Triple A Research Journal of Multidisciplinary (ISSN: 2636-5480)

Vol. 2(2): 023 - 033, September 2018

Available online: https://www.triplearesjournal.org/jmd
Copyright ©2018 Triple A Research Journal

Full length Research Paper

Mathematical modeling to monitor workplace humor

style and subordinate worked attitude involvement of
telecommunications companies in Port Harcourt
1*Eluozo SN and 2Ukpong Uwem Johnson

1Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Gregory University Uturu Abia State, Nigeria
2Department of Management Sciences, Akwa Ibom State University

ABSTRACT

The study monitors the effect on workplace humour style and

Corresponding author:
Eluozo S.N.
Department of Civil Engineering,
College of Engineering, Gregory University
Uturu, Abia State, Nigeria.
subordinate work attitude in telecommunication companies. The
output of staff in these organization were observed to reflect on their
subordinate work attitudes, job satisfaction and job involvement in
these companies, the study experience the positivity from these
dimensions as a function of workplace humour style in various
period at different conditions, linear trend were observed from the
predictive values, but there were variations despites the linear trend
displayed from these parameters through graphical representations.
These conditions implies that the input of subordinate work attitudes
determine the output of job satisfaction and staff efficiency
involvement, these dimensions determine the output of efficiency or
growth rate of these companies productivity, these parameters
generated the system that produced the predictive model, and
subjecting these parameters to model validation developed a
favorable fits, the study expressed the rate which these
organizational behaviour determined the efficiency of staff thus
generate positive or negative productivity, the study is however
imperative because the evaluation of these dimensions as a function
of workplace humour style has been monitored, these conceptual
framework has express their various function of influence in
different dimensions.

E-mail address: Keywords: Mathematical modeling, humour style, subordinate and

ndusolo2018@gmail.com involvement.

INTRODUCTION

The work relationship people have with their superiors and
supervisors is one of the major factors affecting workers’
attitudes toward their jobs and employers. Work forms a
major part of people’s lives and, in turn, a supervisor or
manager be a major part of people’s work. The prominence
of the issues surrounding the influence of supervisors on
their subordinates is exemplified by the interest of
researchers in studying the implications of the supervisor-
subordinate relationship over the last century Avolio et al.
(1999).
The existing body of literature suggests that the impact
of workplace relations on subordinates can be substantial
and of considerable scope. For instance, O’Driscoll and
Beehr (1994) argued that in many respects, the supervisor
is the most immediate and salient person in an individual’s
work context, as well as having a direct influence on

Triple A Research Journal of Multidisciplinary (JMD) | Vol.2 Issue2 | September 2018


