A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Bottom Line: Humor as a Moderator of

Leadership Style Effects

Author(s): Bruce J. Avolio, Jane M. Howell and John J. Sosik
Source: The Academy of Management Journal , Apr., 1999, Vol. 42, No. 2 (Apr., 1999),
pp. 219-227
Published by: Academy of Management

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/257094

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Academy of Management Journal

This content downloaded from

93.41.124.96 on Mon, 31 Jan 2022 12:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
O Academy of Management Journal
1999, Vol. 42, No. 2, 219-227.

A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE BOTTOM LINE:

HUMOR AS A MODERATOR OF LEADERSHIP STYLE EFFECTS

BRUCE J. AVOLIO
State University of New York at Binghamton

JANE M. HOWELL
University of Western Ontario

JOHN J. SOSIK
Pennsylvania State University

In this study, we examined the links between leadership style, the use of humor, and
two measures of performance. Results indicated that leadership style was moderated
by the use of humor in its relationship with individual and unit-level performance.
Implications for further research on the use of humor by leaders are discussed.

Man is the only animal that laughs and weeps; for he is the only animal that is struck
with the difference between what things are, and what they ought to be.
William Hazlitt, Wit and Humor

A sense of humor is a characteristic frequently dress these questions, we conducted an exploratory

associated with leadership (Bass, 1990; Clouse &
Spurgeon, 1995; Shamir, 1995) and with a leader's
ability to effect change in followers (Goldstein,
1976; Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994). Indeed,
many organizations, such as Southwest Airlines,
Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream, and Sun Microsystems,
attribute higher levels of employee commitment,
cohesiveness, and performance to leaders' use of
humor in their cultures (Hof, Rebello, & Burrows,
1996; Katz, 1996).
Despite the fact that studying humor "has the
potential of providing significant insights into
management and organizational behavior" (Dun-
can, Smeltzer, & Leap, 1990: 255), relatively little
research has examined the connections between
study examining how the use of humor moderates
range of leadership styles, including transform
tional, contingent reward, and laissez-faire leader
ship. We also examined whether the use of humo
directly related to performance.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES
The Use of Humor and Its Impact on Proce
and Performance
Humor can be hypothesized to have both direct
and indirect effects on individual and unit perfor-
mance. Some of the direct effects may occur be-
cause the use of humor enhances the affective and

the use of humor and management, or leadership motivational states of followers. For instance, the
style. What is known about the relationships use of humor in organizations has been associated
among humor, leadership style, and performance with improving morale among workers (Gruner,
was perhaps best summarized by Crawford: "Per- 1997), creating a more positive organizational cul-
haps of all the communicative strategies that lead- ture (Clouse & Spurgeon, 1995), enhancing group
ers utilize, the use of humor is most promising, but cohesiveness (Duncan, 1982), stimulating individ-
least understood" (1994: 54). Consequently, in this ual and group creativity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996;
study we investigated two questions that have not Murdock & Ganim, 1993), and increasing motiva-
yet been addressed in the literature: To what extent tion (Crawford, 1994; Dienstbier, 1995; Lippitt,
does the use of humor by leaders impact positively 1982). The use of humor has also been associated
on performance, and for which leadership styles is with higher levels of productivity (Clouse & Spur-
the use of humor more (or less) effective? To ad- geon, 1995; Duncan & Feisal, 1989).
The use of humor has been described as motivat-
ing divergent, unconventional, creative, and inno-
We want to extend our appreciation to the Social Sci- vative thinking (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). Dixon
ences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for (1980) contended that the use of humor stimulates
supporting this research investigation. a shift in perspective that allows people to stand
219

This content downloaded from

93.41.124.96 on Mon, 31 Jan 2022 12:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
220 Academy of Management Journal April

