Kevin Walsh May 12, 2011

1. Humor in Diverse Teams: Understanding the role of time, degreeof diversity and psychological safety Kevin Walsh May 12, 2011

2. Outline • Background • Purpose • Theory • Model • Propositions • Implications

3. Background • Humor Research • Scholars taking a serious look humor (e.g. Cooper, 2008; Duncan, 1982; Duncan et al., 1990; Hay, 2000; Malone, 1980; Romero & Cruthirds, 2006; Romero & Pescosolido, 2008; Terrion & Ashforth, 2002). • Use of Humor in Organizations has been linked to performance (Avolio et al, 1999; Romero & Pescosolido, 2008). • Existing Models limited to Gender and Ethnicity (cf Romero & Cruthirds, 2006) • Lack of understanding of the process • Leverage Diversity and Organizational Behavior Literature • Psychological safety is "a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking." (Edmondson, 1999)

4. Incorporate to better understand their role in Humor in Diverse teams Purpose • Time • Degree of Diversity • Psychological Safety

5. Literature Review • Humor • Defined - Amusement due to some form of incongruity (Duncan, 1982; Malone, 1980; Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). • Humor is a "double edged tool" (Malone, 1980). • Effective/Successful Humor “strikes the right balance between novelty and acceptable content” (Romero & Pescosolido, 2008) • Relational demography: “The same individual demographic characteristic may yield different work-related attitudes in different social contexts. In other words, relational demography proposes that it is the relative, not the absolute, demographic characteristics that are predictive of individuals' work related attitudes.” (Riordan & McFarlane Shore, 1997) • Impact of Diversity • The modern workplace is more diverse(Jackson et al., 2003; Ragins & Gonzalez, 2003; van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; Williams & O'Reilly, 1998) • There is much to learn about diversity (Ragins & Gonzalez, 2003; van Knippenberg & Schippers 2007) • Men and women use humor for different purposes and respond differently to types of humor. • Women have when using humor is building solidarity (Hay, 2000; Romero & Cruthirds, 2006) • Men frequently leverage humor as a means to impress others and accentuate similarities (Hay, 2000; Romero & Cruthirds, 2006)

6. Literature Review • Levels of Diversity (Harrison, et al, 1998) • The Impact of Time • Time allows group members to share more experiences and interpersonal information (Harrison, et al, 1998; Watson et al. 1998) • Short term groups tend to be less likely to use negatively toned humor (Cooper, 2008). • Faultlines • Groups may form subgroups based on shared characteristics (Lau & Murninghan, 1998) • Combination of multiple characteristics  a potentially deeper divide in a team • Furthermore, faultlines play a role in group development. • Relational demography • Individuals compare their characteristics with others (Tsui, Egan, & O'Reilly, 1992;Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989). • Distinct effects come from different types of diversity (Pelled et al. 1999) • Degree of Diversity – Incorporating DoL Demographics

7. Literature Review & Propositions • Psychological Safety • Psychological safety is "a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking." (Edmondson, 1999) • Traits include: trust, respect and caring about each other as people (Edmondson, 1999) • A climate where people are comfortable being themselves (Edmondson, 1999) • Lack of psychological safety , where group members believe that they are at risk if they speak openly (Edmondson 1999, 2002) • Outcomes • Humor plays a role in the development of group identity and cohesion as well as power relations and communication (Cooper, 2008; Duncan, 1982; Duncan et al., 1990; Terrion & Ashforth, 2002). • Group productivity and performance can also be positively impacted by effective use of humor - or negatively impacted by ineffective use (Avolio et al., 1999; Romero & Pescosolido, 2008). • Negative humor can give insight in to the group's cohesiveness (Scogin & Pollio, 1980).

8. Literature Review & Propositions • Recovering from Gaffes • Not everyone finds the same things amusing (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006) • When subgroups become polarized a short term fix, external forces can be used to turn the subgroup members' focus back to the large group (Lau & Murnighan, 1998). • Focusing on fragmented or weaker faultlines may help members see additional common ground (Lau & Murnighan, 1998). • Leverage mitigating tactics (e.g. exaggeration, fantasy) (Lampert & Ervin-Tripp, 2006)

9. Model of Time, Degree of Diversity and Psychological Safety and Humor in a Diverse Team Degree of Diversity – P2 • Outcomes • Cohesiveness • Conflict • Productivity Time in Group P1 Use of Humor Evaluation of Humor P4, P5 “Gaffe Recovery” P6 Psychological Safety – P3

10. Propositions Proposition #1: Time will increase the likelihood of the use of humor in diverse groups. Proposition # 2: The greater the degree diversity, the less likely humor will be evaluated as successful. Proposition # 3: Teams that are more psychologically safe will be more likely to evaluate humor as successful. Proposition # 4: Successful use of humor will result in increased team cohesiveness and productivity. Proposition #5: Unsuccessful use of humor will result in negative outcomes including increased conflict. Proposition #6: Humor “gaffes” can more easily be overcome by a team that is “Psychologically Safe” by focusing on common experience.

11. Implications • Theory • Build on the construct of psychological safety. • Research • New avenues for research that includes a diversity lens. • Practical • Offer managers insights into how to use humor effectively in diverse teams.