1. The role of subversive humour at the workplace
by
Robert Orzanna
Student ID: 2902913
Submitted to the Faculty of Management
in the paper Individuals, Behaviour & Work
The University of Auckland
Auckland, New Zealand
August 2011
2. Abstract
This essay analyses three main functions of subversive humour at the workplace-
challenging power relations, emhpasising group distinctions and re-defining
reality- and outlines its implications for organisations. Research findings of
the last years will be thereby used to emphasise the overall importance of sub-
versive humour in organisations.
i
4. 1 Introduction
“Every joke is a tiny revolution”. These are the words of the British writer George
Orwell who described the subversive potential of humour in his book “An age like
this”. But does humour, the ability to laugh that is normally considered to be desir-
able and positive in social interactions, really impose a threat to human behaviour
and relationships and if so, what consequences does that evoke in an organisational
context?
This essay attempts to understand the role of subversive humour by analysing its
basic concept based on humour research, examining its three main functions in the
workplace context and finally outlining the implications for organisations.
2 Mainpart
2.1 General thoughts on humour
Humour plays an important role in our social life and interactions as it is an inherent
part of our daily verbal and non-verbal communication, aimed to raise a laugh and en-
tertain (Brown 1987). Thereby humour is not only intended to amuse but also serves
different essential functions. That way, it brings people together and increases the
group cohesion between social members, reduces stress, facilitates creative thinking
and relieves tensions (Collinson 1988). Overall humour is seen as positive, especially
in a workplace context where all the functions above are considered to be desirable.
It is therefore not surprising that increased research focuses on humour as a tool of a
managerial perspective to support the achievement of corporate objectives (Holmes
2006, Romero 2006).
2.2 The role of subversive humour
But is humour only positive or do we have to consider another side, a “dark side” of
humour (Ackroyd 1999, Schnurr 2008)? This dark side refers to a subversive potential
1
5. of humour that challenges the status quo in an amusing and socially accepted way
(Holmes 2002). Thereby mostly verbal and non-verbal expressions of teasing, irony
and satire (Taylor 2003) are used to express disagreement with a current situation.
Considering the workplace context disagreement may reach from frustration or dis-
sent with decision making and established practices to the point of questioning and
undermining power relations.
2.3 Functions
In the following, we further want to understand what makes subversive humour, es-
pecially at the workplace, so valueable and in which situations it is used to serve
a certain purpose considering three main functions. Therefore we need to take into
account that every expression of humour is situational and can only be properly in-
terpreted considering the context and the impacts it has on the involved participants.
For this the analysis is based on Duncan’s model (Duncan 1989) who groups the
participants into three types: the initiator (the teller of the joke), the butt (the indi-
vidual or subject who is made fun of) and the target (the individual and the wider
audience to whom the humorous expression is dedicated).
Subversive humour challenges power relations. One of the most important
function of humour is its ability to undermine status differences. In an organisational
context subordinates can express their critique and admonish their superior in a
safe and socially acceptable way, using ironic quips or jocular abuse to a justifiable
extent. Socially acceptable thereby means that the superior cannot react properly, i.e.
sanction the behaviour of the subordinate without losing face and being considered
as not humorous enough (Plester 2008). Thus, all he can do is to either ignore the
quip or take the chance to respond likewise humorously (Holmes 2002).
This humorous respond may be in particular relevant for those superiors called
“Benign Bureaucrats” who in fact own formal authority through their status but
are not respected by other group members or subordinates (Duncan 1989). Likewise
2
6. they can criticise without offending whilst still ensuring that the underlying meaning
is received.
Subversive humour emphasises group distinctions. What makes humour
so powerful is that it let people share a laugh together, thereby relieves tensions and
eventually fosters a sense of unity by increasing the group cohesion. However when
it comes with a subversive intention, the initiator wants to intentionally emphasise
the distance between him and the butt by creating boundaries to underline that the
critique against the butt is appropriate and has to be taken seriously (Holmes 2002).
By doing so, he eventually creates distinct groups within an organisation, consisting
of those who agree with the critique or at least can laugh about it and those who
follow the position of the butt.
Subversive humour re-defines reality. Using humorous actions, individuals
cannot only criticise and express their dissent but also re-define the status quo showing
another more desirable reality. Thus, humour functions as a powerful but polite
instrument to achieve a certain goal (Holmes 2002). A worker doing routine work
may thereby humorously outline a more diversified workplace whereas a superior
may use it to show alternatives to established practices, such as less bureaucratic
processes. It is especially for the ones with power who benefit from using humour to
re-define organisational reality as they do not risk to lose their authority in front of
their subordinates, be made responsible by other managers or endanger the stability
of the organisational system which could be the case if they explicitly vote for certain
changes within organisations (Schnurr 2008).
3 The implications for organisations
In the section above we outlined how humour is used to subvert the status quo and
point out another reality. The important question arises: Does the organisation
accept and pick up critique or eventually ignore it?
3
7. 3.1 Positive effects
Paying attention to subversive humour enables organisations to discover serious short-
comings. They may not only be related to intra-organisational difficulties but also
refer to certain problems with the outside world and affect operative business, in-
cluding customers and suppliers. Coming along with the ability for re-definition,
possible solutions are also often expressed by casual organisational members which
in the end may even effect the strategical decision-making process of an organisa-
tion. Considering this, it is desirable for organisations to have humour even in its
challenging and subversive form to recognise changed circumstances and adapt the
organisation to maintain a healthy and competitive organisational system. However,
not every organisational member has the heart to express critique at the workplace,
neither in a humorous way, fearing negative effects such as limitations of management
advancements. Nor may they be personally interested in playing the jester to voice
all corporate dissent (Plester 2008). However, it are especially organisational mem-
bers such the jester who create or are involved in most of the humorous activities in
organisations and are respected from a brought number of the membership. For or-
ganisations it is therefore essential to foster an environment that explicitly welcomes
humour at the workplace and accepts direct criticism on every level, from the casual
worker over the jester to the upper executives. But how could that be practically
achieved?
A practical implication is to create flat hierarchical structures. By reducing the
status differences, those organisational members who initially did not have the heart
then can express their dissent without fearing negative effects from formal authority.
However flat structures are limited to certain sizes of organisations and hierarchy
levels, at least the form of a management board, therefore often inevitable. Hence
essentially executives need to exemplify a ‘transformational” leadership style paying
attention to the individual, its needs and thereby let room for changes (Bass 1994).
A transformational leadership also requires a supervisor to accept critique against
4
8. him or the organisation. It may be also helpful to reduce the boundaries between
management and the subordinates, to overshadow the formal authority of execu-
tives and seem them more approachable by allowing them to self-defeate and ridicule
themselves (Romero 2006).
Another approach is supported by Srivastva (Srivastva 1988). In his work on the
integrity of executives he suggests to establish an “antiorganisation” within organisa-
tions, a place of free saying where organisational members are explicitly encouraged
to undermine the established system, make fun of its norms and practices and value
it from a safe distance.
3.2 Negative effects
Paying attention to subversive humour allows an ongoing evaluation process that can
foster an organisational culture with which most of the members can identify with
and enables the chance to react on serious shortcomings. But what if organisations
miss this chance to listen and permanently ignore the critique faced to them?
Over time organisational members may not feel perceived and start to share a
collective identity of similar values and attitudes to intentionally represent a counter-
culture within an organisation which conflict with corporate values, attitudes and
objectives. In this sense counter-cultures function as a boundary to defeat the external
threat imposed by other groups or the organisation as a whole (Sherif 1961).
Sharing values different to the corporate one’s can eventually impact the individual
work behaviour. Individuals may resign and become unmotivated, i.e. spending time
on non-work related tasks, or behave even in a destructive way and situationally harm
the organisation, i.e. resulting in problematic ways of customer treating (Taylor and
Bain 2003). Due to the collective feeling and increased risk-proclivity there may
also arise a sort of activism, using subversive humour to permanently tease overall
management and express a collective social protest (Marjolein 2007). Such activism
does not only then take advantage of the situation but may also use humour as
5
9. a tactical instrument to re-define reality in the long-term purpose of the specific
counter-culture.
Such actions clearly outline that subversive humour is always on the edge between
challenging practices and endangering an organisational system. Especially this is the
case when humorous actions are used to offend and discriminate individual members
or groups within organisations, based on ethnical and sexual humour. Such humorous
actions have the ability to destroy an organisational culture and can be considered as
one of the most destructive forms subversive humour. But even ethnical and sexual
humour does not necessarily have to be subversive. According to Mennell and LaFave
(Mennell 1976) trust is an important factor which influences whether such humour is
seen as humorous rather than offending.
Following that, organisations basically have two options. They can either con-
struct boundaries and force rules to forbid the use of discriminating humour or create
an organisation-wide feeling of trust and togetherness to modify the threat of offense.
4 Conclusion
To conclude, humour at the workplace is conducive in all its forms and for all its
members. What is named subversive humour is in fact an effective way to express
critique, giving the potential to create an alternative reality which at first does not
pose a real threat to the current status quo as long as the underlying incongruity is
going to be resolved. Thus, the subversive potential of humour cannot be avoided but
the actual subversion can, by trying to resolve the incongruity. Organisations need
to bear in mind that creating and maintaining a trustworthy environment including
certain boundaries can facilitate the use of non-offending and justifiable humorous
actions which eventually contribute to the well-being of the overall organisation.
In the words of George Orwell we can state that every joke is truly only a tiny
revolution and not every joke subverts the current reality but at least it can display
a possible image of an alternative, more desirable reality.
6
10. References
Ackroyd, Thompson (1999) Only joking? From subculture to counter-culture in orga-
nizational relations. (London: SAGE Publications)
Bass, Avolio (1994) Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational
leadership. (London: SAGE Publications)
Brown, Levinson (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press)
Collinson (1988) ‘Engineering humor: Masculinity, joking and conflict in shop-floor
relations.’ Organization Studies 9(2), 181–199
Duncan, Feisal (1989) ‘No laughing matter: Patterns of humor in the workplace.’
Organizational Dynamics pp. 18–30
Holmes, Marra (2002) ‘Over the edge? subversive humor between colleagues and
friends.’ International Journal of Humor Research 15(1), 65–87
(2006) ‘Humor and leadership style.’ Humor 19(2), 119–138
Marjolein (2007) ‘Humour and social protest: An introduction.’ International Review
of Social History 20(S15), 1–20
Mennell, LaFave (1976) ‘Does ethnic humor serve prejudice?’ Journal of Communi-
cation 26, 116–123
Plester, Orams (2008) ‘Send in the clowns: The role of the joker in three new zealand
it companies.’ International Journal of Humor Research 21(3), 253–281
Romero, Cruthirds (2006) ‘The use of humor in the workplace.’ The Academy of
Management 20(2), 58–69
Schnurr, Rowe (2008) ‘The “dark side” of humour. an analysis of subversive humour.’
Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 4(1), 109–130
Sherif, Harvey, White Hood (1961) Intergroup conflict and cooperation: the Robbers
Cave experiment. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange)
Srivastva (1988) Executive Integrity: The Search for High Human Values in Organi-
zational Life (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass)
Taylor, Bain (2003) ‘’subterranean worksick blues’: Humour as subversion in two call
centres.’ Organization Studies 24(9), 1487–1509
7