back from a problem and to take a new and unique toward the accomplishment of group goals and per-
perspective to address it. Other areas related to the formance. By using humor, transformational lead-
use of humor by leaders include building greater ers can create a more amiable atmosphere at work,
identification, cohesion, and commitment in which can enhance creative interactions among
groups, clarifying differences between individuals employees and their performance (Clouse & Spur-
geon, 1995).
in terms of needs and aspirations, and pointing out
discrepancies in logic and beliefs to stimulate Transformational leadership has been shown to
innovative thinking (Duncan, 1982; Martin & have a direct, positive relationship with perfor-
Lefcourt, 1983; Ziv & Gadish, 1990). mance (see meta-analyses by Gasper [1992] and
Drawing on this previous research (e.g., Csik- Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam [1996]). From
szentmihalyi, 1996; Duncan, 1982; Gruner, 1997), prior research on the use of humor and the impact
we predicted that the use of humor would have a of transformational leadership on performance, we
direct and positive impact on performance. Thus, expected transformational leaders' use of humor to
enhance individual and unit performance.
Hypothesis 1. The use of humor will be posi- Contingent reward leaders focus on establishing
tively related to individual and unit-level per- clear exchanges with their followers (Bass, 1985).
formance. Exchanges are often based on articulating "explicit
contracts" regarding what the leader expects from
followers. In exchange for the leader's articulating a
Humor as a Moderator of the Relationship
goal and providing rewards when the goal is
between Leadership Style and Performance
achieved, followers are expected to comply with
Malone (1980) argued that when humor was the leader's performance expectations. Contingent
properly used, it could enhance managerial pro- reward leaders usually concentrate on getting tasks
cesses and performance. For example, previous done and pay less attention to understanding the
correlational data indicate that managers use hu- human resource needs of their organizations (Bass,
mor to cope with stress (Yovitch, Dale, & Hudak, 1985). Unlike transformational leaders, they also
1990; Ziv & Gadish, 1990). Indeed, May (1953) de- tend to exhibit a convergent (coming to the single
scribed the use of humor as providing a mechanism best answer) rather than a divergent (coming up
to help people deal with their problems more effec- with creative and new observations) style of think-
tively. Martin and Lefcourt (1983) described humor ing.
as a moderator of the impact of stress on individual The meta-analytic results reviewed above suggest
performance. They further suggested that humor that contingent reward leadership should posi-
could moderate the relationship between how in- tively relate to individual and unit performance. To
dividuals experienced negative life events and the extent that using humor facilitates an exchange
their level of mood disturbance. between a leader and his or her followers, we ex-
We expected that some leaders would be morepected humor to enhance the expected positive
likely to use humor than others (Malone, 1980).relationship between contingent reward leadership
However, there was no evidence on whether the and performance. For example, the use of humor
use of humor is equally effective across different can indicate in subtle ways what a contingent re-
leadership styles. Consequently, we examined in ward leader expects of his or her followers. After
this study how humor moderated the impact of clarifying goals and expectations, a contingent re-
leadership on performance by comparing the use of ward leader can use humor to make sure followers
humor in three different leadership styles: transfor- really heard the message. Humor can lighten the
mational, contingent reward, and laissez-faire. atmosphere at work, allowing followers to discuss
Transformational leaders build confidence in fol-
what they understand is expected of them in terms
lowers, encouraging them to reframe the future andof performance.
to question the tried and true, and coaching them to Prior research (e.g., Bass, 1985; Lowe et al., 1996)
develop their full capabilities (Bass & Avolio, 1994;
has linked laissez-faire leadership with poor indi-
Burns, 1978). A transformational leader's use of vidual and unit performance. Laissez-faire leaders,
humor may signal to followers that they can in fact who avoid taking a stand with their followers, are
handle what they see as out of control. For exam- viewed as less effective (Bass & Avolio, 1994).
ple, the leader's humor may reassure followers that Since laissez-faire leaders do not attend to the
he or she has enough confidence and control to joke needs of their followers, their use of humor may
about the stressful situation confronting them. Hu- viewed as procrastinating and/or turning attent
mor can also be used to bring a group together away from the work that needs to be accomplis
(Duncan, 1982) and therefore direct its energies Indeed, laissez-faire leaders may use humor w

