Australian Institute of Management -- Management Today
Book Series
Soft Cover; AUD $34.95
Vivienne Anthon, LLB, Grad Dip Ed, MBA (Distinction), FAIM
Vivienne has a rich and varied background in marketing, small business and education but it is wit, mirth and laughter that have formed the liet motif of her family and professional lives. She has owned, operated and consulted to a range of small businesses in the services sector, taking some of them from start-up to market leader and she has relied on humour every step of the way. She believes that humour has the power to educate, to influence and to inform even the most of conservative of industries.
Vivienne has a Bachelor of Laws from the Australian National University, a Graduate Diploma in Teaching from the Queensland University of Technology and an MBA with Distinction from Griffith University, where she majored in services marketing. She is a Fellow of The Australian Institute of Management.
For ten years, Vivienne oversaw the operations and development of one of Queensland's fastest-growing independent schools, Forest Lake College, which is part of the highly respected EDUCANG group of educational initiatives. While there she explored the concepts of learning and motivation and how humour could assist both.
Currently, she is involved in corporate training and private consultancy, where her advice to clients in the legal, educational, personnel and local government sectors is 'you can be a serious professional without being a solemn one'.
Vivienne can be reached at anthon@gil.com.
The concept of humour in the workplace is gaining credibility and its use is gaining momentum. Yet, to conceive of humour as joke-telling is to profoundly underestimate its power to reflect and shape the culture of an organisation. Those who understand the link between humour and culture have a powerful tool and a competitive advantage.
The word humour has taken on a broader, gentler meaning in recent times. It has come to encompass a range of human interactions where the spirit is lifted. Culture has become the glue that many believe holds the modern organisation together. When the two interact the results can be powerful.
Sociology provides a lens through which to view the relations between those in a community, whether that is an organisation, a country, a family or a club. The dimensions of sociability and solidarity can describe all communities. Sociability refers to the emotional relationships that exist in a community. Solidarity refers to the expression of shared goals among a group of people. Humour can provide a powerful mechanism to facilitate change to both sociability and solidarity in order to craft a culture that suits current circumstances.
Clearly, there are times when humour is appropriate and inappropriate. Those who understand the distinction will have a sharp instrument to create a corporate culture that reflects the environment of the day and the aspirations of the organisation.
A headline in the business press trumpets 'Laughter a Cure for Workplace Woes'. Another article refers to the general manager of Australia's largest retailer urging her staff to woo customers by having fun. A conservative metropolitan law firm advertises for legal staff and promises 'a fun environment and a day off on your birthday'. Humour in the workplace has become a serious business and serious businesses are being public about its impact.
The concept of utilising humour in the workplace is not a new one. Few would argue that employees prefer to be part of a happy and positive workplace rather than one where people are dispirited and demoralised. Fewer still would argue against the increase in morale and productivity that humour might bring. However, there is a need to look beyond the frenzied buzz, the upbeat generalisations, the generic checklist of fun activities and the 'one size fits all' approach, and to consider humour for its unique ability to form, revitalise or change the culture of an organisation.
Leaders who actively analyse the culture of their organisation, who determine its health and fit within the prevailing business environment, and who strategically adjust that culture to meet the demands of their current reality, will have a distinct competitive advantage. The power and, indeed, irresistibility of humour comes not from a good belly laugh but from humour's ability to play a role in that analysis and adjustment.
Humour is highly effective when it is taken at more than face value, when it is used as more than just a bandaid, and when it is understood to be an indicator, driver and change agent of corporate culture. Leaders who adopt this broader approach, who move their use of humour from management fad to indispensable management tool, end up having the last laugh.
This chapter is not just about 'play at work'. It is about the power of culture and the power of humour to shape culture. It begins with a brief exploration of the contemporary meaning and benefits of humour in the workplace, followed by an analysis of corporate culture from a sociological perspective. This analysis provides leaders with a framework to determine what change is necessary to enable an organisation to fit, survive and thrive in a dynamic environment. The strategic use of humour to facilitate this change is then discussed, along with the potential and drawbacks inherent in using humour to shape culture and as a change agent. Finally, some case studies that demonstrate how organisations can use humour strategically, rather than cosmetically, are shared.
Most definitions of humour revolve around the quality of being amusing and an ability to appreciate the comic. Yura and Walsh have stated that humour is not just an attractive trait but an essential human need---a need that must be satisfied in order to survive.[1] Humour is comprised of three components---wit, mirth and laughter. Wit is the cognitive experience, mirth the emotional experience and laughter the physiological experience. Laughter is often equated with humour, but of course you do not have to laugh to experience humour.[2]
Indeed, the term 'humour in the workplace' has matured into somewhat of an umbrella concept. It has moved beyond jokes, riddles, gags, kidding, clowning, mimicking, smiles and laughter to become something far more. Humour now encompasses anything that positively enhances wellbeing, such as gestures, music, rituals and recognition. Dr Stephen Lundin, co-author of the best-selling FISH series, reinforces this understanding by referring to a 'light-heartedness of spirit' rather than an a need to be a comedian.[3]
Four concepts that underpin humour in the workplace have emerged recently:
Almost 400 years ago, the English writer and clergyman Robert Burton observed:
Humour purges the blood, making the body young and lively, and fit for any manner of employment.
A growing body of scientific and medical evidence supports the idea that 'laughter is the best medicine'. Humour and laughter are the body's instinctive, cognitive and biological mechanisms for restoring homeostasis and equilibrium. There is also evidence that humour serves multiple purposes and functions that are of benefit to an organisation. In an organisation humour can be:
There is unanimous agreement that humour serves to diffuse tense situations and can provide a therapeutic and cathartic effect when negative emotions are high. Recent studies have found that stress costs Australian workplaces millions of dollars each year. In his longitudinal study of what made for 'success for life', Dr George Vaillant found humour to be one of the key coping mechanisms that ensured stress didn't kill more quickly and commonly.[7]
Humour helps people to diffuse stress by enabling them to view the world with perspective. Those in stressful situations might not be able to change the reality of the situation, but they do have control over their sense of perspective about it. Humour adjusts meaning so that the event is not so powerful. As Shakespeare wrote: 'Nothing is good or bad. It is thinking that makes it so.'
Humour can affect motivation and productivity. According to research, people who laugh a lot work better and faster. One survey showed that 84% of executives and personnel directors believe that employees with a sense of humour do better work. People who say they have fun at work are also more satisfied with their jobs, are better able to meet the demands of their jobs and are less likely to be absent or late.[8] People in a good mood organise data better, are more creative in word association and do better in tasks involving memory. Humour is said to improve decision making and negotiating abilities as well.
Humour can be a creative force. It stimulates intellectual play with ideas. Laughter provides a psychological stress reducer as it snaps our thinking to another channel (what Norman Cousins [9] called 'train wrecks of the mind'). This is because one of the characteristics of humour is incongruity. People find something humorous when it is incongruous or mismatched. Good jokes guide people down one path only to track them onto another. The tracking is called the punch line. As people are 'tracked over', their thinking shifts, breaking their mind-set and this leads to increased creativity.
Humour can facilitate learning. According to John Cleese, people learn nothing when they are asleep and very little when they are bored. If they have to take anything in, they have to be interested; and if they have to remember it, they have to be involved emotionally. He believes that nothing can compare with humour for this power to burn lessons indelibly into the consciousness.[10]
Humour can provide a competitive advantage because employees are attracted to working for, and doing business with, companies that look like they are having fun. Today's highly mobile workforce shops around for the right corporate culture---preferably one full of fun activities, camaraderie and cutting-edge technologies. These attributes, rather than remuneration, can affect the decision about whether to come, to stay or to go. And the more fun they're having, the more prepared employees are to go the extra mile.
Organisational culture is the set of values, beliefs and understandings shared by an organisation's employees and it ranks among an organisation's most powerful tools. But the same values and beliefs that can mobilise an organisation to action can be a liability if they are inconsistent with the organisation's needs. You must understand organisational culture and needs in intimate detail before a judgment can be made about the strategic role of humour.
British academics, Goffee and Jones, view culture as an outcome of how people relate to one another. They believe organisations rest on intricate patterns of social interaction that sustain them over time or contribute to their undoing. Their sociological perspective divides community into two distinct types of human relations---sociability and solidarity,[11] where:
Figure 5.1 Two dimensions, four cultures
Those who use this sociological filter to objectively assess the culture of their organisation are in a strong position to determine whether the culture they have is the culture they want; and whether it fits the competitive situation in which they find themselves or in which they hope to place themselves. Only then can they consider the use of such a delicate technique as humour to enhance, transform or realign the culture.
Humour and rituals are a hallmark of the networked organisation, where employees interact easily and warmly. Employees socialise out of business hours, celebrate personal milestones and events, make up sporting teams, give each other nicknames, develop a common language and share in-house jokes.
Teamwork, sharing of information and openness to new ideas permits creative thinking to flourish and the acceptance of out-of-the-box ideas. Individuals work harder than is technically necessary to help their friends succeed.
There are drawbacks to high levels of sociability, no matter how much humour and camaraderie is in evidence. An exaggerated concern for consensus may manifest itself in a reluctance to express differences of opinion, and to criticise or debate issues. The best compromise is applied to problems, not the best solutions. The existence of firm friendships can permit tolerance of substandard performance because no-one wants to pressure a mate.
Cliques and unofficial networks often thrive in high-sociability environments. These cliques can be used to circumvent or undermine due process and can have a profound effect on corporate culture. Cliques can utilise in-group humour to criticise or derail the attainment of corporate objectives. Humour is present but it is not necessarily productive.
Networked organisations are characterised by low solidarity, which reflects a limited commitment to shared business objectives. Employees can be so busy being friends and having fun that they lose sight of why they are at work in the first place. Well-meaning and possibly humorous interventions, designed to increase strategic focus, often consolidate workplace friendships but do little for organisational solidarity. The 'funny hat day' may have worked well, with everyone having a great laugh, but there is a risk that no-one remotely connected the activity to the task of meeting strategic goals. The sociability swallowed the solidarity.
Networked organisations can work well where leaders have plans in place to address cliques and employee reluctance to criticise colleagues, and where they leverage high levels of sociability to foster creativity and commitment.
Networked organisations work best where corporate strategies have a long-term timeframe with no requirement to respond quickly to opportunities or threats. They also work well where the intricacies of a 'home turf' local market are a critical success factor and where corporate success is an aggregate of the success of closely-bound local units.
The mercenary organisation is characterised by committed pursuit of shared objectives. Employees work long hours, often placing a greater value on work life than home life and rarely fraternising outside the office. Those gatherings that do occur are to acknowledge the attainment of a business goal, such as implementing a new strategic plan or defeating a competitor. Communication in these organisations is focused on business matters, not jokes.
These organisations have the ability to respond quickly and cohesively to a perceived opportunity or threat. Substandard performance is not tolerated and it is expected that those who are not contributing will be moved on or given explicit instructions on how to improve within a specified timeframe.
Interestingly, employees in mercenary organisations may respect and even like the organisation's goals and determined approach, but their feelings are not sentimental. Nor are they tied to affectionate relationships between people. Employees stay with mercenary companies for as long as there is something in it for them.
Mercenary organisations can achieve stretch goals when there is a strong sense of competition and a strong will to win. Unhindered by friendships or a sense of duty, employees openly compete, enhancing performance and pushing expectations higher.
However, mercenary organisations are often described as ruthless. There is an inability to nourish the soul or tend the spirit---a spirit that David Whyte believes we cannot help but bring to work every day.[13] Employees chasing targets are inclined to protect their turf, hoard information and shy away from exchanging the new or creative ideas necessary for organisational growth.
Mercenary organisations work effectively where corporate goals are clear and measurable and there is no need for consensus-building from the ranks. They are suited to an environment where change is rampant and a rapid, focused response is required. Mercenary organisations love an enemy, so they are well suited to a situation where the competition is clearly identifiable.
Members of fragmented organisations do not engage in any of the extra-curricular humour, bonding, rites and rituals that characterise high-sociability environments. They consider them, and other attempts at bonhomie, a waste of time. The fragmented environment is attractive to those who prefer to work alone or to keep their work and personal lives entirely separate.
The low levels of solidarity that characterise fragmented organisations mean members are not committed to agreeing on or pursuing organisational objectives, critical success factors and performance standards. There can even be high levels of dissent regarding strategic goals.
Fragmented organisations are appropriate where there is little interdependence in the work itself, such as where there is a heavy reliance on outsourcing of piecework. They can exist productively in professional organisations such as consulting firms (where highly trained individuals require little supervision) and in virtual organisations (where the members connect electronically). They are also appropriate where there are few learning opportunities between individuals or where professional pride or tradition does not encourage the transfer of knowledge.
Fragmented organisations can evolve from organisations that previously displayed other cultures. This can be the result of a catastrophic event in which all ties of sociability or solidarity have been destroyed and in which all vestiges of friendship and loyalty have been replaced by an overriding concern for the individual.
The communal organisation often describes an entrepreneurial start-up where the founders and early employees are close friends, working endless hours towards mutually beneficial objectives. High levels of sociability mean close ties outside the workplace are commonplace and social events take on a strong ritual significance.
The sense of solidarity is high also, as there is a limited range of clearly stated goals and everyone can see clear collective benefits. Solidarity as to the organisation's goals evokes enthusiasm rather than cynicism.
Communal cultures draw on high sociability to bolster relationships and high solidarity to sustain focus. They are often seen as 'the ideal'. However, this culture is very difficult to sustain as organisations move through life cycles and negotiate business environments. Organisations with communal cultures can exhibit some internal contradictions, as high sociability does not always sit comfortably with periods of change, growth, new leadership, takeover, globalisation or downsizing. Massive change requires focus, urgency and performance, which are the hallmarks of solidarity and which call for ruthlessness rather than sociability.
The communal organisation works well when innovation requires extensive collaboration and teamwork across functions and locations; and where there are real synergies among organisational subunits and real opportunities for growth and learning. This community is also suited to an organisation with long-term goals for success in dynamic and complex sectors.
Knowing how an organisation measures up on the dimensions of sociability and solidarity is an important leadership competence. Knowing how the company's culture fits the business environment is critical to competitive advantage. Business environments do not stay the same; organisations have life cycles. Successful leaders discern whether they have the culture they think they do; whether the cultural behaviours that at first glance can look positive, even welcoming, are in fact productive; and whether they have the culture they need at a particular time. This involves a very subtle appreciation of human relations and an adjustment of either sociability or solidarity, or both.
Clearly the tools required to adjust each dimension are different and complex but targeted use of humour can assist both. Humour is a tool for studying the social forces in an organisation because the content and form of humour reflects social relations, power distributions and changes in both. In fact, humour can be used to adjust both the dimensions, as necessary, and to facilitate the change itself. Humour can emphasise the human element during organisational upheaval and provide the resilience needed to cope with change.
An organisation's culture is shaped by choices. Leaders can choose to address the level of sociability by employing a range of strategies designed to build emotional relationships. They can choose to address solidarity through strategic decisions and the manner in which those decisions are communicated. Astute leaders can choose to use the power of humour to do both.
These tips draw on the strategic use of humour to increase the emotional relationships (sociability) among members of an organisation:
To increase solidarity, emphasis must be placed on communication and positive packaging of shared goals so that employees are encouraged to focus, buy in and perform.
Communication of serious messages in an accessible and positive manner is the key. Effective communicators use humour to support and to illustrate central issues, to promote group cohesion, to improve the opportunity to learn, to minimise conflict, to stimulate, to defuse tension, and to seduce the audience into learning.
These tips draw on the strategic use of humour to increase commitment to shared objectives (solidarity):
Humour can be used to shape or change a culture, but it is effective only where it is appropriate, properly introduced and timely, and where it meets standards and basically makes sense. Appropriate humour stimulates wit, mirth or laughter. It creates closeness and intimacy. Inappropriate humour creates pain and distance.
It is appropriate to use humour in the workplace when:
It is not appropriate to use humour when:
The following case studies illustrate how humour can be used to adjust the sociabilities and solidarity dimensions of an organisation's culture and to facilitate change.
Not all of the case studies are stories of successful cultural interventions. As mentioned earlier, humour is effective only when it is appropriate, properly introduced, timely, meets standards and basically makes sense.
A well-established metropolitan legal practice had experienced a period of trauma and change. The low levels of sociability and solidarity in evidence were typical of a fragmented organisation. The partners emerged from their bunker to acknowledge that, for the work to continue to flow, they had to act on two fronts.
First, they recognised the need to set and communicate clearly defined goals. They participated in strategic planning sessions off-site with an external facilitator and then shared the results of their workshops with staff at a celebratory 'relaunch'. They then continued to restate their goals, taking care to use multiple channels and to package messages in an attractive and accessible manner.
Second, they determined that they needed to increase the social relationships among members of the practice. One-off attempts at humour were perceived by some as flippant and incongruent with the seriousness of a legal practice, so the partners refocused their energies to concentrate on small, sincere gestures of acknowledgment and appreciation. In a break from tradition, spouses or partners of staff were invited to the Christmas party and presented with small tokens of appreciation.
Recently, the firm has undergone a period of expansion. Although there is still a lot of healing to take place, the culture is being monitored and adjusted to meet the current needs of the practice.
Under the leadership of a new CEO, a major business services organisation experienced a period of revitalisation and innovation. To increase productivity and commitment, employees were encouraged to work hard and to socialise, celebrate and laugh together. There was a buzz around the beehive and some big goals were being kicked.
However, after a few years, it became clear that, while employees were enjoying the workplace and the strong bonds of affection, strong cliques had formed. Many employees had lost their ability to debate issues or discuss results that did not meet stated goals. The veneer of success and sociability masked a diminution of performance by key individuals who were, in effect, having a ball while being protected by the group.
The senior leadership team saw that dimensions of the culture had to be adjusted. They determined that the sociability that had evolved should remain and would be reaffirmed. However, it was determined that cliques and the accompanying inability to make tough calls could not remain a feature of the workplace.
A communication plan was developed to state clearly what was valued and what should be changed. A series of conversations between the CEO and workgroups then followed and the plan was shared and unpacked. This was coupled with a training program that developed employees' ability to debate issues, express a contrary point of view and provide detailed feedback.
The laughs continued to flow but the team has become serious about developing individuals and meeting corporate goals.
As a result of a company-wide review of customer service, the management of a national retail chain introduced a 'Fun and Focus' program. Happy employees, it was said, commit to higher levels of customer service and satisfaction. Employees were required to watch videos and participate in activities and events from which a culture of fun would emerge.
Sarah dutifully participated in the program but she was, in effect, engaging in some sophisticated appearance management. As a middle manager she was expected to support new initiatives and ensure the impact of the programs was felt on the shop floor and on the bottom line.
She was not motivated to become 'funny' and she was sceptical about the program's ability to impact on her role and her customers. The program ran its course but little change was effected.
Sarah commented that she had not engaged with 'Fun and Focus' because it had been imposed on her. No-one had explained to her the strategic intent behind the program and, more importantly, no-one had explained her unique role in it. The meaning had not cascaded through the organisation.
She understood that customer service was a priority but was not encouraged to proffer her views on the best way to address that. At the end of the day, she couldn't see how the mandated humour solution matched the customer service problem and, in the absence of clarifying conversations about it, she simply went about her usual business, unchanged by the experience.
Light-heartedness is not usually associated with the public service. One group of government employees found out the hard way that genuine attempts to incorporate a light-hearted spirit could backfire if they are not congruent with the historical expectations of the environment.
The group worked in a front-line client service role that required high levels of patience and resilience. After a particularly demanding period, the group was forced to admit that the culture of their environment---distressed, dispirited and lacking in common purpose---needed to be adapted.
The group determined that it was up to them to lighten up and to choose to refocus on clients instead of the combined misery of group members. A system of employee acknowledgment based on successful outcomes for clients was devised.
What the group failed to anticipate was that they would be reprimanded for their initiative. Public servants, it was said by senior management, could not be seen to be ridiculing the service provided 'by treating it as fun'; nor could they be seen to be receiving rewards and recognition from a stretched public purse.
The group sent a delegation to senior management. Representatives of the group admitted that their initiatives did require both permission to act and permission to spend funds in a particular manner. It was argued that senior management support would signal to employees that they were valued and trusted to know how to engage respectfully with clients. The cost of providing small tokens of acknowledgment to staff who had served clients well paled beside the cost of sick leave and stress leave.
After prolonged discussion, the group was given permission to proceed as intended and to reallocate a small but symbolic budget to employee acknowledgment. The group is thriving and is now used as an example of superior client service and support.
A family-operated Australian seafood wholesaler is experiencing unprecedented success on a global scale. That success, say family members, is due in no small part to the culture of the business. High levels of sociability and solidarity are a characteristic of the community they have created and sustained.
Members of staff interact playfully with suppliers, clients and each other. Some have trained and worked in the corporate sector but have returned to the business to experience a more satisfying work life. There is a tangible sense of camaraderie and a determination to make every person feel special, regardless of rank or title. This is teamed with an uncompromising and often-stated commitment to quality and corporate goals. Everyone in the business knows their role and is committed to carrying out their part of the plan.
The owners say that the key to their success has been to bring the right people on board---people who will work hard, who will share a sense of the passion, who will share a love of life and laughter and who will want to tell, retell and retell again the stories and goals of the company.
Recruitment of staff who understand and contribute to the culture has been identified as a critical success factor. Everyone is clear that potential employees have to serious about having fun, but equally serious about building a world-class business. Members of the team are now sought after as motivational and keynote speakers for the corporate world they once inhabited.
Plato, it is said, believed that you can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation. The same can be said about the culture of an organisation.
Those who understand the broad current dimensions of workplace humour, and the benefits it can bring, will be in a unique position to deploy humour strategically to shape the culture of their organisation. Those who understand the dimensions of sociability and solidarity as determinates of corporate culture can deploy humour to effectively adjust one dimension, or the other, or both to meet the changing demands of a dynamic business environment.
Those who appreciate the relationship between humour and culture, and therefore understand the difference between workplaces that need to lighten up and workplaces that need a shake-up, will indeed have the last laugh.
Establish your credentials.
Ensure that the people around you know you're doing your job competently, before fully deploying your sense of humour. This is true for everyone, but especially true if you're new on the job. Employees who first establish their professionalism and work ethic, find that humour and a lighter style work for them, not against them.
Be yourself.
Ensure that you do not try to be someone you're not by being extroverted and a continuous barrel of laughs. An alternative for those who lack the natural ability to be humorous is to infuse the work environment with humour and levity by drawing it out of the group or by encouraging the appropriate use of humour by others.
Keep it simple.
Ensure that you minimise your risk of failure by starting with simple acts involving some sort of surprise or exaggeration which makes people feel good. Don't always go for a laugh---this isn't the key. Instead, surprise someone and do something nice that makes him or her feel appreciated.
Monitor the situation.
Ensure that you understand that humour can be frustrating to an individual who is eager to have a serious communication and address issues of concern. Unless the use of humour is well conceptualised, an individual who uses humour may appear to lack concern or be disrespectful of the situation.
Be productive.
Ensure that you understand the difference between places that need to lighten up and places that need a shake-up. While the benefits of humour are obvious, not all humour is well placed or even productive. Ensure you understand the difference and what you're trying to achieve.
Maintain appropriateness.
Ensure that you acknowledge appropriate use of humour but gently, promptly and firmly send a clear statement if an attempt at humour has missed the mark. Ensure workplace policies permit humour to thrive, but also provide a subtle filter to inappropriateness.
Lighten up.
Ensure that you resist the urge to stifle humorous tendencies in the work environment out of fear they may be perceived as unprofessional. Research has shown that some women feel they must stifle their sense of humour in the business world. Though used more frequently by males than females, it is females who benefit most in terms of perceptions and desirable leader behaviour and leader effectiveness when using positive humour.
D Whyte, The heart aroused---poetry and the preservation of the soul in corporate America, Currency Doubleday, New York, 2002.
This text provides rich images and a powerful perspective on the dreams and needs of every soul who ventures to work each day.
S Lundin, J Christensen & H Paul, Fish sticks, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 2003.
The latest in the Fish series, this text addresses the important issue not only of crafting a culture where light-heartedness is valued but of maintaining that culture in the face of competing demands and the natural cycle of organisations and people.
B Kaye & S Jordan-Evans, Love 'em or lose 'em---getting good people to stay, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, 1999.
This is an accessible and passionate book about a serious subject. The snapshots of people and places shouldn't be underestimated. The essence of what people in organisations really feel and the role of culture have been captured well.
P McGhee, 'The key to stress management, retention and profitability? More workplace fun', HR Focus, September 2000.
This is a short summary piece that could serve as an excellent conversation starter when humour is being discussed at management level.
R Davidhizar & R Shearer, 'Humour: don't manage people without it', Radiologic Technology, September 1997.
An excellent overview of humour as it shapes culture from a healthcare perspective. The bibliography documents all the major academic works in the area and is a real gem.
The following websites contain useful articles on the current academic, corporate and medical research regarding the benefits of humour. They are US sites but the majority of the content is transferable to the Australian context. The work of Dr Paul McGhee, on the Laughter Remedy site, provides an excellent coverage of the health benefits of humour. The Humourversity site provides an Australian perspective.
www.humourmatters.com
www.humorproject.com
www.humoru.com
www.laughterremedy.com
Figure 5.1 is based on the diagram that appears in R Goffee & G Jones, 'What holds a modern company together?', Harvard Business Review, November--December 1996.
1. H Yura & M Walsh, The nursing process, Appleton-Century Crofts, Norfolk, Connecticut, 1983.
2. S Sultanoff, Humor matters FAQ at www.humormatters.com.
3. S Lundin, H Paul & J Christensen, Fish, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 2000.
4. P McGhee quoted in P Brotherton, 'The company that plays together … The benefits of humour in organisations', HR Magazine, vol. 41, 1996.
5. J Goodman, 'Taking humor seriously' at www.humorproject.com.
6. K Kelleher quoted in G Barbour, 'Want to be a successful manager? Now that's a laughing matter!', Public Management, vol. 80, July 1998.
7. G Vaillant quoted in J Goodman, 'Taking humour seriously' at www.humourproject.com.
8. As quoted in D Hemsath & L Yerkes, 301 ways to have fun at work, Berrett- Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, 1997.
10. N Cousins, Anatomy of an illness as perceived by the patient, W W Norton and Company, New York, 1979.
11. As quoted in G Barbour, 'Want to be a successful manager? Now that's a laughing matter!', Public Management, vol. 80, July 1998.
12. R Goffee & G Jones, 'What holds a modern company together?', Harvard Business Review, November--December 1996
13. ibid.
14. D Whyte, The heart aroused, Currency Doubleday, New York, 2002.
15. As quoted in J Goodman, 'Taking humor seriously' at www.humorproject.com.
16. J Cleese quoted in G Barbour, 'Want to be a successful manager? Now that's a laughing matter!', Public Management, vol. 80, July 1998.
17. S Lundin, H Paul & J Christensen, Fish sticks, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 2003.
18. J Kotter, 'What leaders really do', Harvard Business Review, May--June 1990.
19. K Eisenhardt, 'How management teams can have a really good fight', Harvard Business Review, July 1997.
© 2002 Australian Institute of Management