RUNNING HEAD: HUMOR USAGE Humor Usage 1

The Effects of Humor Usage on Perceived Leadership Ability

Corresponding Author:

Madeline Miranda
Bryant University
1150 Douglas Pike
Smithfield, RI 02917
mmiranda3@bryant.edu
203-278-9651

Kristen Capobianco
Bryant University
1150 Douglas Pike
Smithfield, RI 02917
kcapobianco@bryant.edu
516-404-7653

Lorenzo J. Ricci
Bryant University
1150 Douglas Pike
Smithfield, RI 02917
lricci1@bryantedu
603-401-5300

SaBastian J. Townes
Bryant University
1150 Douglas Pike
Smithfield, RI 02917
stownes@bryant.edu
757-752-0490

Abstract
RUNNING HEAD: HUMOR USAGE Humor Usage 2

This study examined the relationship between humor and perceived leadership ability.

Participants were asked to complete a survey based off of a leader they have had recently. The

survey for participants (N = 48) included both the Multifactor Leader Questionnaire and the

Humor Orientation Scale to see if the leaders who were deemed to have high leadership abilities

also had a high humor orientation. The results revealed that humor has positive effects on

perceived leadership ability.

Keywords: Leader, subordinate, leadership abilities, humor

RUNNING HEAD: HUMOR USAGE Humor Usage 3

The Effects of Humor Usage on Perceived Leadership Ability

While some leaders and managers prefer to have a very professional relationship with

their subordinates, others chose to have a more casual relationship. A more casual relationship

can be formed through communication, especially through the use of humor. The use of humor

can be a tool to bring people closer together as they bond over common topics that they perceive

as funny. Some people may believe this could have a positive impact on a relationship with a

manager or leader while others may believe it could have a negative impact and diminish their

perceived leadership abilities. However, according to Goswami, Nair, Beehr,.,and

Grossenbacher,(2016), leaders’ positive humor is correlated with positive emotions at work.

Based on this we can assume that the usage of humor by a leader will increase their perceived

leadership ability. This study serves to examine the relationship between the use of humor and

perceived leadership ability.

Review of Literature

Humor is often known to make people seem much more likeable. People are usually

more prompt to listen and follow those that they like in comparison to people they dislike

(Wanzer, Booth‐Butterfield & Booth‐Butterfield, 1996). In that sense, humor would be a good

quality to possess as a leader, since your subordinates would like you more (Wanzer et al.,

1996). Humor-oriented people report less loneliness and are perceived as more humorous

(Wanzer et al., 1996). Using this as a basis, these people who feel less are likely in the presence

of more people more often. This sort of presence could result in a better perceived ability to

command others’ attention and lead them. Also, according to Mao, Ting-Ju Chiang , Zhang, and

Gao (2017), humorous leaders should be witty, clever, and likeable. This is what makes them
RUNNING HEAD: HUMOR USAGE Humor Usage 4

attractive as leaders. These qualities can be presented through their speeches or actions (Mao et

al., 2017).

Of course, humor is not necessarily the basis by which leaders can be recruited. In fact,

studies have also showed that humor can be used to include and exclude group members, which

is something leaders should be cautious of (Kangasharju & Nikko, 2009). So, in this case what

effect would humor have on leaders that are already in a position of power, such as an office

manager? According to Goswami, et al., (2016) leaders’ positive humor was correlated with

positive emotions at work, which in turn was related with employees’ work engagement;

importantly leaders’ humor is most likely to result in employees’ positive emotions . This study

underlines the importance that humor can have on those already in a position of leadership and

that humor may not be a sole driving force in leadership ability, but it can greatly enhance

already present leadership ability. In terms of positive emotions, various studies concluded that

humor elicits positive affective responses and brings about joy, exhilaration, and cheerfulness

(Hughes, L.W.,2009). These emotional responses to humor allow for a more inclusive work

environment and increases productivity within a group (Hughes, L. W., 2009).

To further this idea that not only does humor help leaders appear to have great leadership

quality, but also enhances leadership ability, according to a study done by Martin,& Gayle,

(1999) leaders consciously use humor as part of their management style. This result of many

shows that existing leaders already understand that humor can lead to the hearts of their

subordinates in a way other means of communication cannot. Another result of the study was

that respondents perceived that their overall communicator image was positive (Martin & Gayle,

1999). This was in response to the idea that leaders use humor in the workplace.
RUNNING HEAD: HUMOR USAGE Humor Usage 5

Another factor to consider is how uncertainty plays a large role in trust, and in turn,

leadership. In order for a person to lead subordinates there must be a foundation of trust and

certainty. According to Graham (1995) humor helps to facilitate the development of social

relationships which reduces uncertainty (1995). The finding in the study stated that sense of

humor reduced the uncertainty that usually comes along in new interpersonal relationships,

which gives more insight into how humor impacts interpersonal relationships and first

impressions. This is important to the study of leadership and humor because reducing uncertainty

is important for trust and leadership and facilitates the notion that the usage of humor will

increase the perceived leadership ability.

The last factor to be cautious of as a leader is the type of humor being used and how

others will perceive that humor. Research shows that ambiguous messages that are meant to be

funny can be perceived differently based on the receives own sense of humor, gender, and level

or defensiveness (Futch &Edwards, 1999). For example, a woman would be more defensive

about a joke concerning weight in comparison to men. Therefore, a female subordinate would

not find these types of jokes humorous. Leaders should steer clear of using jokes related to

coworkers' weight in general. It has also been found that using negative humor specifically hurts

company morale and relationships between leaders and subordinates (Evans, Steptoe-Warren,

2018). Additionally, it was found that subordinates and managers alike used positive and

expressive humor and supports the idea that humor plays and important role in maintaining

congenial workplace environment (Martin, Rich & Gayle, 2004).

Overall, the majority of these studies show that there is a positive trend compared using

humor and the effectiveness of leadership. This leads to the hypothesis that if a potential leader is
RUNNING HEAD: HUMOR USAGE Humor Usage 6

perceived as being humorous, then they will be picked as a more capable leader than even a

similarly qualified potential leader who is not humorous.

Rationale and Hypothesis

There are multiple studies that show that humor clearly plays some effect in the

effectiveness of leaders that already in power. According to Goswami et al., (2016), leaders’

positive humor was correlated with positive emotions at work, which in turn was related with

employees’ work engagement; importantly leaders’ humor is most likely to result in employees’

positive emotions. Furthermore, Martin and Gayle (1999) suggest using humor can lead to the

hearts of their subordinates in a way other means of communication cannot. Understanding the

importance of humor with building interpersonal social relationships is crucial in conceptualizing

how humor positively impacts leadership perception. Therefore, humor found in potential leaders

should then increase their perceived leadership attraction. We predict the following:

H1: Usage of humor by a leader will increase their perceived leadership ability.

Method
Participants

Participants in this study were 48 adults ranging from 18 upwards into their 50’s (M = 26 ).

Participants were mainly female (n = 38; 79.2%) making male the minority gender in this study

(n = 10; 20.8%). No other demographics were asked of participants which served as one of our

limitations.
RUNNING HEAD: HUMOR USAGE Humor Usage 7

Procedure

The participants in this study were all asked to complete a Qualtrics Survey that

measured how the level of a leaders humor impacted their perceptions of leadership abilities.

Each participant was sent a link to the survey via email chains and group messages for grades

and organizations in order to reach larger bodies of college students. That being said a

convenience sampling method was used and participation in this study was completely

voluntary.

The survey consisted of two different scales. Before taking the survey, participants were

advised to answer the questions based off of a director leader that they have now. The first scale

was the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire by Bruce J. Avolio and Bernard M. Bass . The

second scale given will be the Humor Orientation Scale by Steven and Melanie Booth-

Butterfield. Our group modified the questions in both scales so that they were specific to our

study since the original questions were asked in first person.

Scales:

The independent variable in this study is how humourous one is and the dependent

variable is perceived leadership ability. We believe that the more humorous someone is the

higher their score of perceived leadership abilities will be.

The Humor Orientation Scale was used to measure how humorous someone is. The scale

is used for a self-assessment of humor orientation (Wanze, et al. 1996). Each item was along a

Likert scale, 1 being “Strongly Disagree” and 5 being “Strongly Agree.” Items 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13,

14 are then subtracted from the total and the resulting answer is the humor orientation score (α
RUNNING HEAD: HUMOR USAGE Humor Usage 8

= .949). The mean score for humor was 60.12 with a minimum of 25 and a maximum of 84. The

standard deviation for this scale was 13.58. See Appendix A for survey questions.

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire examined several factors of leadership. The

factors included in this scale are idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual

stimulation, individualized consideration, contingent reward, management-by-exception, and

laissez faire. There were 3 questions per factor. Each individual question was given as a Likert

response scale of 0-4 with 0 being “not at all” and 4 being “frequently, if not always.” A leaders

score for each factor can be determined by the sum of the three questions that correspond to that

factor (α = .918). Our results also showed the mean score for perceived leadership abilities was

74.63 with a minimum of 44 and maximum of 105. The standard deviation for this scale was

14.16. See Appendix B for survey questions and scoring instructions.

Pilot Test

To test for the reliability and validity of our variables we sent out a pilot test. The pilot

test served as reserhal of our survey. This allowed us to test our research approach with a select

few participants (N= 22) before we conducted the main study.

