University of East London
Women, Humour and
Power …in the
Workplace
A review of the current literature for Funny Women
http://www.funnywomen.com/
Dr Sharon Cahill and Rachel Densham
1/3/2014
1. Introduction
The aim of this review is to assess the role and function of humour in the workplace and, specifically,
to identify ways in which women - as employees, colleagues and leaders - can use humour positively
to improve their interactions with others and so boost their professional reputation, confidence and
performance at work.
The review is evidenced by reference to academic research. Relevant papers were identified via an
electronic search of the Business Source Complete, CINAHL and PsychInfo catalogues on
EBSCOhost, unlimited by any date parameters, and using search terms incorporating a variety of
synonyms for women, humour and work. The search produced 791 results and the titles and abstracts
of each result were reviewed to identify the sixty or so papers most relevant to the review. The review
also aimed to take account of relevant press/ media articles via a LexisNexis search (using the same
search terms, limited to the last 10 years and to the UK and USA) but the output was over 10,000
items. Even when the dates were narrowed to the last year, there were over 3,000 items (and many
individual items were repeated so, for example, the Baxter paper (2011) was reported by
Businessweek, Vanity Fair, The Telegraph, The Observer, The Huffington Post UK and other media).
We therefore cherry-picked those results which were most relevant to the subject of the review.
The review begins with a brief overview of the different types of humour styles encountered in the
workplace. It goes on to consider the functions and uses of humour within organisations arguing that,
if used positively and judiciously, humour can help to sustain healthy social systems in the workplace
by improving communication, reducing stress, enhancing leadership and promoting organisational
culture. The stereotypical divide between men’s and women’s use and appreciation of humour is then
brought under scrutiny: in spite of a wealth of anecdotal evidence to suggest that “women aren’t
funny”, is the perceived “Gender Gap” really so marked? Finally, the interplay between leadership
and humour is considered and, specifically, how women can use humour on a personal level to boost
their careers and reputation.
2. Types of humour
Humour has been defined as “involving the communication of multiple, incongruous meanings”
(Martin, 2007) that result in a “positive cognitive or affective response from listeners” (Crawford,
1994). But what does this actually mean for the layperson? Well, humorous communication can be
verbal (telling a joke or laughing out loud) or non-verbal (smiling, raising a cynical eyebrow), but
typically, it’s a combination of both. How we receive this communication, however, differs between
people because of gender, culture, race, experience, context and a person’s skill or ability to use their
humour and wit. Thus, humour is a “double-edged sword” (Malone, 1980): what is funny or
2
humorous to one person may be considered rude and offensive to the next and so appropriateness is
key, especially when using humour in an organisational context.
Hay (2000) identifies three functions of group humour, which she categorises under the broad labels
of solidarity-based, psychological and power-based functions. In terms of the latter, she argues that
humour is an intrinsically powerful act and that joke-telling is an exceptionally aggressive form of
humour, which may go some way to explain why men tend to tell more jokes than women in
conversation. Indeed, recent research has suggested that female bosses are less likely to make jokes in
the boardroom. When they did, more than 80% of their quips were met with silence. By comparison,
90% of jokes made by men were met with a positive response (Baxter, 2011). Furthermore, Kothoff
(2006) found that humour maintains boundaries between members of in-groups and out-groups, raises
the status of the joke-teller and can be used to influence or control the conversational partner(s).
In general terms, there are four humour styles employed in the workplace which can be broadly
categorised as either positive or negative in type (Martin et al, 2003):
Positive humour
Positive humour – affiliative and self-enhancing humour – acts as a bond to bring people together.
Affiliative humour is more group-orientated and used when telling jokes and funny anecdotes to, and
playing harmless practical jokes on, colleagues and peers. Self-enhancing humour tends to be used by
individuals as a coping mechanism to deal with stressful situations and inspires a positive outlook. It
is often used when a person is trying to “boost” themselves in front of their colleagues or boss.
3
Negative humour
Self-defeating and aggressive humour are often used to “put down” an individual – whether that
humour is directed at the person using it (self-defeating) or at other colleagues (aggressive). Satire or
teasing can be forms of “mild” aggressive humour if employed in a playful way; but, as mentioned
earlier, one person’s playfulness maybe another’s bullying so appropriateness and context are
important. For example, a manager, on interrupting her assistant’s chit-chat with another colleague
might intervene by saying “I’m afraid serious affairs of state will have to wait. We have some trivial
issues needing our attention” (Holmes and Marra, 2002). This ironic comment is open and mildly
chiding but not in way that is hurtful or manipulative; and, hopefully, the assistant will take note and
change her behaviour in future.
By contrast, aggressive humour or derision has a significant part to play in alienating people in
organisations (Hemmasi et al, 1994): for example, “when it is used to ridicule and manipulate in a
malicious manner, it will likely undermine relationships” (Romero and Cruthirds, 2006). This type of
humour is often used in a discriminatory fashion and may be combined with offensive language. It is
made to make the person using it feel better about themselves (perhaps to enhance their status at
work) and typically to single out a particular group or individual: “I find jokes about you funny. Why
don’t you find jokes about you funny?” (Russ cited in Barreca, 2001).
However, negative humour is not always a bad thing: sometimes self-defeating humour can be
positive in that a person can use it to level out hierarchy or put others at ease. For example, a new boss
may tell a funny story - in which they are the butt of the joke - to appear approachable to their new
team. Regina Barreca (1991) in her book “They used to call me Snow White…but I drifted” cautions
women against using self-defeating humour, however. She says that women should demonstrate their
wit as evidence of their strength, rather than resorting to self-defeating humour, which simply
highlights their vulnerability.
General humour
Sala et al (2002) also categorised humour in terms of positive and negative dimensions but added a
general category, which cannot be classified as particularly positive or negative, like “incongruous”
humour which violates the listener’s expectations or “tension release” humour which serves to diffuse
social anxiety.
3. Functions and uses of humour in organisations
The current business environment is stressful. Increasing competition, globalisation and the recent
financial crisis have all prompted organisations to value innovation and creativity perhaps more now
than ever before. At the same time, employee turnover within organisations is a significant problem
4
and has negative consequences for team spirit and bonding. Moreover, while increasing diversity at
work has been credited with promoting innovation, it can also bring about employee conflict if not
properly managed. Given this backdrop, it is increasingly challenging for employers and employees
alike to sustain healthy social systems in the workplace (Martin, 2004).
While some employers believe that humour is a distraction which sidetracks employees from their
primary objectives at work (Ackroyd and Thompson, 1999), there is a wealth of evidence to suggest
that humour can be a very positive tool that can bring people in an organisation together, improve
communication, reduce stress, enhance leadership and promote organisational culture (Romero and
Cruthirds, 2006). Various studies involving big companies – Ben & Jerry’s; South West Airlines; Sun
Microsystems; Brady Corporation in USA (Hudson, 2001), for example – have demonstrated that
encouraging humour and fun in an organisation promotes both wellbeing and productivity. And, since
the late 1990s, many blue chip companies including Wal-Mart, Disney and Motorola, have invested in
humour “specialists” in a bid to mix business and pleasure (Abner, 1997).
Humour has the potential to promote healthy social relations in the workplace: it can build team
cohesion and improve communication (Meyer, 1997), increase employee job satisfaction (Decker,
1987), boost productivity (Avolio et al, 1999), generate camaraderie (Vaill, 1989) and encourage
creativity (Brotherton, 1996). As a result, employee turnover is reduced; teams are more cohesive,
creative and productive; stress is reduced and organisational culture is strengthened (Avolio et al, ibid;
Ford, 2003; Wright and Cropanzano, 2004).
As Leslie Yerkes, co-author of 301 Ways to Have Fun at Work, notes: “Fun is fundamental to work.
Fun is the single most important trait of a highly effective and successful organisation. There is a
direct link between fun at work and employee creativity, productivity, morale, satisfaction and
retention, as well as customer service. Organisations that integrate fun into work have lower levels of
absenteeism, greater job satisfaction, increased productivity and less downtime.”
4. Differences in the use and appreciation of humour: the “Gender Gap”?
“If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it’s just possible you haven’t grasped
the situation” (Jean Kerr)
[Of Gladstone:] “He speaks to me as if I was a public meeting” (Queen Victoria)
“I did everything that Fred Astaire did. I just did it backwards and in high heels” (Ginger Rogers)
5
Examples of female humour and wit across history are legion, from the work of Kate Sanborn - who
edited an anthology of female humour and campaigned for decades to alter the “stereotype of
women’s humourlessness” (Sheppard, 1986) – to the English music hall comedienne, Marie Lloyd;
from the wartime comedy double act Gert & Daisy to the commercially-astute comedienne and
actress Lucille Ball (the first female head of a television studio).
