported: only one of the positive humour styles has a direct significant relationship with group cohesiveness. Hypothesis 4b is not supported because affiliative humour does not only have not a stronger relation with group cohesiveness, it has no relationship with group cohesiveness at all. Based on table 8 it is clear that there is a significant relationship between group

cohesiveness and the dependent variables. All relationships here have a significant result of 0,00 with a high beta. Based on this information hypothesis 4c is fully supported.

Workplace communication

As shown in table 5 there is a direct significant relationship between self-enhancing humour and the quality of workplace communication, with a significance of 0,00 and with a ß of 0,33**. There is no direct significant relationship between affiliative humour and the quality of workplace communication. Based on this it is clear that Hypothesis 5a is partially supported, only one of the positive humour styles is related to workplace communication.

Based on table 9 it is clear that there is also a significant relationship between the quality of workplace communication and all the dependent variables. The significance levels are all below the required 0,05. Hypothesis 5b is fully supported.

In table 10 the summary of the results of the hypotheses are presented. The table shows if the several hypotheses are supported, partial supported or not supported. Besides this a short clarification explains why the hypothesis is supported or not. In Appendix L a schematic overview is given of the significant relations between the variables.

Table 4: Regression coefficients independent > dependent variables                          

Table 5: Regression coefficients independent > mediating variables

    Dependent variable     work behaviour 1. Innovative

2. Innovative output

3. Bisociative thinking

Independent variable     Stand. β Sig. Stand. β Sig. Stand. β Sig.

Affiliative humour     ,28** 0,00 ,23** 0,01 0,09 0,20 Self-enhancing humour     -0,10 0,16 -0,09 0,20 0,02 0,42 Control variables                         Age (Logarithm) -0,19 0,04 -0,03 0,38 -0,09 0,22 Gender 0,10 0,11 0,16 0,02 0,12 0,07 Tenure (Logarithm) 0,03 0,39 -0,10 0,17 -0,15 0,09 Company 0,01 0,45 0,11 0,10 0,09 0,16 R2 _{0,09 0,09 0,08} Adjusted R2 _{0,05 0,06 0,05} F (p) 2,42 2,65 2,33

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed)

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed)

Independent variable     Stand. β Sig. Stand. β Sig. Stand. β Sig. Stand. β Sig.

Affiliative humour     0,03 0,37 ,24** 0,01 0,06 0,29 0,01 0,47 Self-enhancing humour     ,20** 0,03 0,04 0,34 ,24** 0,02 ,33** 0,00 R2 _{0,05 0,07 0,08 0,11} Adjusted R2 _{0,04 0,06 0,07 0,10} F (p) 4,35 6,38 6,96 10,65

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed)

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed)

Table 6: Regression coefficients affective job satisfaction > dependent variables     Dependent variable     1. Innovative work behaviour 2. Innovative output 3. Bisociative thinking

Mediating variable     Stand. β Sig. Stand. β Sig. Stand. β Sig.

Affective Job Satisfaction     ,60** 0,00 ,48** 0,00 ,61** 0,00 Control variables                         Age (Logarithm) -0,20 0,01 0,04 0,33 -0,13 0,08 Gender 0,07 0,14 0,14 0,03 0,10 0,06 Tenure (Logarithm) 0,18* 0,02 0,02 0,42 0,04 0,30 Company -0,13 0,03 0,00 0,47 -0,05 0,23 R2 _{0,36 0,26 0,43} Adjusted R2 _{0,34 0,24 0,41} F (p) 17,52 11,33 24,05

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed)

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed)

Table 7: Regression coefficients self-efficacy > dependent variables

    Dependent variable     1. Innovative work behaviour 2. Innovative output 3. Bisociative thinking

Mediating variable     Stand. β Sig. Stand. β Sig. Stand. β Sig.

Self-Efficacy     ,40** 0,00 ,41** 0,00 ,30** 0,00 Control variables                         Age (Logarithm) -0,16 0,06 -0,13 0,45 -0,08 0,22 Gender 0,09 0,13 0,15** 0,03 0,12 0,06 Tenure (Logarithm) 0,03 0,37 -0,09 0,17 -0,13 0,10 Company -0,05 0,26 0,05 0,27 0,05 0,28 R2 _{0,19 0,22 0,16} Adjusted R2 0,17 0,20 0,13 F (p) 7,57 9,09 5,92

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed)

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed)

Table 8: Regression coefficients group cohesiveness > dependent variables     Dependent variable     1. Innovative work behaviour 2. Innovative output 3. Bisociative thinking

Mediating variable     Stand. β Sig. Stand. β Sig. Stand. β Sig.

Group Cohesiveness     ,51** 0,00 ,42** 0,00 ,30** 0,00 Control variables                         Age (Logarithm) -0,24 0,01 -0,07 0,23 -0,17 0,04 Gender 0,03 0,37 0,10 0,10 0,05 0,23 Tenure (Logarithm) 0,16* 0,55 0,00 0,47 0,01 0,44 Company -0,09 0,11 0,02 0,39 0,00 0,46 R2 _{0,27 0,22 0,33} Adjusted R2 _{0,24 0,19 0,30} F (p) 11,42 8,71 15,25

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed)

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed)

Table 9: Regression coefficients workplace communication > dependent variables

    Dependent variable     1. Innovative work behaviour 2. Innovative output 3. Bisociative thinking

Mediating variable     Stand. β Sig. Stand. β Sig. Stand. β Sig.

Workplace Communication     ,22** 0,00 ,14* 0,04 ,29** 0,00 Control variables                         Age (Logarithm) -0,14 0,10 0,01 0,48 -0,06 0,27 Gender 0,06 0,23 0,13 0,52 0,08 0,15 Tenure (Logarithm) -0,01 0,47 -0,13 0,10 -0,16 0,06 Company 0,02 0,41 0,11 0,10 0,12 0,07 R2 0,08 0,08 0,15 Adjusted R2 0,05 0,05 0,13 F (p) 2,72 2,61 5,73

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed)

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed)