Style, gender, and humor effects in evaluating leaders.

Introduction

Some evidence suggests certain leadership styles may be more appropriate for male managers than females and vice-versa. However, other studies have failed to replicate such findings. This study focused on the question of whether observers view a task-oriented style more favorably

Additional purposes of the study included investigating the potential of humor use as a managerial tool and determining whether humor use affects reactions to the above-mentioned leadership styles. In regard to sex differences, prior studies have not been unanimous in answering the questions of whether being humorous is more gender-appropriate for mates and whether males appreciate humor use more than do females. Since the answers to these questions may vary with the type of humor used, three humor types were investigated in conjunction with the two leadership styles. The results may be particularly helpful to managers in conversing with individual subordinates or groups of persons of one sex.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Bartol and Butterfield (1976) found male managers displaying initiating structure (leadership focusing on task accomplishment) were rated more favorably than were female managers using the same style. On the other hand, females were rated higher when using the consideration style (focusing on building interpersonal relationships) than were males. Similarly, directive, authoritarian leadership was judged more favorably when used by male supervisors than when used by females (Haccoun, Haccoun, & Sallay, 1978; Jago & Vroom, 1982). Also, rewarding good performance was rated a more effective style for male supervisors than for females (Rosen & Jerdee, 1973). However, several subsequent studies failed to find such interactions of manager gender and leadership style (Stitt, Schmidt, Price, and Kipnis, 1983; Israeli & Israeli, 1985; Trempe, Rigny, Haccoun, 1985).

A replication of the Bartol and Butterfield (1976) study by Israeli and Israeli (1985) did not yield manager-gender differences for any leadership style. The latter authors suggested several possible reasons for the discrepancy. First, respondents in the original study were students but in the later study were primarily middle and upper level managers. Students may expect more gender differences in leadership than have been encountered by more experienced persons. Second, gender stereotypes may have lessened over time. (However, there was only a 6-year interval between studies.) Third, the replication did not include all dependent variables measured in the original study. This could have affected the results of the multivariate analysis. Finally, since the original study was conducted in the United States and the replication in Israel, cultural differences may have been responsible. The present study sought to further investigate observers' perceptions of managerial styles as a function of manager gender.

Another aspect of managerial behavior is the degree of humor use. Humor's value in organizations was addressed by Lippitt (1982) who characterized humor as useful in influencing others; in expressing ideas, feelings, and attitudes; and in helping one relax, avoid tension, and take disappointment in stride. Similarly, Malone (1980) characterized humor as a possible source of psychic rewards and of tension release, while Duncan (1982) noted that humor may relieve frustration, alleviate boredom, and facilitate information transfer.

Managerial humor could be viewed as an element in the manager's style. It is proposed that humor use is more often people-oriented in nature (i.e., influencing the manager-subordinate relationship) than task-oriented. Humor may add qualities such as humanity or informality that are inherent in the people-oriented style, but missing from the task-oriented style. Thus, the manager's injecting humor into a situation seems to be a way of demonstrating a people orientation.

Duncan (1982) recommended managers foster a "climate of reciprocal humor" by joking about upper management or themselves in order to reduce tension. Similarly, Zillmann and Stocking (1976) commented that persons who poke fun at themselves do not take themselves too seriously. On the other hand, it also seems self-disparaging humor by managers could have harmful effects. Such humor could destroy subordinates' confidence in their superiors.

Bryant, Comisky, Crane, and Zillmann (1980) obtained a positive correlation between male (but not female) college teachers' self-disparaging humor use and student evaluations of the teachers' appeal. However, experimental studies of self-disparaging humor by fictitious students (Stocking & Zillmann, 1976) and lecturing college teachers (Tamborini & Zillmann, 1981) provided little support for the notion that using such humor is beneficial. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary. Although college teachers' self-disparaging humor was neither helpful nor detrimental to rated intelligence or appeal (Tamborini & Zillmann, 1981), student self-disparagers were downgraded (Stocking & Zillmann, 1976). Tamborini and Zillmann (1981) suggested self-disparaging humor may be detrimental to ratings only of individuals whose intelligence is not well defined.

In addition to intelligence, other positive attributes, such as professional success, may also moderate the effects of self-disparaging humor. Decker (1988) found attributing a good reputation to fictitious, self-disparaging managers enhanced evaluations. However, the benefit was not enough to overcome the generally negative reaction to self-disparaging humor relative to the no-humor control condition. Perhaps, other types of humor would produce less negative reactions. When humor is used by a reputable figure and is "positive" (in the sense of not being derogatory toward anyone) it may even be beneficial relative to no humor usage.

Gender differences may complicate humor usage as a managerial tool. Everyday experience leads us to expect gender differences in humor usage and reactions to humor. For example, most comedians are male. Wilson and Molleston (1981) proposed that males are more likely than females to be socialized to believe being humorous is gender-appropriate. Decker (1986) found managerial humor was rated less appropriate with the male manager-female subordinate pair than other manager gender-subordinate gender combinations. A male supervising females for the first time may find female employees react differently to his humor than do males or he may change his style because he expects they would. Also, a female manager's humor may be received less favorably than a male's. Where employees tend to doubt the ability of the female to manage, humor use may be considered evidence of the female's lack of understanding of proper behavior. On the other hand, it is possible that the female may be able to show she is "one of the guys" by being humorous and would benefit.

Investigations of gender differences in response to humor have produced inconsistent results. Some studies have yielded no gender differences in humor appreciation (e.g., Wilson & Molleston, 1981). However, Zillmann and Stocking (1976) found females viewed self-disparaging humor funnier than did males. On the other hand, males rated insult jokes funnier than did females (Decker, 1986). Females 25 years of age and older downgraded supervisors who used sexual humor, while females under 25 and males in both ages groups did not (Decker, 1987). Also, males reacted more favorably to humor in advertisements than did females (Lammers, Leibowitz, Seymour, and Hennessey, 1983).

The present study included all dependent variables measured by Bartol and Butterfield (1976) and additional ones. Among the latter were items assessing the perceived masculinity and femininity of managers. The results of Bartol and Butteifield (1976) may have occurred because the task-oriented style was viewed as masculine (more gender-appropriate for males), while the people-oriented style was viewed as feminine (more gender-appropriate for females). Therefore, it was expected that, regardless of gender, a manager displaying a task orientation would be viewed as more masculine and less feminine than a people-oriented manager.

RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

Hypotheses were:

1) Among task-oriented managers, males would be rated more favorably

than females and the reverse would occur for people-oriented

managers.

2) People-oriented managers would be rated more feminine and less

masculine than task-oriented managers.

3) Humor usage would result in increasing the similarity of the ratings

of task-oriented and people-oriented managers.

4) Humor usage by male managers would be viewed more favorably

than that by females.

5) Positive humor (i.e., non-disparaging) would yield more favorable

responses than would humor disparaging oneself or working conditions.

6) Male respondents would react more favorably than females to positive

and working condition-disparaging humor, but not to self-disparaging

humor.

METHOD

Design

The experimental design was a 4 x 2 x 2 factorial. It included the 16 possible combinations of four levels of humor (self-disparaging, working condition-disparaging, positive, or none), the two manager genders, and two leadership styles (task orientation or people orientation).

Procedure

A four-page questionnaire began with a page which contained a very general description of the purpose of the study ("understanding behavior in organizational settings"). Respondents were assured their responses were anonymous, and they were told how they could obtain a copy of the results (from their supervisor or directly from the researcher). The first page also contained directions for completing the questionnaire. Respondents were asked to answer according to their first impressions or immediate feelings, although there was no time limit. The second page requested demographic information regarding age, gender, education, and employment.

One of the sixteen vignettes comprised the third page. General leadership style was varied (task orientation vs. people orientation) with the use of vignettes adapted from Bartol and Butterfield (1976). The task-oriented story (used in half the vignettes) described a manager's efforts in restructuring a personnel department along with providing employees with detailed job descriptions and standardized procedures to follow. The people-oriented story (in the other eight vignettes) described a relatively informal sales staff meeting which included social conversation and refreshments. Also, the people-oriented manager agreed to reschedule a meeting which conflicted with an employee's dentist appointment. In order to improve comparability of the stories, the task-oriented story was changed to eliminate information that the manager was new and had the charge "to streamline and update the department." In addition, jokes attributed to the manager were inserted in 12 of the stories. Each story including humor contained two jokes of the same type.

A self-disparaging joke used was: "Recently, I turned down another job because they wanted to pay me what I'm worth. I wasn't going to take a big cut in pay."

A joke disparaging working conditions was: "Among the advantages in working here is that the pay is so low you never have to worry about the IRS coming after you and the hours are so long you don't have time to spend money you don't have."

A positive joke was: "When I worked in a bank, a woman came in and asked for a loan for a home improvement in order to get a divorce. I explained that the bank only loaned money for such things as businesses, automobiles, and home improvements. `That's what I mean,' shouted the lady. `This is for a home improvement!'"

The fourth page contained 16, 7-point, rating scales with the extremes labeled. Eight items were those used by Bartol and Butterfield (1976). These items measured respondents' judgments of the organization's current productivity, future productivity, current satisfaction, future satisfaction, whether the manager deserved a raise or promotion, how the manager's boss would evaluate him (her), whether the respondents would like to work for the manager, and the manager's general effectiveness. The other either items assessed perceptions of the manager's wittiness, seriousness, masculinity, femininity, concern for subordinates' well-being, concern for productivity, technical skill, and social skill.

Respondents

The participants were recruited from businesses and civic organizations in Maryland's Wicomico and Worcester Counties and undergraduate classes in management at Salisbury State University. At each location questionnaires were distributed by means of block randomization and by a member of the organization. The responses of the first 8 males and first 8 females in each condition returning the questionnaires were used in the data analysis (N = 56). Within each gender 75 of the 128 respondents were under 30 years of age while 53 were 30 or over. Forty-two males and 47 females reported their educational level to be bachelor's degree or higher, while 8 males and 20 females had no college attendance. Forty-eight males and 42 females held managerial positions. Full-time employment was reported by 107 males and 108 females. The most frequent fields of employment for males were: 1) Manufacturing, processing, repairing, or construction (n = 37); 2) Restaurants, hotels, entertainment, or recreation (n = 24); 3) Retail trade (n = 16). For females the predominant industries were: 1) Banking, finance, insurance, or real estate (n = 39); 2) Manufacturing, processing, repairing, or construction (n = 17); 3) Health care (n = 16). While occupational distribution was not equivalent for males and females, it is typical in this community that males and females tend toward different types of careers.

RESULTS

Correlational analyses indicated statistical equivalence of the male and female respondents since there were no significant correlations of gender with any other demographic variables. A multiple analysis of variance including the manipulated variables (managers gender, leadership style, and humor type), as well as respondent gender, yielded significance (p [less than] .05) for all main effects but no interactions.

For manager gender (F = 8.56, p [less than] .001) only two univariate comparisons were significant. Male managers X = 4.34) were perceived more masculine than females X = 3.06; F = 42.51, p [less than] .001) (d.f. = 1,224). Female managers (X = 4.61) were perceived more feminine than males (X = 2.69; F = 103.98, p. [less than] .001). These findings suggest the manager gender manipulation was successful.

The multivariate analysis of leadership style yielded significance (F = 22.35, p [less than] .001). The means for each leadership style on each dependent measure appear in Table 1. The task-oriented style produced significantly higher ratings than did the people-oriented style on: future production, deserving a raise/promotion, likely to be evaluated highly by the boss, overall effectiveness, seriousness, concern for productivity, technical skill, and masculinity. The people-oriented style yielded significantly higher ratings than did the task-oriented style on: having satisfied subordinates, concern with the well-being of subordinates, social skill, and femininity. The masculinity and femininity differences supported Hypothesis 2, while the other differences suggest the successful manipulation of the style variable. However, contrary to Hypothesis 1, manager gender and leadership style did not interact significantly for any dependent variables.

The multivariate analysis of humor type yielded significance (F = 1.76, p [less than] .01). Comparisons of the means for each humor type (Duncan's Multiple Range Tests) appear in Table 2. Generally, ratings in the no humor control condition were more favorable than the others. Positive humor fared the best of the three humor conditions in that its ratings were significantly less than those of the no humor control condition on only one item: seriousness. Eight means for self-disparaging humor and six means for working-conditions humor were significantly lower than for the control group.

Univariate analyses revealed two items with significant respondent-gender by humor-type interactions. These items were future satisfaction, F(3,224) = 3.88, p [less than] .01, and deserving a raise/promotion, F(3,224) 3.51, p [less than] .02. For both dependent variables Duncan's Multiple Range Tests across humor types yielded no significant differences in males' responses (although the means for the humor types were higher than the controls). On the other hand, female respondents were generally found to rate the humor types less favorably than they did the no-humor controls. An exception to the latter finding was that for future satisfaction the difference between positive humor and no humor was insignificant. The means and results of Duncan's Multiple Range Tests comparing humor types within each gender are presented in Table 3.

DISCUSSION

Hypothesis 1, that ratings of the leadership styles would vary with manager gender, was not supported. Managers seemed to be evaluated on the basis of behavior and not gender. This study did not determine why Israeli and Israeli (1985) could not replicate the Bartol and Butterfield (1976) results. Obviously, even more time has passed since the original research, so gender stereotypes regarding managerial behavior may have weakened. Unlike the israeli and Israeli (1985) study, the present research was conducted in the U.S. and included all questions used by Bartol and Butterfield (1976). The question as to whether student and non-student respondents yield different results cannot be answered as the present sample contained both students and non-students. (The numbers of students and non-students are unknown since persons who responded at their place of employment were not questioned as to student status.) It can be concluded that a sample with a fairly broad cross-section of people did not yield evidence that male and female managers' styles are evaluated according to different standards. Trempe, et al. (1985) have suggested gender is a proxy variable, often confounded with more salient organizational factors such as influence. That is, males could be rated superior to females as leaders, not because of gender, per se, but because males happen t() wield more influence than do females and those with more influence are considered superior leaders. That such factors were probably not salient in the vignettes used in the present research may have contributed to the lack of a manager gender-leadership style interaction.

Hypothesis 2, that the people-oriented and task-oriented styles would yield differences in perceived masculinity and femininity, was supported. Since masculinity and femininity ratings were the only measures affected by the manager gender manipulation, it seems that males displaying a people orientation and females displaying a task orientation are not downgraded as managers, but simply are perceived as less masculine in the former case and less feminine in the latter. Thus, while it can be professionally appropriate for females to display a task orientation, some appearance of femininity is sacrificed. A similar effect occurs for people-oriented males and masculinity. However, it should be noted that manager gender was a more potent contributor to perceptions of masculinity and femininity. Furthermore, in face-to-face interactions it is expected that other cues, such as appearance and actions, can further dilute the effects of leadership style-induced perceptions of masculinity and femininity. Therefore, in real-world settings leadership style probably would make relatively minor contributions to perceived masculinity and femininity.

Hypothesis 3, that style and humor type would interact, was not supported. Humor usage did not increase the similarity of ratings of the task-orientation and people-orientation styles, but merely led to generally lower ratings. Perhaps, the stories contained too much humor for their length and represented an inordinate proportion of the managers' statements. The problem may not have been the use of humor, per se, but its excessive use. On the other hand, humor may have detracted from the content of the messages the managers were attempting to convey. To be beneficial humor may have to be more spontaneous and relevant to the situation rather than "canned," irrelevant jokes. And, some situations are probably too serious for a person in a position of responsibility to joke about. Bob Hope can get laughs joking about a war, while the President probably would not.

Hypothesis 4, that humor usage by male managers would be viewed more favorably than that by females, was not supported. In addition, humor usage did not affect ratings on the masculinity and femininity items. Thus, no evidence was obtained that humor usage belongs more to the male stereotype than to the female. Perhaps recent societal changes have lessened the gender stereotypes regarding humor. It is also plausible that other humor types, such as aggressive or sexual humor, would have produced different responses as a function of manager gender.

Hypothesis 5, that positive humor would yield more favorable reactions than the other types was partially supported. Generally, the means were higher for positive humor than for the other humor conditions. However, few of these differences were statistically significant. Perhaps non-derogatory humor that has more relevance to situations in which it is used, instead of being contrived, would yield more favorable responses.

Hypothesis 6, that male respondents would react more favorably to positive and working condition-disparaging humor than would females, received only weak support. Females responded very negatively to all three humor types, but tended to like self-disparaging humor the least. Males generally rated managers displaying positive humor, but not working-condition humor, higher than no-humor controls. However, only on two items was the respondent-gender by humor-type interaction significant. People seem to expect managers to be fairly serious and women do somewhat more so than men.

In conclusion, it seems both men and women managers can use both the task-oriented style and the people-oriented style to produce desirable outcomes, at least in some situations. As each style yielded higher ratings on different desirable qualities, it appears both styles have advantages and, perhaps, should be used in combination. Also, it seems managers should not be obsessed with trying to be funny or let humor dominate their interpersonal interactions. Managerial humor should not be contrived and certainly should not be derogatory toward anyone. it appears the manager considering humor use should be sensitive to individual differences among audiences and such differences should be a major concern of future humor research.

REFERENCES

Bartol, K.M., & Butterfield, D.A. (1976). Sex effects in evaluating leaders. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 61, 446-454.

Bryant, J., Comisky, P., Crane, J.S., & Zillmann, D. (1980). The relationship between

college teachers' use of humor in the classroom and students' evaluation of their teachers.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 511-519.

Decker, W.H. (1986). Sex conflict and impressions of managers' aggressive humor. The

Psychological Record, 36, 483-490.

Decker, W. H. (1987). Managerial humor and subordinate satisfaction. Social Behavior and

Personality, 15, 225-232.

Decker, W.H. (1988). Reactions to managers' humor: Effects of managerial level, reputation,

and humor type. Proceedings of the Southwest Decision Sciences Institute, 115 - 117.

Duncan, W. J. (1982). Humor in management: Prospects for administrative practice and

research. Academy of Management Review, 7, 136-142.

Haccoun, D.M., Haccoun, R.R., & Sallay, G. (1978). Sex differences in the appropriateness

of supervisory styles: A non-management view. Journal of Applied Psychology,

63, 124-127.

Israeli, D.N., & Israeli, D. (1985). Sex effects in evaluating leaders: A replication study.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 540-546.

Jago, A.G., & Vroom, V.H. (1982). Sex differences in the incidence and evaluation of

participative leader behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 776-783.

Lammers, H.B., Leibowitz, L., Seymour, G.E., & Hennessey, J.E. (1983). Humor and

cognitive responses to advertising stimuli: A trace consolidation approach. Journal of

Business Research, 11, 173-185.

Lippitt, G.L. (1982). Humor: A laugh a day keeps the incongruities at bay. Training and

Development Journal, 36(11). 98-100.

Malone, P.B. (1980). Humor; A double-edged tool for today's managers? Academy of Management

Review, 5, 357-360.

Rosen, B.,& Jerdee, T.H. (1973). The influence of sex-role stereotypes on evaluations of

male and female supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 44-48.

Stitt, C., Schmidt, S., Price, K., & Kipnis, D. (1983). Sex of leader, leader behavior and

subordinate satisfaction. Sex Roles, 9, 31-42.

Stocking, S.H., & Zillmann, D. (1976). Effects of humorous disparagement of self, friend,

and enemy. Psychological Reports, 39, 455-461.

Tamborini, R., & Zillmann, D. (1981). College students' perception of lecturers using

humor. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 52, 427-432.

Trempe, J., Rigny, A., & Haccoun, R.R. (1985). Subordinate satisfaction with male and

female managers: Role of perceived supervisory influence. Journal of Applied Psychology,

70, 44-47.

Wilson, D.W., & Molleston, J.L. (1981). Effects of sex and type of humor on humor

appreciation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 90-96.

Zillmann, D., & Stocking, S.H. (1976). Putdown humor. Journal of Communication, 26,

154-163.