This content downloaded from

93.41.124.96 on Mon, 31 Jan 2022 12:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1999 Avolio, Howell, and Sosik 221

wanting to avoid taking on difficult conditions target manager had an average of 4 followers, each
and/or decisions. Followers might see a laissez- of whom rated his or her leadership behavior and
faire leader's use of humor as "adding insult to use of humor. We aggregated ratings across follow-
injury"; this perception would amplify the ex- ers for each scale (scales are described below) on
pected negative relationship between laissez-faire the basis of the results of a series of one-way anal-
leadership and performance. yses of variance (ANOVAs) and Bartlett tests for
In sum, expanding on Martin and Lefcourt's homogeneity of variance within groups. Individual
(1983) and Malone's (1980) discussions of the use and unit performance data were gathered one year
of humor as a moderator, we predict in Hypotheses later from company records.
2a, 2b, and 2c that humor will moderate the rela-
tionship between leadership and individual and
unit performance:
Survey Measures
Hypothesis 2a. The use of humor will enhance
the positive effect of transformational leader- Leadership behavior. The Multifactor Leader-
ship on individual and unit performance. ship Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5X was used to
measure leadership style (Bass & Avolio, 1997).
Hypothesis 2b. The use of humor will enhance Prior research on an earlier version of the MLQ
the positive effect of contingent reward leader- (Form 5R) criticized it for assessing both leadership
ship on individual and unit performance. behavior and impact items in the same scales (cf.
Hypothesis 2c. The use of humor will enhance Yukl, 1994). MLQ scales were redesigned to in-
the negative effect of laissez-faire leadership clude only items measuring leader behavior. Re-
on individual and unit performance. cent evidence provided by Avolio, Bass, and Jung
(1999) supports the convergent and discriminant
validity of the MLQ Form 5X. The variables mea-
METHODS
sured as components of transformational leader-
Context and Sample ship include the following (a sample item for each
scale is included in parentheses): idealized influ-
This study was conducted in a large Canadian
ence or charisma ("uses symbols and images to get
financial institution. The company was organized
his/her ideas across"), inspirational leadership
into four strategic business units (investments,
("provides a vision of what lies ahead"), intellec-
group insurance, general insurance, and individual
tual stimulation ("provides reasons to change my
life insurance) and three functional support areas
way of thinking about problems"), and individual-
(human resources, market development, and cus-
ized consideration ("spends time coaching me").
tomer service). The sample consisted of 115 leaders
Contingent reward leadership was measured by
representing the top four levels of management and
their 322 respective followers. Leaders were pri- four items ("points out what I will receive if I do
marily men (97%) who had worked an average 20 what needs to be done"). Finally, three items as-
years with the company. They were between 29 sessed laissez-faire leadership ("is likely to be ab-
sent when I need him/her"). Followers rated how
and 64 years of age, with the average age being 47
years.
frequently their manager engaged in each behavior
on a five-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4
(frequently, if not always).
Procedures
Use of humor. Five items taken from the litera-
ture on humor and leadership measured the lead-
Initially, leaders and followers received a letter
er's use of humor in terms of frequency of occur-
from the company's chief executive officer inform-
rence.
ing them that the research project was university- Items included the following: "uses humor
sponsored and that the company would receive to take the edge off during stressful periods," "uses
a funny story to turn an argument in his or her
only summary statistics of aggregated data. Surveys
were then distributed to all followers of each man- favor," "makes us laugh at ourselves when we are
ager who agreed to participate; the followers were too serious," "uses amusing stories to defuse con-
asked to rate the frequency with which their man- flicts," and "uses wit to make friends of the oppo-
sition." The standardized coefficient alpha for
ager used different leadership behaviors and hu-
these items reported in related previous research
mor. We assured the confidentiality of responses by
number-coding all surveys and having surveys (Dubinsky, Yammarino, & Jolson, 1995) was .92.
mailed directly back to us. The overall responseThe reliability of the humor scale in the present
rate was 89 percent for followers (N = 322). Each
study was .90.

This content downloaded from

93.41.124.96 on Mon, 31 Jan 2022 12:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
222 Academy of Management Journal April

Performance Measures data; thus, we expected feedback to have a positive

relationship with unit performance and included it
Host company measures. The company provided
as a control path between individual and unit per-
two performance measures. The measure of consol-
formance. In addition, given that some leaders are
idated unit performance represented the degree to
more likely to use humor than others (Malone,
which a manager achieved targeted goals for the
1980), we included control links between transfor-
year, calculated in terms of the percentage of goals
mational, contingent reward, and laissez-faire lead-
met. Each manager had an individually designed
ership and the use of humor.
contract specifying his or her annual performance
goals. Performance contracts identified three tar-
geted areas weighted according to the nature of the
Data Analysis
manager's position (line or staff) and the type of
goal: corporate (two to four measurements based onHypotheses were tested using the partial least
squares (PLS) structural equation modeling tech-
corporate objectives), business unit (two to four
measurements based on producing results in the nique (cf. Wold, 1985). PLS generates estimates of
business unit), and project (one to two measure-standardized regression coefficients for model
ments based on special project assignments). Forpaths, which can then be used to measure the rela-
tionships
each goal, criteria were established to assess ex- between latent variables. "Jackknifing" is
pected, superior, and outstanding performance. then used to evaluate the statistical significance of
the
The probability of reaching each performance level path coefficients (Wold, 1985). PLS also gener-
ates factor loadings for each measurement item;
varied with the goal's difficulty. For expected per-
formance, managers had a 75 to 100 percent prob- interpretation of these loadings is similar to the
interpretation of the results of principal compo-
ability of meeting the goal, but they had respective
nents factor analysis (Bookstein, 1986). PLS does
40 and 10 percent probabilities of attaining supe-
rior and outstanding performance. not rest on assumptions about (1) data distribu-
The individual performance appraisal measure tions, (2) observation independence, or (3) variable
was a score representing a focal manager's overallmetrics (Falk & Miller, 1992). PLS is appropriate for
performance as ranging from 1, "marginal," toanalyzing
5, predictive research models that are in the
"outstanding." According to the company's guide- early stages of theory development, as is the model
in
lines, marginal was defined as "clearly below fully the present study (Barclay, Higgins, & Thomp-
competent requirements as defined by the duties ofson, 1995). By using this robust methodology, we
expected
the job and its associated goals; considerable room to detect associations that might not be
for improvement exists, may be due to inexperi- revealed with a more standard regression analysis
method (cf. Wilcox, 1998). The use of PLS was
ence or other factors" and outstanding as "distin-
guished performance which far exceeds fully com- deemed appropriate here since the connections be-
petent requirements of the job's duties and tween leadership, the use of humor, and perfor-
associated goals." This score was based on three mance have been relatively unexplored in prior
research.
components. First, the manager's performance rel-
ative to his or her specific position's accountabili- We utilized full-sample data to test Hypothesis 1.
ties was rated on the above five-point scale. Sec- To test Hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c, we split the
ond, the manager's performance level for job- sample into two subsamples composed of data par-
titioned into lower (scale score lower than the 1.86
related competencies (such as technical know-how,
managerial know-how, leadership and motivation median score) and higher (>1.86) levels of humor
skills, problem solving, and accountability were use. This approach parallels more traditional mod-
evaluated as "requires development," "competent," erated regression analysis by testing a model sepa-
or "strength." The third component was a develop-
rately for each subsample using unpaired t-tests
(Duxbury & Higgins, 1991; Sambamurthy & Chin,
mental review of the manager's major strengths,
1994).
key areas for performance improvement, and the
steps required to meet those development needs.
Each manager's performance was appraised by his RESULTS
or her direct supervisor annually.
Control paths. Prior research (e.g., Eden, 1990) Table 1 presents the scale means, standard de
suggests that performance feedback may influence ations, and Pearson product-moment correlati
subsequent individual and group performance. The among the measures. PLS generates statistics w
managers received individual performance feed- which the reliability and validity of latent c
back prior to the collection of unit performance structs with two or more reflective indicators can

This content downloaded from

93.41.124.96 on Mon, 31 Jan 2022 12:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1999 Avolio, Howell, and Sosik 223

TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlationsa

Variable Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Transformational leadership 2.43 0.59 (0.93)

2. Contingent reward leadership 2.03 0.62 .59* (0.84)
3. Laissez-faire leadership 1.46 0.62 -.55* -.51* (0.78)
4. Use of humor 1.81 0.40 .56* .45* -.50* (0.85)
5. Leader's performance appraisal 3.01 0.77 .09 -.13 -.09 .24* (1.00)
6. Unit performance 102.50 50.48 .27* -.34* -.18 .03 .52* (1.00)

a N = 115. Numbers in parentheses on the diagonal represent the square

are correlations between constructs. For adequate discriminant validity, t
parenthetical element in that row or column. All items included in the P
Miller, 1992; Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
* p < .05

be tested.1 The factor loadings of the indicators ual performance was significantly more positive in
associated with each construct were high, equaling the low-humor subsample (t56 = 7.49, p < .001).
or exceeding .70, indicating adequate reliability.2 Parallel results were obtained for each of the com-
Second, the composite scale reliability for each ponent scales of transformational leadership. Con-
construct, an internal consistency estimate similar trary to Hypothesis 2b, the relationships between
to Cronbach's alpha, exceeded .83; the recom- contingent reward leadership and individual per-
mended cutoff is .70. Third, the average variance formance and between contingent reward leader-
extracted by the above constructs from their indi- ship and unit performance were significantly dif-
cators exceeded .61; the recommended criterion is ferent in the two subsamples and more negative in
.50. the high than the low subsample (t56 = 5.49, p <
In PLS, convergent validity and discriminant va- .001, for individual performance; t56 = 6.52, p <
lidity are assessed with criteria similar to those .001, for unit performance). Contrary to Hypothesis
used in multitrait/multimethod analysis (Falk & 2c, the negative relationship between laissez-faire
Miller, 1992). Specifically, the construct represent- leadership and individual performance was signif-
ing items should share more variance with its items icantly different between the subsamples and was
than with other constructs in the model (Carmines more negative in the low-use-of-humor subsample
& Zeller, 1979). In Table 1, the diagonal elements (t56 = -10.97, p < .001); with unit performance, it
show the square root of the average variance shared was also significantly more negative in the low
by a construct with its indicators. Adequate con- subsample (t56 = -18.06, p < .001).
vergent and discriminant validity were obtained As is also shown in Table 2, transformational
based on these results. leadership was significantly and positively related
Table 2 summarizes results of the PLS analysis. to the use of humor and to individual and unit
Supporting Hypothesis 1, the use of humor was performance. Contingent reward leadership wa
significantly and positively related to individualsignificantly and positively related to the use o
humor, but it was negatively related to individu
(path coefficient = .38, p < .001) and unit perfor-
and unit performance. Laissez-faire leadership w
mance (path coefficient = .13, p < .05). Hypothesis
2a received partial support: the relationship be- significantly and negatively related to the use o
tween transformational leadership and unit perfor-humor and to individual and unit performance
mance was significantly different in the high-use-Finally, leader's performance appraisal was signi
of-humor and low-use-of-humor subgroups and icantly and positively associated with unit perfo
significantly more positive in the high subgroup mance in the unmoderated model and in both the
(t56 = 9.96, p < .001). However, the relationshiplow- and high-humor subsamples.
between transformational leadership and individ-

DISCUSSION
1 A reflective indicator is one that is determined by the
construct it represents, and it will covary with other The present study was a preliminary inv
indicators of that construct. tion of the relationship between various leade
2 This and the other numerical indicators of adequacy styles, the use of humor, and performance. R
noted in this paragraph are from Fornell and Larcker indicated that the use of humor had a pos
(1981). direct relationship with two measures of p

This content downloaded from

93.41.124.96 on Mon, 31 Jan 2022 12:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
224 Academy of Management Journal April

TABLE 2
Results of PLS Analysisa
Moderated Modelb

Unmoderated Model Low Humor High Humor

Standardized Standardized Standardized

Hypothesized Proposed Path Path Coefficient t8c Path Coefficient t8c Path Coefficient t8c

Hypothesis 1
Humor - leader performance appraisal 0.38 21.42**
Humor - unit performance 0.13 4.69*
Hypothesis 2a
Transformational leadership -> leader 0.17 4.89* 0.33 5.83 * 0.07 1.43
performance appraisal
Transformational leadership -- unit 0.76 23.78** 0.38 9.72** 0.63 16.97**
performance
Hypothesis 2b
Contingent reward leadership - leader -0.28 -11.90** -0.02 -0.21 -0.35 -6.68**
performance appraisal
Contingent reward leadership - unit -0.57 -15.71 * -0.37 -4.84* -0.64 -13.78**
performance
Hypothesis 2c
Laissez-faire leadership -- leader -0.22 -6.25** -0.34 -8.59** -0.09 -3.40*
performance appraisal
Laissez-faire leadership -- unit performance -0.21 -4.50* -0.60 -22.66** 0.05 0.68
Control paths
Transformational leadership -> humor 0.37 49.07**
Contingent reward leadership -> humor 0.11 14.35**
Laissez-faire leadership -> humor -0.23 -73.57**
Leader performance appraisal -- 0.39 29.16** 0.36 8.24** 0.30 8.99**
unit performance

a Analyses using OLS regression generally produce results parallel to PLS results.
b This model represents tests of Hypothesis 2. The unmoderated model includes
moderated model includes only high (n = 57) and low (n = 58) use of humor. The to
leadership, contingent reward leadership, and laissez-faire leadership was 38 perc
leader performance appraisal explained by those three predictors and humor was 16 p
in leader performance appraisal explained by transformational leadership, continge
15 percent in the low-humor moderated model and 14 percent in the high-humor mo
explained by these three predictors, humor, and leader performance appraisal w
variance explained in unit performance by transformational leadership, contingent
performance appraisal was 72 percent in the low-humor moderated model and 60 p
c Degrees of freedom for the t-test are based on the omission distance minus 1 (S
* p < .05, two-tailed test
*** p < .001, two-tailed test

mance. Active leadership, either in the

negatively form
related of
to performance when leaders
used humor
transformational or contingent reward more often. This more negative rela-
leadership,
was also positively related to the tionship
use ofcould be attributed
humor, butto several conditions
affecting
inactive, laissez-faire leadership was the host organization.
negatively re- Specifically, its
lated to the use of humor. These results emphasized
CEO continually supportthe need for employ-
ees tothe
theoretical considerations regarding reduce
usecosts
ofwhile
hu- achieving higher goals
mor by managers (e.g., Clouse &
eachSpurgeon, 1995;
year. Employees may have viewed the use of
Duncan, 1982) and the role of humor in effective humor in relation to setting goals and target objec-
leadership (e.g., Crawford, 1994; Shamir, 1995). tives as inconsistent with the seriousness of these
Examination of the moderating effects of humor issues. In addition, this firm operated in a marke
indicated the relationship between leadership that was undergoing dramatic change as a result of
style, humor, and performance may be more com- deregulation in the financial services industry. Us-
plex than it was initially conceived to be here. For ing contingent reward leadership and humor may
example, contingent reward leadership was more have been viewed as insufficient for addressing

This content downloaded from

93.41.124.96 on Mon, 31 Jan 2022 12:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1999 Avolio, Howell, and Sosik 225

dramatic changes in the market (Champy, 1995).
Also, coupling the use of humor with a style of
leadership that is generally less human-relations-
oriented, in a context where understanding em-
ployees' needs and concerns is required, may have
led followers to view their managers as insensitive
to their needs (Shamir, 1995).
The results suggest that by using humor, laissez-
faire leaders may have been able to reduce the
negative effects typically associated with their lack
of leadership, including a negative impact on per-
formance. Perhaps some of the positive effects of
humor mitigated the effects of the avoidance behav-
iors associated with laissez-faire leadership (Kerr &
Jermier, 1978). Indeed, humor may create a climate
that allows individuals to feel better about the unit,
even though they are dissatisfied with their leader.
We can only speculate as to why the moderating
effects of humor used with transformational lead-
ership differed for individual and unit perfor-leadership.
An area for future research is examination of how
mance. Perhaps humor more effectively creates a
positive atmosphere within a unit and thus stimu- humor
lates higher levels of collective productivity. Asdestructive manner and its moderating effects on
noted above, the use of humor may have been seenleadership style and performance. Moreover, cross-
cultural research might also demonstrate that dif-
as a distraction from the leaders' attending to their
followers' individual concerns.
Limitations, Future Research Directions,
and Implications
Several limitations of the present study suggest
directions for future research. First, we did not
measure the full range of behaviors associated with
leaders' use of humor or their styles of humor (for
instance, a self-deprecating style, or a nonsense
style). Thus, the humor construct and the overall
model tested may be underspecified and limited in
its generalizability.
A second limitation to generalizing our results
was that nearly all of the target leaders in the
present study were men. There is some evidence
that different styles of leadership and humor may
be used by male and female leaders (Eagly &
Johnson, 1990). Third, leadership and humor rat-
ings were collected at the same time and from the
same raters. Consequently, the relationships re-
ported here may be inflated by common source
effects, with positive (negative) impressions of
leadership resulting in positive (negative) evalu-
ations of humor. Fourth, unmeasured aspects of
the units, the organizational culture, and/or the
work groups (for instance, a low tolerance for
mistakes) may have also contributed to the pat-
tern of results reported here. The organization in
which this study was conducted is over 100 years
old and is considered very conservative. This
view of the organization's culture is consistent
with the second author's evaluation, which is
based on impressions gathered over a year spent
working closely with the company's senior man-
agement. Results may have been affected by the
degree to which different units had more or less
conservative cultures.
In this context, the use of humor may have been
seen as promoting greater flexibility and innova
tion, qualities that should enhance performance
However, when used by contingent reward leader
who expressed great concern with increasing pro
ductivity, reducing costs, and achieving contracted
goals within a dynamically changing environment,
humor may have had a more negative relationshi
with performance. Again, this may in part explain
the higher negative path coefficient corresponding
to a greater use of humor with contingent reward
is used in either a socially constructive or
ferent styles of humor moderate leadership style
differently depending on the characteristics of both
national and organizational cultures.
A useful addition to the present study's meth-
odology would be to include multiple methods
for measuring both leadership and the use of
humor. Researchers could develop a much better
sense of how various leaders use humor and of
the reactions of their followers by observing li
interactions.
Our results suggest that organizations could train
leaders to use humor in constructive ways, in view
of the nature of the culture they want to create
while also being aware of potentially negative im
pacts on individual performance. Another implic
tion is that leaders may need to vary their styles o
humor in line with followers' expectations to hav
a more positive impact on performance. Our result
also have potential implications for research on
group development and performance. Specifically
like different styles of leadership, different styles o
humor may be more or less effective depending on
the composition of a group (for instance, its ethnic
ity and gender), its history of interactions, its stag
of development, and the circumstances in whic
the group is operating.
Overall, we hope the present study will stimulate
the study of humor in the field of management an
leadership. Evidence provided here indicates th
humor needs to be taken more seriously.