Results

Our hypothesis predicted that there would be a positive relationship between the usage of

humor and a leaders perceived leadership abilities. Pearson's Product Moment tests were run to

indicate if there was a relationship between a person's humor and how others perceive their

leadership abilities. The results show that there is a strong positive relationship between how

humorous a leader is and their perceived leadership abilities (r=.675, p<.05).

RUNNING HEAD: HUMOR USAGE Humor Usage 9

Discussion
By using the Humor Orientation Scale we were able to assess the humor of a leader that

we asked the participant to think of when filling out the survey. We also used the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire to assess the actual perceived leadership of these same leaders. By

combining the two, we were able to assess whether or not humor affected perceived leadership

abilities. Our hypothesis was supported in our results. This research is also supported by previous

studies such as Goswami et al., (2016), which showed that leaders’ positive humor was

correlated with positive emotions at work, which was related with employees’ work engagement;

importantly leaders’ humor is most likely to result in employees’ positive emotions. This would

be something for people to keep in mind when working with subordinates.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. First, there were a total of 48 completed surveys when

we predicted that there would be roughly 200 completed surveys. By increasing the number of

completed surveys our results would have been more valid and we would have been able to

better generalize the overall population. If we were to conduct this study again, gaining 200 or

more completed surveys would be ideal to better generalize the overall population.

Also, out of the 48 completed surveys, 38 females completed the survey and only 10

males completed the survey. There could have been an underlying variable that we did not

account for such as females being more likely to believe that the usage of humor by a leader

would increase their perceived leadership abilities more than males do.

The last limitation we experienced was the age of the people who completed our survey.

The original purpose for the study was to only look at college age adults but our mean age was

26. This now changes our population and ability to generalize our findings to college aged
RUNNING HEAD: HUMOR USAGE Humor Usage 10

adults. Due to the increased age there is also a possibility that what people value in leaders could

vary because of differences in work experiences.

One thing we can tell from this study and the relationship between humor and perceived

leadership ability is that our research is consistent with other findings within this field of study.

This research is also supported by previous studies such as Goswami et al., (2016), which

showed that leaders’ positive humor was correlated with positive emotions at work, which was

related with employees’ work engagement; importantly leaders’ humor is most likely to result in

employees’ positive emotions.

References

Evans, T. R., & Steptoe-Warren, G. (2015). Humor Style Clusters: Exploring Managerial

Humor.

International Journal of Business Communication, 55(4), 443–454.

Doi: 10.1177/2329488415612478

Futch, A., & Edwards, R. (1999). The effects of sense of humor, defensiveness, and gender on

the interpretation of ambiguous messages. Communication Quarterly, 47(1), 80–97. ,

RUNNING HEAD: HUMOR USAGE Humor Usage 11

doi: 10.1080/01463379909370125

Goswami, A., Nair, P., Beehr, T., & Grossenbacher, M. (2016). The relationship of leaders’

humor and employees’ work engagement mediated by positive emotions: Moderating effect

of leaders’ transformational leadership style. Leadership and Organization Development

Journal, 37(8), 1083-1099. doi:10.1108/LODJ-01-2015-0001

Graham, E. E. (1995). The Involvement of Sense of Humor in the Development of Social

Relationships. Communication Reports, 8(2), 158–169.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08934219509367622

Hughes, L. W. (2009). Leader Levity: The Effects of a Leader’s Humor Delivery on Followers’

Positive Emotions and Creative Performance. Journal of Behavioral & Applied

Management, 10(3), 415–432. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.bryant.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=4

4537628&site=ehost-live

Kangasharju, H., & Nikko, T. (2009). Emotions in Organizations: Joint Laughter in Workplace

Meetings. Journal of Business Communication, 46(1), 100–119. doi:

10.1177/0021943608325750

Martin, D., & Gayle, B. (1999). It isn't a matter of just being funny: Humor production by

organizational leaders. Communication Research Reports, 16(1), 72-80.

doi:10.1080/08824099909388703
RUNNING HEAD: HUMOR USAGE Humor Usage 12

Mao, J.-Y., Chiang, J. T.-J., Zhang, Y., & Gao, M. (2017). Humor as a Relationship Lubricant:

The Implications of Leader Humor on Transformational Leadership Perceptions and Team

Performance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 24(4), 494–506. Doi:

10.1177/1548051817707518

Martin, D. M., Rich, C. O., & Gayle, B. M. (2004). HUMOR WORKS: Communication Style

and Humor Functions in Manager/Subordinate Relationships. Southern Communication

Journal, 69(3), 206–222. https://doi-org.bryant.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/10417940409373293

Melissa Bekelja Wanzer, Melanie Booth‐Butterfield & Steve Booth‐Butterfield (1996) Are

funny people popular? An examination of humor orientation, loneliness, and social attraction,

Communication Quarterly, 44:1, 42-52, DOI: 10.1080/01463379609369999

Appendix A
RUNNING HEAD: HUMOR USAGE Humor Usage 13
RUNNING HEAD: HUMOR USAGE Humor Usage 14

Appendix B

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 6S

INSTRUCTIONS: This questionnaire provides a description of your leadership style.

RUNNING HEAD: HUMOR USAGE Humor Usage 15

Twenty‐one descriptive statements are listed below. Judge how frequently each statement

fits you. The word others may mean your followers, clients, or group members.

KEY

0 ‐ Not at all 1 ‐ Once in a while 2 = Sometimes 3 = Fairly often 4=

Frequently, if not always

1. I make others feel good to be around me....................................................................0 1 2 3 4

2. I express with a few simple words what we could and should do. .....................0 1 2 3 4

3. I enable others to think about old problems in new ways......................................0 1 2 3 4

4. I help others develop themselves.................................................................................0 1 2 3 4

5. I tell others what to do if they want to be rewarded for their work. ................0 1 2 3 4

6. I am satisfied when others meet agreed‐upon standards.......................................0 1 2 3 4

7. I am content to let others continue working in the same ways always. ...........0 1 2 3 4

8. Others have complete faith in me................................................................................0 1 2 3 4

9. I provide appealing images about what we can do....................................................0 1 2 3 4

10. I provide others with new ways of looking at puzzling things. ............................0 1 2 3 4

11. I let others know how I think they are doing. ..........................................................0 1 2 3 4

12. I provide recognition/rewards when others reach their goals............................0 1 2 3 4

RUNNING HEAD: HUMOR USAGE Humor Usage 16

13. As long as things are working, I do not try to change anything. ..........................0 1 2 3 4

14. Whatever others want to do is OK with me..............................................................0 1 2 3 4

15. Others are proud to be associated with me. ............................................................0 1 2 3 4

16. I help others find meaning in their work. ..................................................................0 1 2 3 4

17. I get others to rethink ideas that they had never questioned before.................0 1 2 3 4.

18. I give personal attention to others who seem rejected............................................0 1 2 3 4

19. I call attention to what others can get for what they accomplish........................0 1 2 3 4

20. I tell others the standards they have to know to carry out their work. ............0 1 2 3 4

21. I ask no more of others than what is absolutely essential......................................0 1 2 3 4

SCORING

The MLQ‐6S measures your leadership on seven factors related to transformational

leadership. Your score for each factor is determined by summing three specified items on

the questionnaire. For example, to determine your score for factor 1, Idealized influence,

sum your responses for items 1, 8, and 15. Complete this procedure for all seven factors.

TOTAL

Idealized influence (items 1, 8, and 15) __________ Factor 1

Inspirational motivation (items 2, 9, and 16) __________ Factor 2

RUNNING HEAD: HUMOR USAGE Humor Usage 17

Intellectual stimulation (items 3, 10, and 17) __________ Factor 3

Individual consideration (items 4, 11, and 18) __________ Factor 4

Contingent reward (items 5, 12, and 19) __________ Factor 5

Management‐by‐exception (items 6, 13, and 20) __________ Factor 6

Laissez‐faire leadership (items 7, 14, and 21) __________ Factor 7

Score range: HIGH = 912, MODERATE = 58, LOW = 04

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 6S

SCORING INTERPRETATION

Factor 1 – IDEALIZED INFLUENCE indicates whether you hold subordinates’ trust,

maintain their faith and respect, show dedication to them, appeal to their hopes and reams,

and act as their role model.

Factor 2 – INSPIRATIONAL MOTIVATION measures the degree to which you provide a

vision, use appropriate symbols and images to help others focus on their work, and try to

make others feel their work is significant.

Factor 3 – INTELLECTUAL STIMULATION shows the degree to which you encourage others

to be creative in looking at old problems in new ways, create an environment that is

tolerant of seemingly extreme positions, and nurture people to question their own values
RUNNING HEAD: HUMOR USAGE Humor Usage 18

and beliefs of those of the organization.

Factor 4 – INDIVIDUALIZED CONSIDERATION indicates the degree to which you show

interest in others’ well‐being, assign projects individually, and pay attention to those who

seem less involved in the group.

Factor 5 – CONTINGENT REWARD shows the degree to which you tell others what to do in

order to be rewarded, emphasize what you expect from them, and recognize their

accomplishments.

Factor 6 – MANAGEMENT‐BY‐EXCEPTION assesses whether or not you tell others the job

requirements, are content with standard performance, and are a believer in “if it ain’t

broke, don’t fix it.”

Factor 7 – LAISSEZ‐FAIRE measures whether you require little of others, are content to let

things ride, and let others do their own thing