Trunks and Branches: Embracing Department Leader Humor and Enhancing Team Outcomes

Department Leader Humor: Insights From a Relational Perspective

A relational perspective views organizations as relational networks (Abell & Simons, 2000) and suggests that “employee–management relations are central to the context of work” (N. Li et al., 2010, p. 396). Applied to leadership, relational perspectives devote attention to communication process through which interpersonal relationships are developed and maintained (Hosking et al., 1995; Uhl-Bien, 2006). Given that humor acts as a communication tactic (Crawford, 1994) and a social lubricant (I. Yang et al., 2017), it should be an effective tool for relationship building. Accordingly, based on a relational perspective, we argue that department leader humor would contribute to building dyadic relationships in a playful manner.

LMX (leader–member exchange) captures the quality of relationship in a supervisor–subordinate dyad (Dienesch & Liden, 1986), while LLX (leader–leader exchange) refers to the quality of an upper dyadic relationship in an organizational hierarchy, which is described as the dyadic social exchange between the supervisor and his or her boss (Tangirala et al., 2007). In fact, organizational structures can be viewed as several convergent chains of dyadic relationships established between the organization’s top manager and the frontline employees (Tangirala et al., 2007), and each link of those chains “has a superior who mediates top-down flow of budgets, information, and influence to a subordinate” (Tangirala et al., 2007, p. 311). Owing to this network of dyadic relationships, it is reasonable that the exchange relationship between supervisors and their upward leaders (i.e., LLX) has effects on subordinates immediately lower in the hierarchy. Thus, we introduce LLX as the mediator between department leader humor and team outcomes.

The humor behaviors exhibited by leaders can create a sense of social equality that represents respect and dignity (C. Cooper, 2008; Pundt & Venz, 2017), because humor identifies similarities between people and equalizes the status of the leader and follower (E. J. Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). In accordance with this view, the department leaders who apply humor are likely to be perceived by team leaders as approachable, instead of authoritarian and aloof. Therefore, team leaders may be willing to build stronger bonds with such department leaders. In other words, department leader humor signals the desire for reducing social distance, thereby enhancing the quality of relationships between department leaders and team leaders (i.e., LLX).

In addition, given humor may release tension and increase morale (C. Cooper, 2008), it helps to cultivate a relaxing and enjoyable environment (E. J. Romero & Cruthirds, 2006; Yam et al., 2018). Department leaders’ humor behaviors convey social information about the importance of fun and amusement in organizations, guiding the ways team leaders understand and make meaning of the work environment. Therefore, team leaders are apt to consider their workplace relationships as more relaxed and thus experience less stress in dyadic interactions. Under such environments, humor expressed by department leaders to team leaders might jumpstart dyadic relationships with team leaders, as communication and interaction between them is more effective and fluent (González-Romá & Hernández, 2014; Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001). Accordingly, when department leaders exhibit humor behaviors, they are more capable of establishing high-quality dyadic exchange relationships with team leaders.

LLX quality is associated with the amount and types of resources that team leaders may obtain from their upward leaders (i.e., department leaders). When perceiving high-quality LLX with upward leaders, team leaders have increased access to resources and benefits which go beyond the formal employment contract (Ilies et al., 2007; Wayne et al., 1997). Relational perspective emphasizes that positive relationships develop through the exchange of valued resources, whereby exchanges are governed by mutual obligation to reciprocate resources received (J. K. Kim et al., 2018). Notably, the quality of LLX is characterized as a reflection of “mutual trust, respect, obligation, and goal commonality” (Zhou et al., 2012, p. 670). In line with relational perspective, team leaders with high-quality LLX may feel obligated to contribute to the achievement of common goals as reciprocation for the respect and dignity provided by department leaders. In this sense, it is conceivable that team leaders in high-quality LLX are more willing to put effort into enhancing team outcomes.

