As discussed earlier, the elements of the research model were classified into six categories and one axial category in the 6C family model.
Figure (1) Exploratory research model
Leader humorous behavior
In the present study, the axial category was named “leader humorous behavior,” and considered the behavioral outcome of “leader sense of humor.” The term “humorous behavior” was used instead of “humor” because sense of humor sometimes manifests itself as a reaction to other people’s humor in addition to self-humor expression. This important distinction differentiates “humorous behavior” from “humor.” Humorous behavior includes humor expression and reactions to humor (verbal or through body language).
In this study, humor expression refers to the early expression of humor by a leader with respect to the predetermined and conventional patterns of humor, improvisation, and wit that occur spontaneously in appropriate situations and contexts. Reaction to humor refers to how a leader reacts to other people’s humor and includes both verbal and nonverbal responses. Sometimes, a leader does not initiate humor; however, their response to other people’s humor reveals their sense of humor. This response may be verbal (e.g., responding with a humorous statement) or nonverbal (e.g., a timely smile). In both instances, the response indicates the leader’s sense and perception of humor.
Consistent with the results of the present study, Martin and Ford (2018) implicitly pointed out the responses and reactions to other people’s humor. Holmes (2006) stated that humor usually requires a response. Adopting a linguistic approach, Schnurr and Chan (2011) focused on followers’ responses to leader humor, and identified the factors that affect follower responses to leader humor, such as perceptions of humor, norms, and cultural factors. Although Schnurr and Chan (2011) did not regard responses to humor directly as humorous behavior, they provided concepts and explanations for responses to humor to indicate that it would be included in humorous behavior. In the present study, humor expression includes improvisation, witnessing, and the use of predetermined patterns. Improvisation results in spontaneous humor expression and the use of humorous words based on circumstances is consistent with the results reported by Martin and Kuiper (1999). Moreover, “wit” refers to unexpected, short, pithy, and funny expressions. Since the results of the present study emphasize benevolent and positive intentions in humor, we strongly disagree with some of the classifications of Long and Graesser (1988) and Koestler (1964), who introduced humorous actions as unintentional and regarded sarcasm as humor. Instead, this study focuses on the predetermined patterns used by leaders to express humor, such as proverbs, tales, poems, social media content, hypotheses, knowledge on topics of current interest, and use of native accents. Some of these classifications emerge from Iran’s cultural background.
Based on the analysis of the interviews, the main attributes of humor—in addition to being funny and provoking laughter—were identified as (i) benign violation and (ii) moderation. In benign violation, the emphasis is on humor with benevolent intentions, normative acceptance, and incongruity in the components of humor (quality of humor). In moderation, the emphasis is on the importance of avoiding extremism, offensive concepts, and farce (frequency of humor expression). In other words, an expression of humor could be interpreted as farce if it is accompanied by concepts that are considered demeaning. An expression of humor could be interpreted as offensive if it is accompanied with humiliation, sarcasm, or mockery, which would qualitatively be considered beyond the limits of humor. In addition, when leader humorous behavior shows no sign of demeaning concepts, mockery, or humiliation of followers but is repeated too often, it will quantitatively be considered beyond the boundaries of humor.
In the present study, the resultant attributes of humor include benign violations, consistent with the studies of McGraw and Warren (2010) and Warren and McGraw (2015), as well as incongruity theory (Attardo, 2008). Similar to the views of Martin (2019), Ruch (1996), Cooper et al. (2018), and Hobfoll (2002), the present study generally considers sense of humor a positive and transcendental personality trait that presents at different levels. A high level of sense of humor helps to correctly perceive the conditions, norms, feelings, contingencies, and humorous aspects of subjects and prevents leaders from using offensive concepts or applying force in addition to perceiving the appropriate number of repetitions (and avoiding extremism) to express humorous behavior. In other words, sense of humor is inherently a transcendental construct; without any limitations, it is never considered excessive or too much. However, humor as a behavior requires moderation (and avoidance of extremism) because such behavior might originate from a low level of sense of humor, in which case, repeating humorous behavior that does not even represent farce and offensive concepts will end up offending the audience.
To our knowledge, the present study is the first to highlight the importance of moderation in humorous behavior (in terms of the frequency and repetition of humorous behavior) as an important attribute of leader humor. Earlier studies reported on a few negative consequences of humor based on its content (Carnevale et al., 2022; Huo et al., 2012; Yam et al., 2018), but did not investigate the probability of negative consequences of completely positive humor (having benevolent intention). According to the results of the present study, even leader humor with completely positive and constructive content could have negative and unwanted outcomes for both the leader and their followers in the case of extremism (lack of moderation). As a result, humor could be interpreted as mockery and reticulation. The necessity of considering extremism in humor can be interpreted through too-much-of-a-good-thing (TMGT) meta-theory (Pierce & Aguinis, 2013). Accordingly, even if humor is expressed through completely positive content, it can quantitatively violate the boundaries of “being humorous” and be considered instances of farce and offensive behavior in the case of too many repetitions. Deviating from the boundaries of being humorous is also justified qualitatively (as offensive concepts and farce) due to benign violation theory (McGraw & Warren, 2010), because using offensive concepts will make the violation exceed the boundaries of “being benign.” Farce is an expression of benign behavior; however, it is not considered a “violation”; therefore, it fails to generate laughter and joy.
Components of leader sense of humor
In the present study, the first identified item is the causes of humor as components of leader sense of humor. Based on an analysis of the interviews, people usually need a sense of humor to successfully express humorous behavior. In fact, the components of sense of humor include capacity, the ability to perceive a situation, verbal intelligence, emotional intelligence, creativity, and individual differences. As discussed earlier, many studies disregarded the difference between sense of humor, humor, and humorous behavior (e.g., Yam et al., 2018). According to the results of the present study, “sense of humor” refers to a series of completely positive personal attributes and characteristics that cause humorous behavior (including humor). In other words, any kind of humorous expression, perception of humor, or reaction to humor is rooted in a person’s sense of humor. Earlier studies have addressed the cause-and-effect relationship between sense of humor and humor (as an instance of humorous behavior) (Cooper et al., 2018; Kong et al., 2019; Martin & Ford, 2018; Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012). However, the results of the present study are inconsistent with some of the abovementioned studies (e.g., Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012) that considered humor the only emerging aspect of sense of humor. In fact, we argue that humor is an instance of sense of humor expression, which itself includes any perception of humor such as reactions to humor. In other words, sense of humor manifests as humorous behavior, and an instance of humorous behavior (which is the most evident one) as humor.
In this study, the components of leaders’ sense of humor are capacity, emotional intelligence, verbal intelligence, creativity, individual differences, and perception of the situation. Capacity refers to the ability to laugh at one’s own weaknesses and openness to experiencing humor without becoming upset at other people’s mistakes. Some studies referred to capacity as “not taking oneself seriously” and an “ability to laugh at self-weaknesses” (Priest & Swain, 2002; Sheel & Gockel, 2017). The present study also confirms the relationship between intelligence and sense of humor (Cann & Calhoun, 2001; Martin & Ford, 2018). Leaders with high levels of verbal and emotional intelligence and creativity can better perceive and express the humorous aspects of their subjects. In addition, higher levels of emotional intelligence help individuals to perceive humorous conditions. Although a sense of humor is associated with intelligence and creativity in leadership studies (Martin & Ford, 2018), creativity (of followers, not the leader) is generally considered an outcome of leader humor (e.g., Huang, 2023; Peng et al., 2020; Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). In this section, creativity refers to a leader’s ability to exhibit humorous behavior based on circumstances, whereas followers’ creativity is introduced as an outcome of the humorous behavior expressed by the leader.
At the same time, personality extroversion, intuitive thinking, and higher mastery of a subject of interest can help leaders to use their sense of humor in a given situation rather than suppressing it. Martin et al. (2012) confirmed the effect of personality extroversion on the expression of positive humor; however, to our knowledge, the present study is the first attempt to introduce intuitive thinking and mastery of a subject as components of a leader’s sense of humor. Perception of a situation is another component of sense of humor. The perception of situations and conditions refers to the accurate identification of the right time and place for an acceptable and appropriate expression of humor. Accordingly, a humorous person is one who identifies the right context and atmosphere to express appropriate humor.
Consistent with the results of the present study, most researchers agree that sense of humor is a personality trait that allows a person to recognize and use humor appropriately (Martin et al., 2003; Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012; Thorson & Powell, 1993). Among the four dimensions of sense of humor, Thorson and Powell (1993) introduced second and third dimensions in their multidimensional sense of humor scale (MSHS) to recognize and appreciate humor as well as humorous people and situations. In the sense of humor questionnaire, Svebak (1974) pointed out dimensions such as the ability to notice humorous stimuli in one’s environment, in addition to the ability to express and suppress humorous emotions. Researchers generally agree that sense of humor, regardless of style, is a stable personality trait that creates a propensity to use and recognize successful humor (Martin & Ford, 2018; Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012; Ruch, 1996). Kong et al. (2019) posed a provocative question: is leader trait humor (sense of humor) as an individual characteristic really needed by itself with respect to the weaker value in its association with all follower outcomes in comparison with leader humor expression (proven in their meta-analysis)? In response to this question, they argued that a leader’s sense of humor is a latent quality and can be effective only when it is manifested as humor.
The results of the present study add to the conclusions of Kong et al. (2019) by stating that although the components of leaders’ sense of humor are latent, they are significantly more important and valuable than expressions of humor. Higher levels of sense of humor result in the perception of situations, conditions, and emotions, which leads to the successful expression of humor and prevents extremism or violations of humor limits. Furthermore, leaders’ sense of humor could manifest as an effective reaction to other people’s humor rather than an expression of humor. Their high perception of situations can thereby prevent tension, conflict, and inappropriate behavioral outcomes in both leaders and their followers. Hence, a leader’s sense of humor should be considered significantly more valuable than leader humor expression.
Correlated causes
In the present study, the second identified item is correlated causes and includes organizational factors. Converting the components of sense of humor into behavior, organizationally correlated causes pertain to the conditions and motivations that stimulate and encourage leaders’ expression of sense of humor, since leaders rarely express humorous behavior at work unless some specific organizational factors are present. In other words, the mere presence of the components of a sense of humor in the leader is insufficient. The emergence of a sense of humor at work requires specific conditions, motivations, and relationships. In this study, organizational correlated causes include motivation for resolving conflict and tension, smoothing office relationships, and informal leader–member relationships. However, it should be noted that that the arousal (Berlyne, 1972) and relief theories of humor (Martin & Ford, 2018) have no relation to the aforementioned factors, because according to these theories (e.g., superiority theory) humor is employed to relieve a person’s intrinsic stress and that their motivation for humor expression is to release their intrinsic stress rather than extrinsic tensions in the surrounding environment. Unlike current humor approaches, relief theories take a more negative approach to humor and include offensive concepts such as sarcasm, unlike the current study’s approach.
According to the results of the present study, leaders who seek to reduce conflict and tension in their departments will make the necessary efforts when encountering such tensions. If they have an appropriate sense of humor, they can diffuse a situation by expressing appropriate humor. Such disputes usually occur in formal meetings due to disagreements. Many studies have analyzed the role of humor in resolving conflict and facilitating relationships. The role of sense of humor was also confirmed in reducing conflict and tension between people with different opinions (Martin & Ford, 2018). In another study, Robert and Wall (2019) introduced humor as a driver of positive emotions and a facilitator of relationships between friends. However, this function of humor is something that humans inherently understand; therefore, people use their sense of humor in times of conflict or in challenging relationships that they are motivated to resolve. Informal leader–follower relationships are also drivers of leaders’ humorous behavior. Evidently, humor occurs in informal contexts, and leaders who feel more comfortable in their relationships with their followers will be less worried about followers misunderstanding their mistakes and will probably use their sense of humor more often. The results reported by Yang et al. (2017) are consistent with those of this study, namely, that both leaders and followers stop being serious in an informal atmosphere and show more humorous behavior.
Factors related to context
The third identified category includes the factors related to context, which refers to the macro-level factors affecting leaders’ humorous behavior, in addition to including the context for the formation of the axial item. This category includes cultural factors and environmental contexts. A review of the literature on the relationship between sense of humor and culture shows an undeniable correlation between different levels of culture and humor. Different cultures have specific rules in relation to humor and situations where laughter is appropriate, and cultural differences can affect the use of humor and the proper role of laughter (Martin & Ford, 2018). Humor norms differ not only in industries and companies, but also across cultures. Content that is fun in one culture could be considered confusing or even offensive in another culture (Kong et al., 2019). Culture affects humorous behavior at a national, ethical, organizational, and group level. Since most studies on sense of humor are quantitative, they failed to pay much attention to cultural factors at a macro level.
Many studies have considered the prominent role of culture in humorous behavior. In this study, culture refers to national culture (e.g., the culture of common respect in Iran), ethnic culture (similarity between the local and ethnic cultures of members), and organizational culture (at the levels of departments, faculties, and universities). Many studies have focused on organizational culture. Most researchers considered organizational culture as a series of values, behavioral rules, customs, and common narratives that connect the members of an organization and give them an identity (Martin & Ford, 2018). Organizational culture emerges among individuals who cooperate with each other, whereas humor appears to be a pervasive characteristic of these interactions at work (Holmes & Marra, 2002). A two-sided relationship exists between sense of humor and organizational culture. Scholars have indicated that, as organizational culture affects humorous behavior in an organization, humor also plays an important role in forming organizational culture (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006).
Another two-sided relationship that emerged in the present study is low-power distance, which provides an appropriate context for the expression of humorous behavior and is also a positive outcome of leaders’ humorous behavior. The effect of humor on organizational culture is usually perceived through “humor climate” (Blanchard et al., 2014; Holmes & Marra, 2002). Blanchard et al. (2014) defined humor climate as the shared perception of employees in a workgroup on how to use and express humor. In every organization, a humor climate might be either positive or negative, and can be beneficial or detrimental to the organizational culture by affecting the psychological well-being and individual performance of employees and the quality of their interactions (Martin & Ford, 2018). Simultaneously, organizational culture may encourage leaders to engage in humorous behavior or prevent them from exhibiting such behavior (Shah, 2018). Southwest Airlines is a prominent example. Moran and Roth (2013) showed that an organizational culture based on humor is necessary to reduce tensions and create bonds between members. Dhillon et al. (2016) addressed the role of humor in organizational culture when a company’s ownership changes and introduced humor as an appropriate solution for the resolution of cultural conflict. Person et al. (2013) indicated that the presence of humor in the organizational culture of an emergency ward improved performance, despite staff members’ heavy workload. Universities and higher education systems are among the areas in which organizational culture plays a prominent role, and humor in the organizational culture of these institutions can affect students and education staff (Shah, 2018).
Regarding cultural factors, the results of the present study indicate that culture affects the quality, quantity, and ways of expressing, interpreting, and perceiving sense of humor, humorous behavior, outcomes, and contingencies at different national, organizational (university and faculty), and departmental levels. Moreover, similarities between the cultural and ethnic cultures of leaders and followers encourage them to express humorous behavior and minimize misunderstandings. Another study demonstrated the necessity of paying attention to the formal and informal contexts of leader humor expression in organizations by analyzing this behavior in different contexts and countries (Yang et al., 2017). Robert et al. (2016) indicated that the context of humor is one of the factors that affect followers’ perceptions of leader humor. Reversal theory (Apter, 1982) focuses on the context in which humor manifests (Martin & Ford, 2018).
In this study, environmental contexts include formal and informal meetings of departments, contexts of research and scientific collaborations, and leader–follower communication in social networks. In a statistical population, humorous behavior usually emerges in one of these contexts. Social media provide the widest context for the exchange of humorous content.
Mediating conditions and consequences of leaders’ humorous behavior
The fourth and fifth identified categories refer to the mediating conditions and consequences of leader humorous behavior. In this study, the resulting outcomes and conditions resemble the mediating outcomes and factors determined by other scholars. In this regard, a similar study was conducted by Kong et al. (2019), who introduced mediating factors such as leader–member exchange, followers’ trust in leaders, and followers’ positive emotions. Their meta-analysis also explained job performance improvement, organizational citizenship behavior, follower job satisfaction, affective organizational commitment, and intention to stay in an organization as positive outcomes of humor. The similarity between their study and the present study lies in the mediating factors (leader–follower exchange, trust in leaders, and positive emotions of followers), as well as certain outcomes such as job performance, commitment, citizenship behavior, and job satisfaction. The difference between the two studies lies in ignoring the role of a conducive organizational atmosphere in leader humorous behavior outcomes and the lack of emphasis on the outcomes of leader humor for themselves (something which was analyzed in this study).
Other scholars have independently confirmed the mediating role of leader–follower exchange in the positive outcomes of leader humor (An et al., 2023; Yam et al., 2018), the effect of humor on the quality of leader–member exchange (An et al., 2023; Cooper, 2008), and the effect of leader humor on employees’ organizational citizenship behaviors (Yang & Zhang, 2022). In another meta-analysis, Mesmer-Magnus et al. (2012) indicated that employees’ sense of humor improves job performance, job satisfaction, group cohesion, and physical health and mitigates occupational fatigue and stress. A supervisor’s sense of humor can also improve followers’ performance, their (job) satisfaction, satisfaction with the supervisor, and group cohesion, as well as create a positive perception of the supervisor’s performance, which would also decrease occupational fatigue.
Although Mesmer-Magnus et al. (2012) confirmed the difference between humor and sense of humor, they considered humor and sense of humor to be equal and two different aspects of the same phenomenon. Consistent with the present study, other studies also identified and confirmed creativity (Huang, 2023; Peng et al., 2020), followers’ job engagement (Robert et al., 2016; Yam et al., 2018), increase in leader status (Bitterly et al., 2017; Carnevale et al., 2022), improvement in followers’ psychological well-being (Cooper, 2008; Cooper et al., 2018), greater group cohesion (Avolio et al., 1999; Romero & Cruthirds, 2006), and improvement in levels of happiness, cheerfulness, and joy at work (Michel et al., 2019) as the positive outcomes of leader humor.
Consistent with previous studies, the mediating conditions and positive outcomes can be interpreted through social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Cooper et al., 2018), conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 2002), broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 2001), and leader–member exchange theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Kong et al., 2019) in the present study, because humor is considered a positive phenomenon and a valuable source and driver of positive emotions (for followers). Therefore, leaders can use humorous behaviors to improve the quality of their relationships with their followers, which could lead to positive outcomes.
Some researchers identified the negative outcomes of leader humor as deviant behavior in followers (Yam et al., 2018) and decreasing the leader’s status (Bitterly et al., 2017; Carnevale et al., 2022). The important characteristic of this group of scholars is that they analyze offensive concepts, such as “sarcasm,” “mockery,” “ridicule,” and “banter,” in practice rather than the analysis of “humor” (e.g., Huo et al., 2012), and they also consider humor as any funny action in general (Martin & Ford, 2018; Yam et al., 2018). Thus, they based their studies on the positive and negative content of humor, and confused humor with similar and sometimes contradictory concepts. Therefore, these findings are inconsistent with the results of the present study, which considers humor to have a real and positive meaning. Some determined outcomes (e.g., improving conviviality, increasing group cohesion, and increasing creativity) are similar and sometimes equal to the causes, correlated causes, and moderating causes in the present study, indicating the existence of a recursive two-sided relationship between sense of humor and some of its outcomes. In other words, the positive outcomes of leaders’ humorous behavior increase humor expression in the organization over time and prevent misunderstandings. In addition, they enrich a leader’s sense of humor by increasing their experience and helping them to better understand norms and situations.
Accordingly, it can be stated that the proposed model is dynamic, because it yields unstopped outcomes and returns to other research categories (e.g., correlated causes, contingencies, and causes). Hence, it is dynamic rather than static in terms of rotation. This dimension of the present study is consistent with the “wheel model of humor” developed by Robert and Wilbanks (2012). According to this model, acceptable humor expression generates positive emotions and allows emotions to emerge, and has a positive effect on a department (or two-sided relationships between leaders and their followers). This provides the necessary supportive atmosphere for future expressions of humor. The cycle of this model exists in the relationships between leaders and followers through leader–follower exchanges (Robert & Wilbanks, 2012). However, the wheel model only emphasizes the role of emotions in creating a supportive atmosphere for humor regeneration. According to the results of the present study, the positive outcomes of humor increases the supportive atmosphere through positive emotions and leader–member exchanges in addition to refining the environment and improving conviviality by increasing leadership effectiveness, increasing experience, and improving creativity. At the same time, the successful expression of humor by a leader and the acceptance of followers will gradually allow them to get to know each other better. Through the accumulation of experiences on both sides, the chances of misunderstandings are minimized. If the misunderstanding factors decrease, the leader is motivated to exhibit further humorous behavior. Therefore, the model proposed by Robert and Wilbanks (2012) should also include the fact that the organizational humor cycle is not merely limited and bound to increase positive emotions but can also flow through other ways.
Moderating factors
The sixth category includes moderating factors in the relationships between causes and axial categories, axial categories and outcomes, and axial categories and moderating factors. In the present study, contingencies are the demographic and behavioral characteristics of leaders, followers, and departments that moderate (i) the relationship between the axial category and mediating conditions, and (ii) the relationship between axial category and outcomes by affecting the followers’ interpretation and perception of leader humor. In addition, the aforementioned contingencies moderate (iii) the relationship between the causes and the axial category by improving the conversion of leader sense of humor into humorous behavior. Kong et al. (2019) conducted a meta-analysis and concluded that the vast majority of studies on leaders’ sense of humor either focused on the main effects of leader trait humor or leader humor expression; very few studies examined moderators for the effects of leader humor or the moderating effect of leader humor, without the guidance of a systematic framework. Therefore, they invite researchers to pay more attention to the moderators of leaders’ humor outcomes with a more comprehensive look.
Adopting a GT approach, the present study takes a universal look not only to determine the moderators of leaders’ humorous behavior outcomes but also to discover their role in moderating other relationships (between the components of sense of humor and leader humorous behavior as well as between humorous behavior and mediating conditions). Regarding the relationship between sense of humor and humorous behavior in the present study, the introduced moderating role point to the characteristics of leader, followers, and departments that would help the leader to adopt a sense of humor more easily. For instance, leaders are more likely to express humorous behavior when they observe that their followers have a sense of humor. Moreover, modest leaders do not consider the right and appropriate humor to be against their dignity and position, and as a result, express their sense of humor if necessary. Furthermore, the chances of successful humorous behavior are higher when leaders and followers are similar in terms of age and gender, and know each other well. Wisse and Rietzschel (2014) proved the existence of such a relationship when the humor styles of leaders and followers are similar. Consistent with the results of the present study, Tan et al. (2021) demonstrated the moderating role of gender differences between leaders and followers in empowering the reverse relationship between traditionalism and expression of leader humor.
However, the moderating relationships of humorous behavior with mediating factors and outcomes indicate the factors affecting followers’ perceptions and interpretations of leaders’ humorous behavior. In other words, the presence of certain demographic and behavioral characteristics of leaders, followers, and departments can cause differences in perceptions of leader humorous behavior. Martin and Ford (2018) stated that reaction to humor (and its interpretation) depends on the status, context, and position of the humorist relative to the listener. Moreover, different reactions to humor might be due to differences in role expectations that people have of each other (Martin & Ford, 2018). Decker and Rotondo (2001) and Moake and Robert (2022) indicated that the gender of followers and leaders affects perceptions of leader humor. Priest and Swain (2002) conducted two studies in the military to evaluate the hypothesis that leaders are considered “good” or “bad” based on perceptions of their sense of humor. They asked participants to think about a “good” or “bad” leader. In contrast to bad leaders, good leaders were described as having warm, competent, and benign humorous styles. For instance, the participants stated that a good leader “uses good-natured jest to put others at ease” and that “bad” leaders made fun of naïve and simple people and were unable to laugh at their personal failings (Priest & Swain, 2002). Wisse and Rietzschel (2014) concluded that the perception of leader humor style is more important in predicting the quality of relationships than the actual style of humor.
In line with the present study, Robert et al. (2016) found that followers’ job satisfaction is affected by the perceived quality of leader–follower relationships, but has nothing to do with humor style, and is not affected by a leader’s use of affiliative or aggressive humor. They argued that followers are more likely to consider leaders’ humor positive when they evaluate their relationships with leaders positively (regardless of the style used by the leaders). Simultaneously, a negative relationship can make employees consider leader humor as relatively negative, even when leaders have positive intentions (Robert et al., 2016). Under such conditions, employees may view the use of humor as inappropriate or that it only serves as a distraction (Avolio et al., 1999) or a potential tactic for ingratiation (Scheel & Gockel, 2017). Therefore, humor outcomes are based more on the relationship between leaders and followers and not on the type of humor (Robert et al., 2016). Scheel and Gockel (2017) argued that (consequences of) leader humor depends more on listeners’ ears (perception) than on speakers’ mouths (type of humor).
Demographic and behavioral characteristics
Although the results of this study are consistent with some of the above findings, a new finding is introduced, namely, that the outcomes of leader humor depend on the demographic and behavioral characteristics of listeners (i.e., the intrinsic factor of interpretation) as well as the demographic and behavioral characteristics of speakers (indicating leader’s intention) and those of departments (quality of relationships and norms of departments). In other words, these characteristics form the interpretations and perceptions. For instance, a leader’s humility minimizes misunderstanding of their humorous behavior because such a leader’s humorous behavior does not usually involve any signs of mockery or humiliation of others. Thus, such a leader is not worried about other people misunderstanding their behavior and can express their sense of humor more easily. The modest humor style introduced by Martin et al. (2003) presents a concept similar to humility (self-deprecating); however, it differs from humility introduced in this section. A leader’s hypocrisy (noticed by followers) can also lead to a misinterpretation of their positive humor. In addition, followers’ cynicism under any conditions can cause false perceptions of leader humor, whereas the additive norms of departments can cause false positives of leader humor.
In this regard, the most important identified component is followers’ sense of humor. The present study’s findings show that followers’ sense of humor is the most important factor in their perception and interpretation of leader humorous behavior. High levels of humor in followers indicate high levels of capacity, intelligence, and perception of their situations, which result in a better perception and acceptance of leader humor and no misinterpretations of their behavior; however, factors such as prejudice, malice, and lack of humility could prevent them from properly using their sense of humor, thereby causing misinterpretation. To our knowledge, the present study is the first to determine the demographic and behavioral characteristics of leaders, followers, and departments as the moderator of relationships between causes and the axial category, between the axial category and outcomes, and between the axial category and mediating factors. Moreover, paying attention to the moderating effect of “follower sense of humor” is of special importance due to attraction and coordination with previous theories (e.g., incongruity (Attardo, 2008), comprehension-elaboration (Wyer & Collins, 1992), and benign violation (McGraw & Warren, 2010). High levels of follower sense of humor can help them better understand the sweet point, perceive a violation as benign and harmless, and minimize the chances of misinterpretation.
Limitations
The nature of the research topic is one of the limitations of this study, because leaders, like any other person, may not accurately evaluate their sense of humor, and followers may sometimes exhibit unrealistic reactions to leaders’ humor expression. It is therefore preferable to collect and analyze leaders’ sense of humor from their own perspective and evaluate the success and appreciation of their humorous behavior from the perspective of followers. This requires the collection of a great deal of information from various departments, chairs, and all members, which requires substantial time, money, and effort. In addition, the final model based on the GT method involves a large number of relationships whose quantitative testing in a single study appears practically impossible.
Suggestions for future studies
Since this is a qualitative study, the relationships of its components should be analyzed quantitatively. For this purpose, it is advisable to analyze the importance of extremism and moderation in leader humor quantitatively based on TMGT theory (Pierce & Aguinis, 2013) to confirm (or unlikely reject) the probability of any curvilinear relationship. Consistent with many other researchers, the present study viewed sense of humor as a transcendental phenomenon, which would probably have no reverse relationship with positive outcomes. However, in the best case, humor requires moderation. Violations of moderation (repetition and alteration of humor) can cause the same destructive outcomes as non-normative humor and offensive behavior accompanied by laughter. Researchers should analyze this probability in future studies.
Determining the components of leader sense of humor in the present study can help develop new ways to measure this construct. The existing measures of sense of humor tend to have low internal consistency and the components of sense of humor and how they are interrelated require further conceptual and empirical work (Kong et al., 2019). According to the proposed model, a new questionnaire should be developed and validated to measure the different aspects of this transcendental attribute.
Paying attention to follower sense of humor (and leader sense of humor) in the present study can be considered a response to the invitation made by Cooper et al. (2018). Hence, it is advisable to measure quantitatively the concurrent effects of leader sense of humor and follower sense of humor. Future studies can also evaluate the humor expressed by the followers of leaders, or simultaneously analyze the humor expressions of both followers and leaders. Therefore, the effects will be differentiated, and it will be possible to measure humor, which is more important in terms of quality exchange relationships and the induction of positive emotions and outcomes.
Given the emphasis of the present study and other studies on the necessity of paying attention to the context and culture in which humor manifests, is “sense of humor,” like “humor,” a series of attributes and components based on context? Does each context require a specific sense of humor? Conducting similar studies in other contexts and comparing their results with the findings of the present study could answer these questions.
Since norms are generally based on the contexts and perceptions of people present in a specific situation, it is important to consider context in studies of the sense of humor. However, a more important question is how leader humor can lead to different interpretations and reactions on the part of the audience within the same context. We call this “gray humor” as it is neither completely benign nor aggressive. In the present study, individual differences, behavioral characteristics, and the personality traits of leaders and followers were introduced as factors that cause differences in the interpretation of humor. A quantitative analysis of the moderating effects of ethical characteristics, such as suspicion (among followers) and humility (among leaders), should be conducted based on data collected from interviewers with respect to the factors affecting the interpretation of humor (contingencies).