This content downloaded from

93.41.124.96 on Mon, 31 Jan 2022 12:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
226 Academy of Management Journal
REFERENCES
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. 1999. Reexamining
the components of transformational and transac- Duncan, W. J., Smeltzer, L. R., & Leap, T. L. 1990. Humor
tional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership and work: Application of joking behavior to manage-
Questionnaire. Journal of Organization and
Occupational Psychology: In press.
Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. 1995. The par-
tial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling:
Personal computer adoption and use as an illustra-
tion. Technology Studies, 2: 285-309.
Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond
expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. 1990. Bass and Stogdill's handbook of lead-
ership. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. 1994. Improving organiza-
tional effectiveness through transformational
leadership. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. 1997. Full range of leader-
ship: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Ques-
tionnaire. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Bookstein, F. 1986. The elements of latent variable mod-
els: A cautionary lecture. In M. Lamb, A. Brown, &
B. Rogoff (Eds.), Advances in developmental psy-
chology: 203-230. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Burns, J. M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Carmines, E., & Zeller, R. 1979. Reliability and validity
assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Champy, J. 1995. Reengineering management. New
York: Harper Business.
Clouse, R. W., & Spurgeon, K. L. 1995. Corporate analysis
of humor. Psychology-A Quarterly Journal of
Human Behavior, 32: 1-24.
Crawford, C. B. 1994. Theory and implications regarding
the utilization of strategic humor by leaders. Journal
of Leadership Studies, 1: 53-67.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1996. Creativity: Flow and the
psychology of discovery and invention. New York:
Harper/Collins.
Dienstbier, R. A. 1995. The impact of humor on energy,
tension, task choices, and attributions: Exploring
hypotheses from toughness theory. Motivation &
Emotion, 19: 255-267.
Dixon, N. F. 1980. Humor: A cognitive alternative to
stress? In I. G. Sarason & C. D. Spielburger (Eds.),
Stress and anxiety, vol. 7: 281-289. Washington,
DC: Hemisphere.
Dubinsky, A. J., Yammarino, F. J., & Jolson, M. A. 1995.
An examination of linkages between personality char-
acteristics and dimensions of transformational leader-
ship. Journal of Business and Psychology, 9: 315-335.
Duncan, W. J. 1982. Humor in management: Prospects for
administrative practice and research. Academy of
Management Review, 7: 136-142.
Duncan, W. J., & Feisal, J. P. 1989. No laughing matter:
This content downloaded from
93.41.124.96 on Mon, 31 Jan 2022 12:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
April
Patterns of humor in the workplace. Organizational
Dynamics, 17(4): 18-30.
ment. Journal of Management, 16: 255-278.
Duxbury, R. M., & Higgins, C. A. 1991. Gender differ-
ences in work-family conflict. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 76: 60-74.
Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. 1990. Gender and leader-
ship styles: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
108: 233-256.
Eden, D. 1990. Pygmalion in management. Lex
MA: Heath.
Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. 1992. A primer for soft
modeling. Akron, OH: University of Akron Press.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. 1981. Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. Journal of Marketing
Research, 18: 39-50.
Gaspar, S. 1992. Transformational leadership: An inte-
grative review of the literature. Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation, Western Michigan University,
Kalamazoo.
Goldstein, J. H. 1976. Theoretical notes in humor. Jour-
nal of Communications, 26: 104-112.
Gruner, C. R. 1997. The game of humor: A comprehe
sive theory of why we laugh. New Brunswick, NJ
Transaction.
Hazlitt, W. 1819. On wit and humor. Lectures on English
comic writers: 43-68. London: Taylor.
Hof, R. D., Rebello, K., & Burrows, P. 1996. Scott
McNealy's rising sun. Business Week, January 22:
66-73.
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. 1994. What
about leadership: Effectiveness and person
American Psychologist, 49: 493-504.
Katz, J. 1996. Is this the perfect place to wor
Angeles Times Magazine, June 9: 32.
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. 1978. Substitutes for le
Their meaning and measurement. Organiza
Behavior and Human Performance, 22: 375
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N.
Effectiveness correlates of transformational and
transactional leadership: A meta-analytic revie
Leadership Quarterly, 7: 385-425.
Lippitt, G. L. 1982. Humor: A laugh a day keeps t
incongruities at bay. Training and Developmen
Journal, 36: 98-100.
Malone, P. B. 1980. Humor: A double-edged tool for
today's managers. Academy of Management
Review, 5: 357-360.
Martin, R. A., & Lefcourt, H. M. 1983. Sense of humor as
a moderator of the relation between stressors and
1999 Avolio, Howell, and Sosik 227