Particularly, LLX captures “the extent to which teams (through their common team leader) collectively gain access to organizational resources” and thus motivates “the team as a whole” (Zhou et al., 2012, p. 671). When LLX quality is perceived to be high, team leaders may have greater possibility to receive organizational resources such as task times, research funds, and external support in their work (Tangirala et al., 2007), which in turn lead team members to feel they are capable of implementing tasks even when confronted with difficulties. In this situation, team members may care more about and have adequate competence in carrying out their work tasks, which ultimately improve team task performance. Additionally, such collective resources and higher support brought by team leaders in high-quality LLX (Zhou et al., 2012) further serve to enhance the perception of team membership. Consequently, team members tend to invest extra efforts to help other members and exhibit more team OCB.

Drawing insights from a relational perspective, the interactions between department leaders and team leaders can predictably develop reciprocating systems of relationships, and the relationships ultimately provide a context and guideline for behaviors. As noted above, we argued that equal and fun interactions caused by department leader humor may build high-quality relationships between department leaders and team leaders (Hypothesis 1). In turn, these upward exchange relationships are associated with more psychological and material resources that contribute to team task performance and team OCB (Hypothesis 2). Therefore, we posit that LLX may be regarded as an important relational underlying mechanism through which department leader humor promotes team task performance and team OCB.

Moderating Role of Department Leader Apparent Sincerity and Team Leader Power Distance

Department leader humor has potential implications for promoting LLX and therefore enhancing team outcomes. However, we do not deem such positive influences to be absolute for all department leaders and team leaders. As the effects of leadership are contingent on the crucial characteristics of both leaders and followers (Howell & Shamir, 2005; Yam et al., 2018), the relational function of leader humor probably depends on characteristics of both humor senders and recipients. It is conceivable that even when department leaders believe that they have exhibited humor behaviors, their output may not adequately forge the high-quality LLX that contributes to team outcomes. This may be because they don’t have the ability to make their followers truly accept the humor behaviors and/or because their followers are less inclined to close the social distance between them. Thus, we devote considerable concentration on two key contingencies. One is department leader apparent sincerity, which plays a crucial role in demonstrating true intention; the other is team leader power distance, which represents the degree of team leaders’ preference for hierarchical differences.

Dyadic exchange relationships are more strongly affected by positive relational intentions behind leaders’ humor behaviors (Pundt & Venz, 2017). Therefore, to develop high-quality LLX by applying humor, department leaders should convince team leaders of their intention to develop positive relationships. Apparent sincerity is a key dimension of political skill, representing individuals’ “influence attempts in ways that are intended to appear to be sincere and genuine, devoid of ulterior motive, and that inspire trust and confidence” (Ferris et al., 2005, p. 128). Accordingly, apparent sincerity enables individuals to foster credible and acceptable images of themselves and convey their favorable images to others (Ferris et al., 2005; Munyon et al., 2015). In line with this, we propose department leaders high in apparent sincerity may be more likely to possess the capacity to exert significant effects on team leaders’ perceptions and behaviors. In other words, apparent sincerity is particularly related to the implications of department leader humor for LLX, because it can influence team leaders’ perceived images of department leaders and their acceptance of humor behaviors.

As mentioned above, when department leaders are high in apparent sincerity, they are more able to inspire team leaders to believe in what they say and do. Indeed, prior research suggests that an individual’s influence attempt is more likely to succeed when their behaviors are not perceived as having ulterior motives (Ferris et al., 2005; Jones, 1990). Thus, the high apparent sincerity of department leaders aids in persuading and guiding team leaders to accept the supportive and friendly messages conveyed through their humor, thereby facilitating better relationship building with team leaders. That is, department leader apparent sincerity would strengthen the implications of their humor behaviors for LLX. In contrast, department leaders low in apparent sincerity may fail to convince team leaders of their sincerity in what they say and do. As a result, the positive relational intentions behind department leader humor are not easily perceived and accepted by team leaders, which leads to a weaker relationship between department leader humor and LLX.

As noted above, because department leaders high in apparent sincerity could lead team leaders to believe in their genuineness, their humor behaviors will be viewed positively by these team leaders. Thus, department leader humor is more effective in building dyadic exchange relationships between department leaders and team leaders, which consequently motivates team members to exert expected and extra efforts. As a result, LLX plays a more active role in conveying the impacts of department leader humor on team task performance and team OCB. Conversely, department leaders low in apparent sincerity are less able to convince team leaders. These team leaders are less apt to respond favorably to department leader humor, making it less influential in enhancing LLX relationships and team outcomes. In this case, LLX plays a less significant role in transmitting the impacts of department leader humor on team task performance and team OCB. Taken together, we propose:

Employees’ reactions to leader humor are contingent on their attitudes toward “hierarchical differences between leader and follower” (Pundt & Venz, 2017, p. 88). By this logic, team leader power distance, which reflects team leaders’ preferences for hierarchy, might be another potential boundary condition for understanding the relational mechanism through which department leader humor impacts LLX. Individual power distance refers to “the extent to which an individual accepts the unequal distribution of power in institutions and organizations” (Clugston et al., 2000, p. 9). It allows individuals to accept inequalities and show deference to authority figures (Daniels & Greguras, 2014; Farh et al., 2007), which affects their perceptions of and reactions to leader behavior (Kirkman et al., 2009). That is, individuals high in power distance accept hierarchy more readily and tend to embrace unequal relationships with their leaders (Clugston et al., 2000; Hofstede, 1980; Y. Li & Sun, 2015). Hence, team leaders high in power distance are more likely to view hierarchical differences and unequal relational processes as acceptable. In this case, power distance results in the discrepancy between team leaders’ relational expectations and signals of department leaders’ humor behaviors.

Considering that leader humor reduces the salience of hierarchical differences between leaders and followers (E. J. Romero & Cruthirds, 2006), humor behaviors exhibited by department leaders can decrease these differences and create a sense of equality in their hierarchical relationships with team leaders. However, given that team leaders with high power distance tend to view department leaders as possessing innate superiority, power, and status (Kirkman et al., 2009), they are more likely to accept inequality and hierarchical differences. As such, there is inconsistency between signals sent from department leaders who display humor and preferences of team leaders with high power distance. Further, although the relaxing and enjoyable environment cultivated by humor (E. J. Romero & Cruthirds, 2006; Yam et al., 2018) is conducive to equal relational processes, team leaders high in power distance may treat this implication of department leader humor as unappreciated and unexpected. Accordingly, team leaders high in power distance are less receptive to relational influence from their department leaders’ humor behaviors, rendering department leader humor less effective in motivating them to develop LLX relationships. In contrast, team leaders low in power distance positively react to department leader humor because the social information conveyed by humor behaviors is congruent with their attitudes to hierarchy and social inequality. Therefore, the impact of department leader humor on LLX should be stronger for team leaders low in power distance.

As previously mentioned, team leaders high in power distance may experience incongruence between their preferences and signals sent from department leader humor behaviors. This discrepancy impedes the development of LLX and ultimately diminishes team outcomes. Therefore, LLX plays a less important role in mediating the impacts of department leader humor on team task performance and team OCB. Conversely, team leaders low in power distance have a greater propensity to accept department leader humor that signals social equality. As such, it reinforces the effect of department leader humor in enhancing team task performance and team OCB, via increased LLX relationships. Accordingly, we propose:

Sample and Procedure

Our primary sample was comprised of team leaders and department leaders from a national bank in China. We first contacted the HR manager and explained the purposes and benefits of the survey. As an incentive for participation, we provided feedback about the survey. After obtaining consent from the HR manager of the bank, data were collected via paper-and-pencil surveys at three time points over 6 months. We clearly stated that participants could withdraw from the survey at any time. Each questionnaire was coded with a research-assigned identification number to match the responses of team leaders and department leaders for subsequent data analysis.

At Time 1, out of 136 team leaders invited to participate, 122 team leaders completed measures of department leader humor, department leader apparent sincerity, team leader power distance, and demographic information. Three months later, at Time 2, a total of 114 team leaders completed a measure of LLX. At Time 3, 6 months after Time 1, 27 out of 34 department leaders rated the task performance and OCB of teams as well as provided demographic information. The final matched team leader–department leader data across three time points included 101 team leaders in 27 departments, yielding the final effective response rates of 74% at the team level and 79% at the department level. Team size ranged from three to eight with a mean of four.

Measures

Unless otherwise noted, all measures were evaluated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). We followed the procedures of standard translation and back-translation (Brislin, 1980) to develop the Chinese versions from original English items.

Analytical Strategy

Given the nested nature of our data, with each department leader rating the task performance and OCB of multiple teams (M = 3.74), there may be dependence issues concerning the relationships between these variables (Bliese, 2002). To account for this independence, we conducted multilevel path analysis using Mplus 8.0 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017) to test our proposed theoretical model. The team leader was treated as Level-1 and the department leader as Level-2. Following recommendations by Hofmann et al. (2000), all Level-1 predictors were group-mean centered. We modeled the indirect relationships as random effects and the moderated mediation effects as fixed effects to reduce model complexity. In order to estimate our indirect and conditional indirect effects, we utilized Monte Carlo simulation via online R program with 20,000 replications to calculate the 95% confidence intervals (CIs; Preacher & Selig, 2012). Using Kreft and de Leeuw’s (1998) formulation for pseudo R², we examined a null model and calculated the proportional reduction of variance due to the inclusion of predictors.

Theoretical Implications

Our study makes contributions to the existing literature in three primary ways. First, we contribute to the leadership literature that has seldom considered department leader humor as a contextual factor for team outcomes. Although extant research has examined the antecedents of team outcomes (e.g., DeChurch et al., 2013; Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007; Hu & Judge, 2017; Joshi & Knight, 2015), they overlooked the actuality that teams do not operate in a vacuum yet are nested in organizations or departments. Up until recently, limited research has attended to higher-level contextual triggers that are directly associated with team outcomes. Given that leadership seems to be a significant contextual factor (Owens & Hekman, 2016), we identified department leader humor as a critical precipitating factor of team outcomes. In doing so, our study verified the notion that contextual factors can significantly influence team behavior and performance (Gully, 2000). Furthermore, the higher-level contextual factor we investigated challenges the prevailing conclusion, because research on the antecedents of team outcomes had so far only focused on team characteristics (e.g., Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007; Hu & Liden, 2015; F. Yang et al., 2019).

Second, our study delineated a novel relational mechanism of how team leaders’ upward exchange relationships operate in the organization. A crucial insight from the leadership literature is that relationships are expected to be pivotal in leadership (Drath, 2001; Uhl-Bien, 2006). Therefore, an investigation on the effects of department leader humor should appreciate the value of relationships. In this article, we present a relational framework to disentangle the underlying mechanisms through which department leader humor enhances team outcomes. In doing so, our work suggests that developing higher quality LLX relationships is a significant means of performing leadership functions and provides additional evidence regarding the unique impact of LLX on team-level outcomes (e.g., Chen & Lin, 2018; Zhou et al., 2012). In addition, our findings extend relationship management research by empirically confirming upward exchange relationships as distinct proximal causes that connect department leaders to team outcomes.

Third, by identifying department leader apparent sincerity and team leader power distance as two key contingencies, our study gained an in-depth understanding of the boundary conditions under which department leader humor is more or less beneficial. As expected, the perceived sincerity of department leaders’ humor behaviors and the perceptual congruence of hierarchy between them and team leaders amplify the beneficial impact of department leader humor. Following the demonstration that effective leadership “depends on active and interactive processes of influence” (Eldor, 2021, p. 473), we integrate two characteristics into the leader humor research: department leaders’ apparent sincerity, which contributes to their ability to build authentic relationships, and team leaders’ power distance, which is a value orientation that influences leader-follower interactions. By doing this, we echo the call to examine not only leader but follower characteristics as potential contingencies for the influence of leader humor (Kong et al., 2019; Yam et al., 2018). In this way, our study yielded a more nuanced model from a comprehensive angle that includes characteristics of both department leader (i.e., humor sender) and team leader (i.e., humor recipient). Thus, our work creates novel knowledge on what the critical catalysts are and how they magnify or mitigate the benefits from department leader humor.

Practical Implications

Our study offers several significant practical implications for organizations and managers. From a relational perspective, our study emphasizes that department leaders’ humor behaviors can facilitate team leaders’ upward exchange relationships (i.e., LLX) and thus contribute to team outcomes. These findings sparked a novel insight into how teams reap the benefits from department leaders, suggesting that upward relationship management ought to get involved into management practices. To implement upward relationship management, organizations and managers should make every effort to enhance dyadic interactions. Considering the relational functions of leader humor, including diminishing hierarchical differences and cultivating a relaxing and enjoyable environment, organizations should encourage, and guide department leaders to adopt humor behaviors. Additionally, department leaders may incur effective procedural and functional communication by showing humor as positive socio-emotional behaviors (Lehmann-Willenbrock & Allen, 2014) as well as creating a sense of social equality in a playful manner (C. Cooper, 2008; Pundt & Venz, 2017).

In addition, our study regarding the moderating effects of department leader apparent sincerity and team leader power distance adds to the knowledge on boundary conditions for the effectiveness of department leader humor. Department leaders, as humor senders, are supposed to engage in behaviors to make their humor behaviors authentic and acceptable. In this sense, they should express humor with genuine verbal and non-verbal activities (Ferris et al., 2005). Furthermore, team leaders with low power distance, as humor receivers, are more likely to accept department leaders’ humor behaviors. This suggests that followers’ value orientations in organizations might determine the effect of department leader humor. Therefore, department leaders could seek avenues to show appropriate humor behaviors that match team leaders with different levels of power distance (F. Yang et al., 2018). For example, they may communicate with team leaders who have high power distance by adding amusing words that are irrelevant to status.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

As with most empirical research, our study has several potential limitations, which indicate better paths to future research. First, we have theoretically analyzed the relational process by which department leader humor affects team task performance and team OCB, and have employed a time-lagged design and multisource data to test this theoretical model. However, the directions of causality between department leader humor and LLX still cannot be fully extrapolated. For instance, it is conceivable that high-quality dyadic exchange relationships between department leaders and team leaders may promote department leaders to exhibit more humor behaviors. As such, in order to infer causality accurately, experimental or longitudinal research should be designed to examine our theoretical model.

Second, our study relies on data collected in one particular cultural region (i.e., China), which may predispose our findings to be inexact and unserviceable in different cultural contexts. Chinese culture emphasizes interpersonal interactions (Deng et al., 2018), and guanxi (i.e., a special form of personal relations) is deemed as a salient phenomenon (F. Yang et al., 2018). Under such conditions, our relational model might be more prominent. Therefore, we put forth new avenues for future research, which should take place within distinct cultural backgrounds. In doing so, it is possible to remedy the unconsidered culture-relevant aspects of our study and make our conclusions applicable to other cultural situations.

Finally, beyond the characteristics of humor sender and recipient, the situations where the relational process takes place may also serve as crucial contingencies for the effects of leader humor on desired outcomes (Kong et al., 2019). To depict a complete picture, future research should explore potential situational moderators widely. In this regard, given that HR practices could set the conditions of the dyadic relationships (Paré & Tremblay, 2007), future studies could provide additional evidence to our integrative model by examining the moderating role of different HR practices, such as commitment-based HR practices (Neves et al., 2018) and high-performance HR practices (Kostopoulos et al., 2015).