Crossing the line: boundaries of workplace humour and fun
| Date | 02 October 2009 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450910991749 |
| Published date | 02 October 2009 |
| Pages | 584-599 |
| Author | Barbara Plester |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Crossing the line: boundaries of
workplace humour and fun
Barbara Plester
The University of Auckland Business School, Auckland, New Zealand
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to present exploratory, empirical data from an ethnographic study into
workplace humour and fun. It explores the notion that workplace humour and fun are influenced by
the creation of boundaries that either enable or constrain activities.
Design/methodology/approach – Qualitative data were gathered from four New Zeal and
companies within different industries. Mixed methods were used and included semi-structured
interviews, participant observation and document collection.
Findings – The findings suggest that organisational culture is influential in boundary creation. In
three formal companies, boundaries for humour and fun activities were narrower, and this constrained
humour activities. In an informal company, wider boundaries resulted in humour activities that were
unrestrained which created an unusual and idiosyncratic company identity.
Research limitations/implications – It would be useful to replicate this exploratory research in
different workplace sectors and environments.
Originality/value – Boundaries constructed through social processes are assuming grea ter
importance in modern organisations. However, research has not investigated boundaries around
workplace humour and fun. Understanding boundaries may assist work groups when creating (and
promoting) fun. This original research considers both managerial and employee concerns, and
findings extend theory on workplace fun and humour.
Keywords Workplace, Humour,Organizational culture, NewZealand
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The concept of fun at work, the seeming antithesis of the Protestant work ethic, has
surfaced as a growing topic of interest within the workplace. Although there has been
little academic research in this area, both humour and fun are receiving increasing
research attention (Collinson, 2002), and are areas worthy of more focused empirical
research (Blythe and Hassenzahl, 2003). The few studies that exist suggest that fun
may be linked to improved performance and job satisfaction and can improve
employee engagement at work (Karl and Peluchette, 2006; Karl et al., 2005; Newstrom,
2002). Some of the underlying effects of fun need to be further investigated to
understand the implications of fun and humorous activities and the potential for both
positive and negative impacts on employee morale. This paper offers an empirical
account of workplace fun and humour and proposes that boundaries influencing both
are created by organisational participants and are influenced by organisational
culture and formality levels within the organisation. The paper proceeds as follows:
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
All names in the paper have been changed. The authors wish to thank Marie Wilson, the
anonymous reviewers, and Guest Editors Maeve Houlihan and Sharon Bolton, for their
suggestions.
ER
31,6
584
Received 30 January 2009
Revised 28 May 2009
Accepted 22 June 2009
Employee Relations
Vol. 31 No. 6, 2009
pp. 584-599
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/01425450910991749
in the next section, current understandings of fun and humour are reviewed, and the
connections between culture, formality and boundaries are explored. The
methodology undertaken is described, and four cases are introduced. The pa per
closes with a discussion of the boundaries surrounding fun and suggests that fun
boundaries are constructed within an organisation but may also be influenced
through industry and societal expectations.
Cultural influences and fun boundaries
While there is little consensus regarding the meaning of “fun” (Blythe and Hassenzahl,
2003), its definitions include elements of activity, enjoyment, pleasure and frivolity and
may also be associated with the idea of play (Dandridge, 1986; Costea et al., 2005). Such
definitions imply that fun, though enjoyable, is not necessarily funny. This paper takes
a broad perspective and considers that fun workplaces support pleasurable, enjoyable
activities (Ford et al., 2003) and may include humorous events that promote laughter
and/or pleasure. Such activities may be created managerially or, more often, may
evolve from workers themselves who participate in the construction of boundaries
around fun activities.
A group has a culture when it has enough shared history to have formed a set of
basic assumptions which guide behaviour, perceptions, thoughts and feelings (Schein,
2004, p. 21). Humour is a part of every culture (Berger, 1997) and reflects the values and
assumptions of that culture through actions, discourse, roles, rituals, ceremonies,
norms, and stories (Morgan et al., 1983). Every organisation exhibits different amounts,
styles and types of humour, joking patterns; fun and these varying characteristics are
essential components of organizational culture (Holmes and Marra, 2002; Holmes, 2007;
Plester and Sayers, 2007), yet few organisational studies give serious consideration to
humour and fun (Linstead, 1985). As a cultural phenomenon, fun carries underlying
values and assumptions; thus to truly understand the culture in an organisation, it is
necessary to consider humour and fun (Barsoux, 1996; Duncan et al., 1990; Fine and De
Soucey, 2005). Linstead (1985) and Davies (1982) both found that humour can clarify
the social and moral boundaries that define acceptable workplace behaviour, even
though boundaries between “funny” and “serious” can be ambiguous in organisations
(Westwood, 2004). Therefore it would seem that investigations into fun and humour
should adopt a cultural focus to further explore the interrelationship between these
complex phenomena.
Formality and its degrees, is also part of organisational culture and influences the
boundaries around organisational activities, not least humour and fun enactm ent
(Beetham, 1996; Handy, 1993; Morand, 1995). The terms “formality” and “informality”
describe both organisational structural components and organisational socia l activity
(Morand, 1995). Beetham (1996) emphasises that organisations are generally a
combination of formal and informal relations. He conceptualises formality through
four key criteria adapted from Weber’s (1947) features of bureaucracy:
(1) hierarchy;
(2) continuity;
(3) impersonality; and
(4) expertise.
Boundaries of
workplace
humour
585
To continue reading
Request your trial