subordinate behaviour at the workplace. These impacts
include instrumental implications such as: task;
organisational fit; counterproductive workplace behaviours;
organisational commitment; interpersonal workplace
conflict; innovativeness and creativity; strain and turnover
intentions; retention and perceived organisational support
Eisenberger, Stiegelhamber and Vandenberghe et al.,
(2002); Michela (2007). Other implications relating to the
qualitative work experience include stress, physical and
psychological wellbeing O’Driscoll and Beehr, (1994), work
satisfaction Watson (2009), feelings of energy and job
involvement Atwater and Carmeli, (2009). Extant literature
suggests that the influence of workplace relationships can
be beneficial Eisenberger et al., (2002) as well as
damaging Liu et al., (2010) to the attitudes, behaviours and
work outcomes of subordinates.
Several studies Meyer, 2000; Cooper, 2008; Lynch,
2002) have sought to establish the effect of various
antecedents to subordinate work attitudes. However most
of these studies (Rothbart, 1976; Meyer 1997) were
theoretical and did not offer any empirical assessment of
the relationship between the variables. Liu, et al (2010), in
their assessment of the nature of the exchange between
supervisors and subordinates in a survey of selected firms,
established the negative effect of toxic supervisory
behaviour on workers attitudes; however, their study also
identified the role of traditional values and revenge
cognitions in alleviating workers reprisals within the
organization. The findings indicate the effect of supervisory
behaviour and character dispensation and the implications
of such on the attitudes of subordinates in the organization.
Although, the study offers useful evidence with respect to
understanding workers attitudes, it does not make bring
into account or consider humour within the framework of its
assessment. Other similar studies (O’Driscoll and Beehr,
1994; Vaill 1989) have also provided theoretical discourses
about the nature of the relationship but have not treated
the actual impact of the identified dimensions of workplace
humour style on subordinate work attitudes.
The attitude of workers within any social or
organizational framework affects their productivity in
several ways and often without the consciousness of the
workers themselves. While job satisfaction, job
commitment and job involvement usually lead to increased
productivity, negative attitudes like absenteeism, lateness
and theft can have the opposite effect on the overall
performance individuals within an organization. The poor
attitude of employees affects various service and product
organizations and could be considered as the primary
factors behind their failures and inability to sustain their
client and customer bases.
Workplace humour styles can be described as the
various styles through which fun, comic and amusement
are introduced into the workplace through gestures and
communication. Humour is the essential element in
workplace interaction and exchanges (Romero and
Cruthirds, 2006) and plays an important role in the
cohesion and interaction within a group. Similarly, it has
Triple A Research Journal of Multidisciplinary (JMD) | Vol.2 Issue2 | September 2018
Solo and Johnson 024
certain effects and implications for relationships within the
framework of the organization too. For individuals at
workplace, humour concerns their working mood and is a
means for them to interact with members on their team.
Adequate exercise of humour can create a fun atmosphere
and resolve embarrassment, dilemmas and even conflicts
among people, establishing familiarity with others and
contribute to the quality of interpersonal relationship. It can
also accumulate more support from other people to boost
the psychological energy of the leader or manager (Martin,
2001). In addition, humour helps relax members and
contributes to job satisfaction and members’ quality of work
life. With the sound of laughter and feel of happiness, one
can develop positive emotions which offset the negative
influences brought about by pressure at work and conflicts
over role expectations (Lefcourt et al., 1995).
A good atmosphere in the organization inspires
individuals and teams in their innovations and creativity
Edgar and Pryor, (2003) and brings out more productivity
(Avolio et al., 1999; Clouse and Spurgeon, 1995). In other
words, humorous leadership cannot only effectively boost
leadership effectiveness (Decker and Rotondo, 2001), but
also help enterprises and organizations grow and
revolutionize to improve the overall performance of their
organization (Meyer, 1997). However, studies also show
that, humorous leadership cannot completely affect the
overall organizational performance. It relies on whether
leaders can successfully apply humour and whether the
humour applied fits the traits of their teams and individuals
within the organization or not. All of these have to do with
the efficacy of humour (Romero and Pearson, 2004).
Subordinate Work Attitudes is considered as a
concept of social psychology. Attitude is a belief about
something good or bad. It is a tendency to behave toward
the object to keep or get rid of it. An attitude can be defined
as an enduring organization of motivational, emotional,
perceptual, and cognitive processes with respect to some
aspect of the individual's world (Eagly and Chaiken 1998).
Social scientists believe attitude does not always square
with actual behaviour. Attitude is a hypothetical or latent
variable rather than an immediately observable variable
(Hagedorn, 2000). The concept of attitude does not refer to
any one specific act or response of an individual, but it is
an abstraction from many related act or responses. The
more positive attitude one has, the more positive human
behaviour will be seen in case of a specific topic. Attitude is
the mediator between stimuli and responses. It can be
defined as a mental and neural state of readiness,
organized through experience, exerting a directive or
dynamic influence upon the individual‘s response to all
objects and situations with which it is related (Visagie
2010). Campbell emphasized attitude as a response co-
variation in response to a set of social objects (Campbell,
cited in Visagie 2010). Attitude can be termed as the
predisposition of an individual to evaluate some symbol or
object or aspect of his world in a favourable or
unfavourable manner (Visagie 2010). Another research
suggests that attitudes may not be closely related with
025 Triple A Res. J. Multidisci.
behaviour in all the cases but in some conditions, which is
narrow.
Subordinate work attitude deals with how workers
within an organisation behave. It involves the management
directing employees into improving organisational and
personal effectiveness. It plays an enormous role in
determining relationships and workers job satisfaction.
When employees are happy, it is usually because they are
satisfied with their work (Bagherian et al., 2009). This also
improves the quality of their work. Attitude and job
satisfaction may not fall completely on the management
but also on the employees. If employees enjoy their work,
they will not need external motivation from management,
but instead the satisfaction they attain from completing
their work will motivate them (Eagly and Chaiken 1998).
Workplace Humour Styles and Subordinate Work
Attitudes
Hemphill and McGregor (cited in O’Driscoll and Beehr,
1994) were among the first to critique the then traditional
ways of viewing and assessing the influence of a
supervisor or managers on subordinates, and instead
began developing behavioural approaches of
measurement. The behaviour of supervisors has been
shown to impact on subordinate attitudes, such as job
satisfaction, commitment and involvement (O’Driscoll and
Beehr, 1994). Furthermore, supervisor-subordinate
workplace relations and behaviour has been revealed to
predict the efficacy of supervisors in initiating planned
change, and mitigating the negative effects associated with
organisational change, such as resistance to change
(Higgs and Rowland, 2011). The interaction and
relationship between supervisors and subordinates has
also been found to influence cognitive and emotional
appraisals of trust in the supervisor (Schaubroek, Lam and
Peng, 2011). This indicates that subordinates appraise
their supervisors’ role competency by assessing the
supervisors’ task and relational behaviours.
Supervisor behaviour is suggested to be a central
component of the exchange processes, and as such helps
determine the quality of leader-member exchange, which
impacts on crucial subordinate attitudes and behaviours
such as job satisfaction, job involvement and job
commitment as well as integration with co-workers in team
environments. GraenScandura and Graen (1986), and
Mayfield and Mayfield (1998) have found that educating
supervisors about the impact of their exchanges and
relationships with subordinates can produce positive
changes in subordinate team members. This is as Martin et
al. (2003) insists that the affiliative and self-enhancing
humours are the most commonly recommended styles in
promoting cordial relations with subordinates within the
workplace. Aggressive humour is discouraged because it
has the potential to prevent positive outcomes and likely
lead to negative ones.
Triple A Research Journal of Multidisciplinary (JMD) | Vol.2 Issue2 | September 2018
Job Satisfaction: As an attitude, job satisfaction has been
extensively researched, and has in many studies been
considered a dependent and an independent variable.
Agho and Price (1992) defined job satisfaction as the
extent to which employees like their work. In investigating
job satisfaction, a distinction is usually made between a
global feeling of liking one’s job in general and a
constellation of attitudes about various facets of the job
where individuals indicate their satisfaction with parts of
their job, such as pay, promotion, work, supervisors and
co-workers (Lease, 1998). According to Hagedorn (2000),
when a worker feels a high level of achievement, is
intensely involved, and is appropriately compensated by
recognition, responsibility, and salary, job satisfaction is
enhanced. Furthermore, the research (Agho and Price,
1992) points out how job satisfaction predicts employee
engagement and explains that a worker who is
experiencing a high level of job satisfaction would be likely
to appreciate her or his position and be proud of the
organization, resulting in high likelihood of job
engagement. In this case, engagement is perceived as the
final product, evidence, and the result of job satisfaction.
Job involvement: Job involvement as a unidimensional
construct concerned with an individual’s psychological
identification (Blau, 1985). Paullay, et al (1994) found that
two distinct constructs are important and necessary to
experience job involvement. These are job involvement-
role and job involvement-setting. Job involvement-role
refers to the degree to which one is involved in the specific
tasks that make up one’s job, and job involvement-setting,
refers to the situation where the individual finds the present
work environment engaging. Involvement in a specific job
is different from involvement with work in general. The
former is concerned with the present job’s ability to satisfy
one’s present salient needs and the latter with the
centrality of work in one’s life. The extent to which an
employee experiences job involvement depends on (a) the
saliency of both intrinsic and extrinsic needs and (b) the
perception held by the individual of the present job’s ability
to satisfy these needs (Kanungo, 1982).
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
𝑑 𝑐𝑑
𝑑𝑥
+ 𝑉(𝑦)𝑐𝑑 =  (𝑦)𝑐𝑑𝑛 (1.0)
Nomenclatures
Cd = workplace humour style
V = Subordinate work Attitudes
 = Job Involvement
X = Period
Dividing equation (1.0) all through by 𝑐𝑑𝑛 we have
𝑑𝑐𝑑
𝑐𝑑−𝑛
𝑑𝑥
+ 𝑣(𝑥)𝑐𝑑1−𝑛 =  (𝑦) (1.1)
 Solo and Johnson 026

Let Divide equation (1.12) all through by 𝑒 𝑉𝑢(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑦 we have

P=𝑐𝑑1−𝑛 (1.2)  (𝑦) + 𝐴𝑒 −𝑉𝑢(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑦
𝑑𝑝 𝑑𝑐𝑑 𝑝= (1.13)
= (1 − 𝑛)𝑐𝑑−𝑛 𝑉𝑢(𝑦)
𝑑𝑦 𝑑𝑦
𝑑𝑐𝑑 1 𝑑𝑝
𝑐𝑑−𝑛 = (1.3) Substituting equation (1.2) into equation (1.13) we have
𝑑𝑦 1−𝑛 𝑑𝑦

𝑐𝑑1−𝑛 =
 (𝑦) + 𝐴𝑒 −𝑉𝑢(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑦
Substituting equation (1.2) and (1.3) into equation (1.1) we 𝑉𝑢(𝑦)
have that
+ 𝑉(𝑦)𝑝 =  (𝑦)
1 𝑑𝑝
(1.4)
1−𝑛 𝑑𝑥 METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

Multiplied equation (1.4) all through by (1-n) Mathematical model techniques were applied for the study,
+ 𝑉(𝑦)(1 − 𝑛)𝑝 =  (𝑦)(1 − 𝑛)
𝑑𝑝
(1.5) deterministic model techniques were applied, the
𝑑𝑦
variables were subjected into mathematical tools, these
Equation (1.5) is linear in p. we applied the integrating developed a system that generated governing equation,
factor method as follows: these were derived to produced model for the study, these
predictive solution were also subjected to simulations were
𝐼. 𝐹 = 𝑒 ∫ 𝑝(𝑦) 𝑑𝑦 (1.6)
parameters were varied at different conditions base on the
system, the derived simulation parameters will be
Where
compared with measured values from the fields for model
𝑝(𝑦) = 𝑉(𝑦)(1 − 𝑛) (1.7)
validation.
Substituting equation (1.7) into (1.6) we have
𝐼. 𝐹 = 𝑒 ∫ 𝑢(𝑦)(1−𝑛) 𝑑𝑦 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
= 𝑒 𝑉(𝑦)(1−𝑛) ∫ 𝑑𝑦
= 𝑒 𝑉(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑦 The study from tables 1 – 6, figure 1 - 6 on graphical
𝐼. 𝐹 = 𝑒 𝑉(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑦 (1.8) representation monitors the rate of workplace humour in
various periods, linear trend observed in the figures
Multiplied all through equation (1.5) by equation (1.8) we explain the positivity of staff attitude towards
have telecommunication companies in the study locations,
𝑒 𝑉(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑦 + 𝑉(𝑦)(1 − 𝑛)𝑒 𝑉(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑌 𝑝 =  (𝑦)(1 −
𝑑𝑝
exponential growth rate were observed, these shows the
𝑑𝑦
rates of displaced attitude in the work environment, the
𝑛)𝑒 𝑉(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑦 variation of these parameters remain the rate of workplace
 (𝑦)(1 − 𝑛)𝑒 𝑉(𝑌)(1−𝑛)𝑦
𝑑
(𝑒 𝑉(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑦 𝑝) = humour style and subordinate towards work attitudes in
𝑑𝑥
𝑑(𝑒 𝑉(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑦 𝑝) =  (𝑦)(1 − 𝑛)𝑦𝑑𝑦 such organization, this relationship has express the
structure of work efficiency output in telecommunication,
Integrating both sides we have the state of workplace humour style reflect the displayed
attitude through subordinate work output, this expression
∫ 𝑑[𝑒 𝑉(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑦 𝑝] =  (𝑦)(1 − 𝑛) ∫ 𝑒 𝑉(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑦 𝑑𝑦 detailed the pressure from this dimensions that always tent
to developed the rate of satisfaction from the displayed
𝑒 𝑉(𝑌)(1−𝑛)𝑌 𝑝 = (𝑦)(1 − 𝑛) ∫ 𝑒 𝑉(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑦 𝑑𝑦 (1.9) attitude in these organizations, other pressured that
influence through linear trend in these figure is job
But to integrate  (𝑦)(1 − 𝑛) ∫ 𝑒 𝑉𝑢(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑥 𝑑𝑥 we let involvement that were observed to pressure the growth
𝐷 = 𝑉𝑢(𝑥)(1 − 𝑛)𝑥 (1.10) rate of workplace humour styles for improvement of the
𝑑𝐷
= 𝑉𝑢(𝑦)(1 − 𝑛) organization. The study monitored the rate of displayed
𝑑𝑥
hurmour and subordinate attitude in workplace. The trend
explains the variables that drive managerial efficiencies on
So that
𝑑𝐷 job satisfaction and its involvement in telecommunication
𝑑𝑥 = (1.11) companies, the figures presented in linear trend implies
𝑉𝑢(𝑦)(1−𝑛)
that the subordinate job satisfaction and involvement in
these organizations will always developed its efficiency if
Substituting (1.10) and (1.11) into (1.9) we have the there is better percentage of improvement in these
𝑒 𝑉𝑢(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑦 𝑝 =  (𝑦)(1 − 𝑛) ∫ 𝑒 𝐷
𝑑𝐷 organization. The trends from predictive values were
𝑉𝑢(𝑦)(1−𝑛) subjected to model validation, these were done by
𝑒 𝑢(𝑥)(1−𝑛)𝑥
𝑝=
 (𝑦)(1−𝑛) 𝑒 𝑉𝑢(𝑦)(1−𝑛)𝑦 + 𝐴 (1.12) comparison between the predictive and measured field
𝑉𝑢(𝑦)(1−𝑛) values, and both parameters developed favorable fits.

Triple A Research Journal of Multidisciplinary (JMD) | Vol.2 Issue2 | September 2018

027 Triple A Res. J. Multidisci.

Table 1: Predictive and Measured Values of Workplace Humour Style at

Different Period

Period Workplace Humour Style Measured Field Values

10 0.138 0.129995
15 0.207 0.194995
20 0.276 0.259995
25 0.345 0.324995
30 0.414 0.389995
35 0.483 0.454995
40 0.552 0.519995
45 0.621 0.584995
50 0.691 0.649995
55 0.759 0.714995
60 0.828 0.779995
65 0.897 0.844995
70 0.966 0.909995
75 1.036 0.974995
80 1.104 1.039995
85 1.173 1.104995
90 1.242 1.169995

Table 2: Predictive and Measured Values of Workplace Humour Style

at Different Period

Period Workplace Humour Style Measured Field Values

10 0.109 0.1
15 0.164 0.15
20 0.218 0.2
25 0.273 0.25
30 0.327 0.3
35 0.382 0.35
40 0.436 0.4
45 0.491 0.45
50 0.545 0.5
55 0.599 0.55
60 0.654 0.6
65 0.709 0.65
70 0.763 0.7
75 0.818 0.75
80 0.872 0.8
85 0.927 0.85
90 0.981 0.9

Triple A Research Journal of Multidisciplinary (JMD) | Vol.2 Issue2 | September 2018

 Solo and Johnson 028

Table 3: Predictive and Measured Values of Workplace Humour Style at Different Period

Period Workplace Humour Style Measured Field Values

2 0.016 0.01596964
4 0.032 0.03196856
6 0.048 0.04796676
8 0.064 0.06396424
10 0.082 0.079961
12 0.096 0.09595704
14 0.112 0.11195236
16 0.128 0.12794696
18 0.144 0.14394084
20 0.161 0.159934
22 0.176 0.17592644
24 0.193 0.19191816
26 0.209 0.20790916
28 0.225 0.22389944
30 0.241 0.239889
32 0.257 0.25587784
34 0.273 0.27186596
36 0.289 0.28785336
38 0.305 0.30384004
40 0.321 0.319826

Table 4: Predictive and Measured Values of Workplace Humour Style at Different Period
Period Workplace Humour Style Measured Field Values
2 0.0178 0.01606008
4 0.0356 0.03206032
6 0.0534 0.04806072
8 0.0718 0.06406128
10 0.0891 0.080062
12 0.1069 0.09606288
14 0.1247 0.11206392
16 0.1425 0.12806512
18 0.1604 0.14406648
20 0.1782 0.160068
22 0.1961 0.17606968
24 0.2138 0.19207152
26 0.2316 0.20807352
28 0.2495 0.22407568
30 0.2673 0.240078
32 0.2851 0.25608048
34 0.3029 0.27208312
36 0.3207 0.28808592
38 0.3386 0.30408888
40 0.3564 0.320092

Triple A Research Journal of Multidisciplinary (JMD) | Vol.2 Issue2 | September 2018

029 Triple A Res. J. Multidisci.

Table 5: Predictive and Measured Values of Workplace Humour Style at

Different Period

Period Workplace Humour Style Measured Field Values

10 0.1258 0.11998
15 0.1875 0.179955
20 0.2516 0.23992
25 0.3145 0.299875
30 0.3774 0.35982
35 0.4403 0.419755
40 0.5032 0.47968
45 0.5661 0.539595
50 0.6291 0.5995
55 0.6919 0.659395
60 0.7548 0.71928
65 0.8177 0.779155
70 0.8806 0.83902
75 0.9435 0.898875
80 1.0064 0.95872
85 1.0693 1.018555
90 1.1322 1.07838

Table 6: Predictive and Measured Values of Workplace Humour Style at

Different Period

Period Workplace Humour Style Measured Field Values

10 0.112 0.10997
15 0.168 0.1649325
20 0.222 0.21988
25 0.281 0.2748125
30 0.336 0.32973
35 0.392 0.3846325
40 0.448 0.43952
45 0.504 0.4943925
50 0.561 0.54925
55 0.616 0.6040925
60 0.672 0.65892
65 0.728 0.7137325
70 0.784 0.76853
75 0.841 0.8233125
80 0.896 0.87808
85 0.952 0.9328325
90 1.008 0.98757

Triple A Research Journal of Multidisciplinary (JMD) | Vol.2 Issue2 | September 2018

 Solo and Johnson 030

Predictive andMeasured Values Values of 1.4

1.2
Workplace Humour Style

0.8

Workplace Humour Style

0.6
Measurded Field Values
0.4

0.2

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Period

Figure 1: Predictive and Measured Values of Workplace Humour Style at Different Period

1.2
Predictive and Measured Field Values of

1
Workplace Humour Style

0.8

0.6
Workplace Humour Style
Measurded Field Values
0.4

0.2

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Period

Figure 2: Predictive and Measured Values of Workplace Humour Style at Different Period

Triple A Research Journal of Multidisciplinary (JMD) | Vol.2 Issue2 | September 2018

031 Triple A Res. J. Multidisci.

Predictive and Measured Field Values of 0.35

0.3
Workplace Humour Style

0.25

0.2

Workplace Humour Style

0.15
Measurded Field Values
0.1

0.05

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Period

Figure 3: Predictive and Measured Values of Workplace Humour Style at Different Period

0.4
Predictive and Measured Field Values of Workplace

0.35

0.3

0.25
Humour Style

0.2
Workplace Humour Style

0.15 Measurded Field Values

0.1

0.05

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Period

Figure 4: Predictive and Measured Values of Workplace Humour Style at Different Period

Triple A Research Journal of Multidisciplinary (JMD) | Vol.2 Issue2 | September 2018

 Solo and Johnson 032

1.2
Predictive and Measured Field Values of Workplace

0.8
Humour Style

0.6
Workplace Humour Style
Measurded Field Values
0.4

0.2

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Period

Figure 5: Predictive and Measured Values of Workplace Humour Style at Different Period

1.2
Predictive and Measured Field Values of Workplace

0.8
Humour Style

0.6
Workplace Humour Style
Measurded Field Values
0.4

0.2

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Period

Figure 6: Predictive and Measured Values of Workplace Humour Style at Different Period

Triple A Research Journal of Multidisciplinary (JMD) | Vol.2 Issue2 | September 2018

033 Triple A Res. J. Multidisci.
CONCLUSION
The study of workplace humour style tend to monitor the
variation of attitudes of staff which determine their rates of
efficiency at various periods in these cooperate
organizations, these was achieve through various
dimensions observed in the study to pressure the output of
the staff in either positive or negative, the rate of workplace
humour style explained various effect on the this
dimensions related to the subject matter in the study
environment, the rate of these companies productivity are
determined from these stated variables, these parameters
were integrated to generate system that formulate the
governing equation, base on these conceptual module, it
developed derive model that monitors the rate of workplace
humour style in telecommunication companies, the study
experienced exponential growth but the generated
variation of parameters even though they maintained on
linear trend in various figures in various period and
location, these implies that the study developed some
variation in output of the influential parameters, these
variation generated the heterogeneity of the predictive
values, the derived model parameter were compared with
measured field values, and both parameters displayed
favourable fits.
REFERENCES
AghajaniHashjeen T, Shoghi B, Shafizadeh R, Eisapour H
(2013). The Relationship Between Organizational
Structure and Employee Creativity, Australian J. Basic
and App. Sci., 7(2).
Agho AO, Price JL (1992). Discriminant validity of
measures of job satisfaction, positive affectivity and
negative affectivity. J. Occup. Org. Psychol. 65 (4):
185-197.
Atwater L, Carmeli A (2007). Leader-member exchange,
feelings of energy, and involvement in creative work.
The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3): 264-275.
Avolio BJ, Bass BM, Jung DI (1999). Re-examining the
components of transformational and transactional
leadership using the multifactor leadership
questionnaire. J. Occup. Org. Psychol. 72: 441–462.
Avolio BJ, Howell JM, Sosik JJ (1999). A funny thing
happened on the way to the bottom line: Humor as a
Triple A Research Journal of Multidisciplinary (JMD) | Vol.2 Issue2 | September 2018
moderator of leadership style effects. Acad. Manag. J.
42(2): 219 –227.
Bagherian R, Bahaman AS, Asnarulkhadi AS, Shamsuddin
A (2009). Social exchange approach to people’s
participations in watershed management programs in
Iran. European J. Scientific Res. 34(3): 428-411.
Brown SP (1996). A meta-analysis and review of
organisational research on job involvement.
Psychological Bulletin, 120 (2): 235-255.
Bryman A, Bell E (2003): Business Research Methods,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Carbelo B, Jáuregui E (2006). Emocionespositivas:
humorpositivo. PapelesdelPsicólogo, 27 (1): 18-30.
Clouse RW, Spurgeon KL (1995). Corporate analysis of
humor. Psychology: Quart. J. Hum. Behaviour, 32(3-4):
1–24.
Kasrai AR, Alirahimi MM (2009). The investigation of
relationship between organizational structure and
effectiveness in retirement organization, J. Basirat, 44.
Keller RT (1997). Job involvement and organisational
commitment as longitudinal predictors of job
performance: A study of scientists and engineers. J.
App. Psychol. 82 (4): 539-545.
Kelly WE (2002). An investigation of worry and sense of
humor. J. Psychol. 136: 657–666.
Knoop R (1986). Job involvement: An elusive concept.
Psychological Reports, 59: 451-456.
Lease SH (1998). Work attitudes and outcomes. J.
Vocational Behavior, 53: 154-183.
Ledbetter R (2003). Organizational structure: Influencing
factor and impact in the Grand Prairie Fire Department,
National Fire Academy, Grand Prairie, Texas.
Lefcourt HM, Davidson K, Shepherd R, Phillips M,
Prkachin K, Mills D (1995). Perspective taking humor:
Accounting for stress moderation. J. Soc. Clin.
Psychol. 14: 373–391.
Lewis TM (2011). Organizational structure effect on
communication efficiency for management information
system supported organizations: A Delphi Study, Pro
Quest Dissertation and Theses.
Liden RC, Sparrowe RT, Wayne SJ (1997). Leader-
member exchange theory: The past and potential for
the future. Research in Personnel and Human
Resources Management, 15: 47–119.