And yet, for the most part, the attempts by women to engage in the production and use of humour
have in the main been discouraged, discredited or ignored (Bing, 2004; Merrill, 1988; Stillion &
White, 1987). The age-old stereotype persists: women are “slower to get it, more pleased when they
do and swift to locate the unfunny” (Hitchens, 2007). But is this view based more on anecdote than
empirical evidence? Certainly, the scholarly Stanford University School of Medicine article – upon
which Hitchens relies - in fact states: "Males and females showed no significant difference in the
number of stimuli that they rated as funny..,in how funny they found the humorous stimuli…[and] the
response time for both funny and unfunny cartoons was equivalent between males and females"
(Azim, Mobbs et al, 2005). It may be, therefore, that gender identity rather than gender per se is a
better indicator of humour appreciation (Brodzinsky et al, 1981).
Anecdotally, though, many people perceive there to be distinct differences between men and women’s
use of humour and how they tell jokes:
“It is axiomatic in [middle-class American] society that, first, women can’t tell jokes – they are bound
to ruin the punch line, they mix up the order of things, and so on. Moreover, they don’t ‘get’ jokes. In
short, women have no sense of humour.” (Lakoff, 1975, p56)
This echoes the debate within Psychology, where the agenda has centred on how different women’s
humour is to men’s and, in particular, that women’s humour is deficient in some way (this also
happened for women’s spatial visual ability and, hence, goes some way to explain how the stereotype
of “women drivers” took hold in our cultural memory). Several studies in the 1970s and 1980s
examined sex differences related to the creation and appreciation of humour and their findings
suggested that men tend to create, while women tend to enjoy, humour more (Cantor, 1970;
Brodzinsky, et al 1981). However, we should remember that the agenda behind much of this “sexdifference” research was precisely to find a difference rather than to unpack similarities.
"Comedy and satire are based on aggressiveness and not being nice…Until the 1960s, it was seen as
unladylike to be funny. But, even now, women tend to prefer telling jokes at their own expense and
men tend to prefer telling jokes at other people's expense." (Kotthoff, 2009)
6
The standard explanations given for men’s use of humour are typically variations on an evolutionary
sexual-selection theme in which men’s use of humour is likened to a peacock’s tail or a stag’s antlers;
that is, primarily useful for showing off, establishing male hierarchy and so attracting potential
(female) mates (Ziv, 1984). But the evidence is far from clear-cut. The author of one study into such
humour stereotypes conducted by the University of California concluded that: “The differences we
find between men’s and women’s ability to be funny are so small that they can’t account for the
strength of the belief in [this] stereotype” (Mickes cited in Kiderra, 2011).
So, how exactly are women and men different then? Research suggests that women certainly tend to
use more “reinforcing” humour: they are more co-operative, building on each other’s narratives,
telling more personal anecdotes and stories that offer opportunities to contribute and support (ErvinTripp and Lambert, 1992; Holmes, 2006; Jenkins, 1985; Naranjo-Huebl, 1995). Even teenage girls’
teasing is more inclusive and collaborative (Eder, 1993). Indeed, Bing (2004) argues that women can
use their humour in a more political or ideological manner using “inclusive humour” that attacks
“inequitable systems without attacking punitive mean-spirited oppressors” (p28). By contrast,
Hemmasi et al (1994) reported, in their survey of over 100 respondents (56% were women), that
women were as likely as men to tell anti-men jokes (to both men and women) perhaps indicating that
not all sexual harassment via humour is instigated by men. Women have also been found as likely as
men to use humour to resolve conflict with either gender (i.e. there were no gender differences here)
(Smith et al, 2000). And yet, let’s not forget that the gender balance in an organisation is pivotal.
Levin (2004) found numerous instances of sexually explicit and implicit “humour” on trading floors
and in investment banks where men outnumber women heavily. Organisational cultures dominated by
male values that exist to maintain those values create “subtle, covert power differentials that restrict
the ability for women to enter into high level positions” (Decker and Rotondo, 2001). In other
organisations where the gender mix is more even, however, the type of use of humour is more
“feminine” (Holmes and Schnurr, 2006).
Humour can be used to great effect to reduce the threat of a challenge or criticism (Holmes, 1998). In
the workplace, where differences in power and authority are an intrinsic part of interaction between
colleagues, humour is an exceptionally useful strategy for putting across a negative or critical message
or trying to undermine an opponent in an ostensibly acceptable manner. Humour may “finesse
objections to an insult or a criticism by presenting them in a form which frames the objector
negatively, as lacking a sense of humour” (Holmes & Marra, 2002). And, some research suggests that
men’s humour (on the whole) is more in keeping with this more subversive approach: it tends to be
more competitive, more aggressive, status-orientated with an aroma of performance and display
(Marlowe, 1989; Jenkins, 1985). Men tend to like joke telling and try to out-do each other – we can
see this in the TV programmes such as “Mock the Week” and “8 out of 10 Cats” that are currently
7
showing. Again, interestingly, though, the author of a recent study conducted by the University of
California noted that, in statistical terms, male prowess at the task of being funny on command was
“just at the edge of detectability” (Christenfeld cited in Kiderra, 2011).
Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water, then. Both men and women can, and do, use humour
in many different ways and perhaps the differences between the genders is not quite as marked or
pronounced as the stereotype would have us believe.
5. Leadership and humour
“Macho does not prove mucho” (Zsa Zsa Gabor)
Leadership
A leader is someone who has authority over other people: they are in a position of power (Eagly and
Carli, 2007). Leaders influence the organisation, inspire and negotiate between workers and the
organisation in order to move forward. But, to be a leader you need to be a man. This statement is
obviously not the case and nor does it ring true for the past: Boadicea; Queen Elizabeth I; Emmeline
Pankhurst; and Golda Meir were all influential women and leaders of their time, just as Angela
Merkel; Joyce Banda; Hillary Clinton and Diane Abbott are today.
However, the stereotype of “leader” brings with it masculine characteristics that women may or may
not possess nor yet wish to display. Masculinity and leadership are seen as the “norm”, femininity and
leadership then can be, and have been, seen as outside of that norm (Trauth, 2002). Women have also
been categorised as both poor leaders and less competent than men especially in male-dominated
industries (Geis, et al 1990; Fletcher, 2004).
So what kind of leaders do women make? In a report from the Harvard Business Review (Rosener,
1990) women are characterised as participatory: they share power and information; they energise and
try to make people feel good about what they are doing. In other words, they take a more
transformational approach to leadership, with men (generally) taking a more transactional stance (see
Table 1, below). Could this more relational approach be one of the reasons that there are fewer
women at the top?
Eagly and Carli (2007) evaluated the lack of women leaders presenting four possible explanations:
women are not as concerned about human capital (education or work experience); women’s style of
leadership is different to men’s; women are not as motivated to lead (evolutionary explanation); and,
finally, women are more likely to face discrimination and prejudice if they attempt to assume
8
leadership roles. Eagly and Carli conclude that, although the barriers (which they describe as concrete,
glass and labyrinth) to women’s ascent up the leadership ladder still exist and that their paths to the
top are complex (a labyrinth), some remarkable women are able to negotiate them: “paths to the top
exist and some women find them” (p6). However, many women are still unable to find even the start
of their path or take a wrong turn and get stuck in the cul-de-sac of middle management.
Leadership and humour
As discussed above, humour is a valuable resource which can be used to achieve many kinds of
relational and action-orientated goals within organisations. Holmes and Marra (2006) identified two
categories of humour that they found useful in their discursive work: “relational” humour that works
to keep relationships going (for example, by creating teams) and humour that demonstrates and
supports power relations in the workplace (for example, managing a threat to one’s self esteem).
However, they note that these humorous instances are generally short and don’t often include explicit
jokes. Instead, the humour employed is a communicative strategy to “do” something or get something
done. When a team leader employed the former type of “relational” humour, Holmes and Marra found
that workers were very collaborative, with co-workers adding to the humour, strengthening the
rapport within the team, with the team leader fully engaged in the activity. Equally, they found that
when a leader issued a directive using the latter, more power-orientated humour, it also elicited a
positive response. This “powerful but polite” humour was also found to be useful in providing a salve
to more critical or negative comments from leaders. Finally, when the leader made an error, if they
were able to turn it back on themselves and make a joke out of it, it negated the potential impact on
their position. For example, when defending himself against a mistake he had made, one project
leader said: “I find it really hard being perfect at everything” (ibid, p130). In conclusion, Holmes and
Marra (ibid) state that leaders can use humour to perform both transactional and transformational
activities in the workplace (see Table 1, below). Institutional norms and positions of privilege can be
challenged by a transformational leader employing humour as a creative strategy and a “conduit for
contestation” (p132). However, a team leader unafraid to use humour to define an organisational
boundary can be equally successful.
Table 1: Transactional and Transformative Leader Types (Holmes and Marra, 2006, p123)
Transactional
Transformative
Focus on goals
Charismatic, inspirational, visionary
Focus on contractual obligations
Intellectually stimulating
Monitors mistakes, deviations from norms
Encourages creativity and questioning
Corrective response to errors, problems
Reliable, trustworthy, ethical
9
There is also the potential for humour to be used more subversively (as an indicator of power or
status) by leaders or managers to get their workers to do what they want them to do (Greatbatch and
Clark, 2003) or to convince them of the need for change. However, Johnson et al, (2007) maintain that
humour can be a means of control, reinforcing the dominance of the patriarchal system.
Leadership, women and humour
The more intimate communicative aspects of humour that are subtly played out in (apparently
innocuous) verbal exchanges between colleagues are often used to control people and situations. For
example, the way that conversation - particular words and phrases, pauses and joining in - is used can
directly communicate power; or subvert and challenge the status quo. The Wellington Language in the
Workplace Project (WLW Project) (Holmes and Stubbe, 2003) has collected over 2,000 conversations
recorded spontaneously over a period of time to look for and evaluate (amongst other things) how
humour is played out between men and women; leaders and subordinates; in small groups and larger
groups; and how women leaders use humour. This latter group is what draws our attention here.
There is an argument that gender is not the most relevant category in the workplace (Kendall, 2004).
However, it is a category that is visible and influences thinking, speech and behaviour. The way in
which we speak and the things that we talk about can indicate how important gender is in the
workplace. Over the past few years, Holmes, Marra and Schnurr (from the WLW Project) have built
up a body of work that explores the various aspects of gender, femininity and humour at work. The
“feminine” or “femininity”, argue Holmes and Schnurr, do not have be “dirty words”. In the worlds of
media and business, however, these concepts have been exaggerated - they have become unattractive
stereotypes - and, as such, professional women do not want to be associated with them. Instead,
Holmes and Schnurr (2006) argue for what they call a “gendered community of practice” where
certain behaviours are remarked upon as “normal” and others as “emphasised” – that is, certain ways
of speaking and behaving are seen to be located within a particular gender. In examples from
workplace data, they show how women use language to “signal” (by the use of particular words and
phrases) considerateness and positive effect when talking to each other. This, they argue might be
called a “normal” way of communicating between women (or “doing femininity”). In a mixed gender
meeting, the woman leader “does femininity” by “attending to collegial relationships and ensuring
things run smoothly” (p37). However, the man in this meeting also “does femininity” by facilitating
the conversation. Again, this is not commented upon by those attending the meeting and so is seen as
“normal”. Another woman leader (in a big IT company) “did femininity” in a “self-aware and ironic
fashion that both exploited and parodied gender stereotypes” (p42) so challenging ideas of femininity
and, also, the masculine culture of her workplace.
10
Schnurr (2008), in a later paper, found that the women managers she interviewed used both
“masculine” (transactional) and “feminine” (relational or transformative) humour in order to send up
feminine stereotypes, minimise differences in status, and reduce the chances of being caught between
a rock and a hard place (that is, being too “feminine” to be a leader but not “masculine” enough to be
judged “unfeminine”). By using humour, the women take the edge off their power but still retain
enough of it to be effective. Holmes et al (2003) reported similar findings after the women managers
had issued a directive. Here, the women used their humour before and during their display of power.
So, while it is recognised that having power and status is critical to success as a leader, Holmes et al
(ibid) found that adopting a more “feminine” approach (i.e. being powerful but also considering
others) is also a very effective leadership strategy. This also seems to be a cross-cultural finding
(Kendall, 2004).
6. Conclusion
It is clear from the research that humour serves myriad purposes and functions in both business and
leadership strategies and that the significance of humour in the work environment centres on the
positive role it plays in affecting both the mood of employees and the communication channels
between co-workers. Moreover, while some differences between men and women have been
identified in humour research, gender differences in leadership and management style have proved far
more elusive, leading many to argue that they are very limited, if they even exist at all (Powell, 1988).
Interestingly, Decker and Rotondo (2001) found that although female managers may be more severely
judged when they use negative humour (they are perceived as being bitchy and underhand), they were
actually at an advantage relative to men when using positive humour. Indeed, even though the female
managers in this study used less positive humour overall than their male counterparts, they obtained
higher effectiveness ratings than the men, suggesting that women get “more bang for their buck” out
of humour use at work.
From Lakoff’s statement in 1975: “women can’t tell jokes …[they] have no sense of humour” to
Micke’s finding in 2012 (that there are very little differences between men and women’s humour), a
lot has changed both in the personal, and the work, space. We now have a huge variety of successful
women comedians: Jo Brand, Maureen Lipman, French and Saunders (we don’t even need their first
names to identify them), Meera Syal and, our personal favourite, Sandy Toksvig. Women have
always had a sense of humour, they have always been able to tell a joke and have a laugh. The change
has been in how this has been perceived and accepted. Regina Barreca ends her book with a clear
statement about the value of women’s humour: “When we can really laugh, we’ve declared ourselves
the winner, no matter what the situation, because our laughter is an indication of our perspective and
control”.
11
We finish with a couple of humorous instances - that we found funny - from high-powered, influential
women, who obviously have a sense of humour about their own power and other less obvious
indicators of womanhood (pantsuits and hair!).
Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel joke about their mutual love of pantsuits:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/07/hillary-clinton-angela-merkel-pantsuits_n_872788.html
Hillary Clinton’s Twitter page:
“@HillaryClinton Wife, mom, lawyer, women & kids advocate, FLOAR, FLOTUS, US Senator,
SecState, author, dog owner, hair icon, pantsuit aficionado, glass ceiling cracker, TBD..”
12
References
Abner, M. (1997). Corporate America takes fun seriously. Women in Business, 49(5), 42.
Ackroyd, S. & Thompson, P. (1999). Organizational misbehaviour. London: Sage Publications.
Allen, M., Reid, M. & Riemenschneider, C. (2004). The role of laughter when discussing workplace
barriers: women in information technology jobs. Sex Roles, 50(3/4), 177-189.
Avolio, B., Howell, J., & Sosik, J. (1999). A funny thing happened on the way to the bottom line:
humor as a moderator of leadership style effects. Academy of Management Journal, 42(2),
219–227.
Azim, E., Mobbs, D., Booil, J., Menon, V & Reiss, A. (2005). Sex differences in brain activation
elicited by humor. PNAS, 102(45), 16496-16501.
Barreca, R. (1991). They used to call me snow white...but I drifted: women's strategic use of humor.
London: Penguin.
Barreca, R. (2001). Leading with the funny bone: humor, gender and the workplace. Harvard
Management Update, 6(5), 10.
Baxter, J. (2011). Survival or success? A critical exploration of the use of “double-voiced discourse”
by women business leaders in the UK. Discourse & Communication, 5(3), 231-245.
Bing, J. (2004). Is feminist humour an oxymoron? Women and Language, 27, 22-33.
Boffey, D. (2012). Why women’s jokes fall flat in the boardroom. The Observer.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/may/20/boardroom-humour-women
Brodzinsky, D. M., Barnet, K & Aliello, J. R. (1981). Sex of subject and gender identity as factors in
humor appreciation. Sex Roles, 7(5); 561-573.
Brotherton, P. (1996). “The company that plays together. . .”. HR Magazine, 44(12), 76–82.
Bryant, J., Crane J., Comisky P. & Zillman, D. (1980). Relationship between college teachers' use of
humor in the classroom and students' evaluations of their teachers. Journal of Educational
Psychology 72, 511-519.
Cantor, J. R. (1970). What’s funny to whom? The role of gender. Journal of Communication, 26, 164172.
Case, C. & Lippard, C. (2009). Humorous assaults on patriarchal ideology. Sociological Inquiry,
79(2), 240-255.
Cox, J., Read, R & Van Auken P. (1990). Male-female differences in communicating job-related
humor: an exploratory study. Humor, 3(3), 287-295.
Crawford, M. & Gressley, D. (1991). Creativity, caring and context: women's and men's
accounts of humor preferences and practices. Psychology of Women Quarterly 15(2), 217231.
Crawford, C. (1994). Theory and implications regarding the utilization of strategic humor by leaders.
The Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(4), 53-68.
13
Decker, W. (1987). Managerial humor and subordinate satisfaction. Social Behavior and Personality:
An International Journal, 15(2), 221–224.
Decker, W. & Rotondo, D. (2001). Relationships among gender, type of humour and perceived leader
effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, XIII(4), 450-465.
Dunbar, N., Banas, J., Rodriguez D., Liu, S. & Abra, G. (2012). Humor use in power-differentiated
interactions. Humor, 25(4), 469-489.
Eagly, A. & Carli, L. (2007) Through the labyrinth: the truth about how women become leaders.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Eder, D. (1993). ‘Go get ya a French!’: romantic and sexual teasing among adolescent
Girls. In D. Tannen (Ed.) Gender and Conversational Interaction, 17–31. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ehrenberg, T. (1995). Female differences in creation of humor relating to work. Humor, 8(4), 349362.
Ervin-Tripp, S. and Lampert, M. (1992). Gender differences in the construction of humorous talk. In
Hall, K., Bucholtz, M. & Moonwomon, B. (Eds.) Locating power: proceedings of the
second Berkeley Women and Language Conference April 4 and 5 1992, vol. 1, 108-117.
Berkeley: Women and Language Group.
Fletcher, J. (2004). The paradox of postheroic leadership: an essay on gender, power, and
transformational change. The Leadership Quarterly 15(5), 647–61.
Ford, R. (2003). Questions and answers about fun at work. Humane Resource Planning, 26(4), 18-33.
Furness,
H. (2012). Female
bosses “less funny in the
boardroom”.
The Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9279123/Female-bosses-lessfunny-in-the-boardroom.html
Greatbatch, D. & Clark, T. (2003). Displaying group cohesiveness: humour and laughter in public
lectures of management gurus. Human Relations, 56 (12), 1515-44.
Geis, F., Brown, V., & Wolfe, C. (1990). Legitimizing the leader: endorsement by male
versus female authority figures. Journal of Applied Psychology 20(12), 943–70.
Hay, J. (2000). Functions of humor in the conversations of men and women. Journal of Pragmatics,
32(6), 709-742.
Hemmasi, M., Graf, L. & Russ, G. (1994). Gender-related jokes in the workplace: sexual humor or
sexual harassment? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(12), 1114-1128.
Hitchens,
C.
(2007).
Why
women
aren’t
funny.
Vanity
Fair.
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/01/hitchens200701
Holmes, J. (1998). No joking matter! The functions of humour in the workplace. Paper presented at
the Australian Linguistics Society Conference, Brisbane University of Queensland, 3–5
July, 1998. Cited in Schnurr, S. (2008). Surviving in a man’s world with a sense of humour:
an analysis of women leaders’ use of humour at work. Leadership, 4(3), 299-319.
14
Holmes, J., Stubbe, M. & Marra, M. (2003). Language, humour and ethnic identity marking in New
Zealand English. In Mair, C. (Ed.) ASNEL Papers 7. The Politics of English as a World
Language. New Horizons in Post-colonial Cultural Studies, 431-55. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Cited in Schnurr, S. (2008). Surviving in a man’s world with a sense of humour: an analysis
of women leaders’ use of humour at work. Leadership, 4(3), 299-319.
Holmes, J. (2005). Sharing a laugh: pragmatic aspects of humor and gender in the workplace. Journal
of Pragmatics, 38, 26-50.
Holmes, J. (2006). Gendered talk at work. Oxford: Blackwell.
Holmes, J. (2007). Making humour work: creativity on the job. Applied Linguistics, 28(4), 518-537.
Holmes, J. & Marra, M. (2002). Over the edge? Subversive humor between colleagues and friends.
Humor, 15(1), 65-87.
Holmes, J. & Marra, M. (2006). Humor and leadership style. Humor, 19(2), 119-138.
Holmes, J. & Schnurr, S. (2005). Politeness, humor and gender in the workplace: negotiating norms
and identifying contestation. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 121-149.
Holmes, J. & Schnurr, S. (2006). “Doing femininity” at work: more than just relational practice.
Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(1), 31-51.
Holmes, J., Schnurr, S., Chan, A., & Chiles, T. (2003). The discourse of leadership. Te Reo, 46, 3146.
Holmes, J., & Stubbe, M. (2003). Power and politeness in the workplace. A sociolinguistic analysis of
talk at work. London: Longman.
Hudson, K. M. (2001). Transforming a conservative company one laugh at a time. Harvard Business
Review, 79 (7): 45-53
Hurmerinta-Peltomeki, L., & Nummeia, N. (2006). Mixed methods in international business research:
a value-added perspective. Management International Review 46(6), 439–59.
Jenkins, M. (1985). What’s so funny? Joking among women. In Bremner, S. et al (Eds.) Preceedings
of the First Berkeley Women in Language Conference. Berkeley, CA, 135-151.
Johnson, A. Mumby, D. K. & Westwood, B. (2007). Representing the unrepresentable: gender,
humour and organisation. In Westwood, B & Rhodes, C. (Eds.) Humour, Work and
Organisation, pp. 113-39. Abington: Routledge.
Kendall, S. (2004). Framing authority: Gender, face and mitigation at a radio network. Discourse and
Society 15, 55-79.
Kenny, K. & Euchler, G. (2012). “Some good clean fun”: humour, control and subversion in an
advertising agency. Gender, Work and Organisation, 19(3), 306-323.
Kiderra, I. (2011). Funny finding: men win humour test (by a hair). UCSD News.
http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/archive/newsrel/soc/20111019HumorTest.asp
Kotthoff, H. (1999). Gender and joking: on the complexities of women’s image politics in humorous
narratives. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 55-80.
15
Kotthoff, H. (2006). Gender and humor: the state of the art. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(1), 4-25.
Kotthoff, H. (2009). Cited in Humour is an act of aggression, claims German academic. The
Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6077338/Humour-isan-act-of-aggression-claims-German-academic.html
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Woman's Place. New York: Harper & Row.
Levin, P. (2001). Gendering the market: temporality, work and gender on a national futures exchange.
Work and Occupations, 28(1), 112-130.
Levin, P. (2004). Gender, work and time: gender at work and at play in futures trading. In Fuchs
Epstein, C., Kalleberg, A. (Eds.), Fighting for time: shifting boundaries of work and social
life. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Mackoff, B. (1990). Laughing your way to the top. Women in Business, 42(6), 34-37.
Malone, P. (1980). Humor: a double-edged tool for today’s managers? Academy of Management
Review, 5(3), 357-360.
Marlowe, L. (1989). A sense of humour. In Unger, R. (Ed.) Representations: social constructions of
gender, 145-154. Amityville, NY: Baywood.
Martin, D. (2004). Humor in middle management: women negotiating the paradoxes of organizational
life. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32(2), 147-170.
Martin, R. (2007). The psychology of humor: an integrative approach. Oxford: Elsevier Academic
Press.
Martin, R., Puhlik-Doris, P. Larsen, G., Gray, J. & Wier, K. (2003). Individual differences in uses of
humor and their relation to psychological well-being: development of the humor styles
questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 48-75.
Merrill, L. (1988). Feminist humor: rebellious and self-affirming. Women’s Studies 15, 271-280.
Meyer, J. C. (1997). Humour in member narratives: Uniting and dividing at work. Western Journal of
Communication, 61 (2): 188-208.
Mickes, L., Walker, D., Parris, J., Mankoff, R. & Christenfeld, N. (2012). Who’s funny: gender
stereotypes, humor production and memory bias. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 108112.
Morgan, F. (Ed.) (1996). Wicked women’s wit and humour. London: Virago.
Naranjo-Huebl, L. (1995). From peek-a-boo to sarcasm: women’s humor as a means of both
connection and resistance. FNSA Journal, 1(4), 343-372.
Powell, G. (1988). Women and men in management. Newbury, CA: Sage.
Priest, R. & Swain, J. (2002). Humor and its implications for leadership effectiveness. Humor, 15(2),
169-189.
Rees, C. & Monrouxe, L. (2010). “I should be so lucky ha ha ha ha”: the constructions of power,
identity and gender through laughter within medical workplace learning encounters. Journal
of Pragmatics, 42, 3384-3399.
16
Romero, E. & Cruthirds, K. (2006). The use of humor in the workplace. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 20(2), 58-69.
Rosener, J. (1990). Ways Women Lead: the command and control leadership style associated with
men is not the only way to succeed. Harvard Business Review, November – December.
Sala, F., Krupat, E. & Roter, D. (2002). Satisfaction and the use of humour by physicians and patients.
Psychology and Health 17(3), 269-280.
Schnurr, S. (2008). Surviving in a man’s world with a sense of humour: an analysis of women
leaders’ use of humour at work. Leadership, 4(3), 299-319.
Schnurr, S. (2009). Leadership discourse at work: interactions of humour, gender and workplace
culture. Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sheppard, A. (1986). From Kate Sanborn to feminist psychology: the social context of women’s
humor, 1885-1985. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 10, 155-170.
Smith, W., Vernard Harrington, K. & Neck, C. (2000). Resolving conflict with humor in a diversity
context. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(6), 606-625.
Stillion, J. & White, H. (1987). Feminist humour: who appreciates it and why? Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 11, 219-232.
Trauth, E. (2002). ‘Odd girl out: an individual differences perspective on women in the IT
profession’, Information Technology & People 15(2): 98–118.
Vaill, P. (1989). Lou Pondy and the organizational funnybone. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 2(2), 22–25.
Van den Broeck, A., Vander Elst, T., Dikkers, J., De Lange, A. & De Witte, H. (2012). This is funny:
on the beneficial role of self-enhancing and affiliative humour in job design. Psicothema,
24(1), 87-93.
Walker, N. (1988). A very serious thing: women’s humour and American culture. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota.
Watts, J. (2007). Can’t take a joke? Humour as resistance, refuge and exclusion in a highly gendered
workplace. Feminism & Psychology, 17(2), 259-266.
Weinstein, M. (2006). The differences between boys and girls…at the office. Training, 43(11), 8.
Wolf, R. (2013). Comics as a learning tool in organisations and companies. Israeli Journal for Humor
Research, 4, 46-56.
Wong, V. (2012). Women are less willing to be funny at work, says report. Bloomberg Businessweek.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-23/women-are-less-willing-to-be-funny-atwork-says-report
Wright, T. & Cropanzano, R. (2004). The role of psychological well-being in job performance: a fresh
look at an age-old quest. Organizational Dynamics, 33(4), 338- 351.
Ziv, A. (1984). Humor and personality. New York: Springer.
17
18