moods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- Yukl, G. 1994. Leadership in organizations. Englewood
ogy, 45: 1313-1324. Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

May, R. 1953. Man's search for himself. New York: Ziv, A., & Gadish, 0. 1990. Humor and giftedness. Jour-
Norton. nal for the Education of the Gifted, 13: 332-345.
Murdock, M. C., & Ganim, R. M. 1993. Creativity and Bruce J. Avolio earned his Ph.D. at the University of
humor: Integration and incongruity. Journal of Cre- Akron and is currently a professor in the School of Man-
ative Behavior, 27: 57-70. agement, State University of New York at Binghamton, and
Sambamurthy, V., & Chin, W. W. 1994. The effects of the director of the Center for Leadership Studies. His cur-
group attitudes toward alternative GDSS designs rent research interests include examining how computer
on the decision-making performance of computer- mediation affects the impact of leadership on team pro-
supported groups. Decision Sciences, 25: cesses and performance.
215-241.
Jane M. Howell is an associate dean at the Richard Ivey
Shamir, B. 1995. Social distance and charisma: Theoret- School of Business at the University of Western Ontario.
ical notes and an exploratory study. Leadership She received her Ph.D. in organizational behavior from
Quarterly, 6: 19-48. the University of British Columbia. Her research interests
include charismatic and transformational leadership and
Wilcox, R. R. 1998. How many discoveries have been lost
champions of innovation.
by ignoring modern statistical methods? American
Psychologist, 53: 300-314. John J. Sosik is an assistant professor of management and
organization at the Pennsylvania State University, Great
Wold, H. 1985. Systems analysis by partial least squares.
Valley School of Graduate Professional Studies. He re-
In P. Nijkamp, H. Leitner, & N. Wrigley (Eds.), Mea-
ceived his Ph.D. in management from the State Univer-
suring the unmeasurable: 221-252. Dordrecht,
sity of New York at Binghamton. His current research
Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
interests include antecedents and consequences of char-
Yovitch, N. A., Dale, J. A., & Hudak, M. A. 1990. Benefits ismatic and transformational leadership, computer-
of humor in reduction of threat-induced anxiety. mediated group/team processes and outcomes, and men-
Psychological Reports, 66: 51-58. toring in organizations.

This content downloaded from

93.41.124.96 on Mon, 31 Jan 2022 12:29:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms