“Ambulance Thieves,Clowns,and Naked Grandfathers”

Abstract

Using qualitative methods, this study explores humor as an interactional, sensemaking practice and examines how public safety employees (PSEs) and their family members navigate the relationship between work and home. Results from 95 interviews and eight focus groups indicate that both PSEs and their families use humor in productive and unproductive ways and introduce a new way, via Humorous Bilateral Emotional Labor, to understand how humor is used. In addition, a new concept of sensetaking is introduced.

Keywords

work-life humor stories organization communication

This job can be so stressful that if we did not laugh every now and then, we would cry. No one wants to bring that kind of emotion home to his or her families.

—Christopher, Police Officer

Christopher describes how humor can be a communication tool that aids in navigating the relationship between work and family life. Scholars increasingly recognize the “significance, complexity and ambiguity of joking dynamics” (Collinson, 2002, p. 269) in organizational and personal settings. Recent studies have revealed that workplaces are wrought with emotion, humor, and laughter (Lynch, 2009), especially in occupations characterized by high stress or dangerous conditions such as police and fire (Bochantin, 2010, 2016; Shuler & Sypher, 2000; Tracy, Myers, & Scott, 2006). Missing from current literature is explanation of how those in public safety (PS) occupations (i.e., police and firefighting) make sense of the relationship between their work and home lives. One way to better understand this relationship is to examine how humor functions as a sensemaking tool for employees who regularly deal with stressful and emotional circumstances. It is also unclear whether, and how, humor functions for family members of those employed in PS. That is, does humor help public safety employees (PSEs) convey aspects of their jobs to family members? If so, how do family members interpret humor? This study explores humor as an interactional, sensemaking practice in which PSEs and their families frame and enact their situations through the jokes and stories they share, select a preferred interpretation, and then affirm and retain the information in memorable ways to navigate the stressful nature of the PS job.

Sensemaking

Police officers and firefighters represent a group of people who die in the line of duty more often than those in any other occupation (Kirschman, 2006, 2011), with about 300 lives lost each year (National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 2016; Fahy, LeBlanc, and Molis, 2015). Although PSE lives are characterized by stress, emotion, ambiguity, and danger, they also frequently include humorous messages (Scott & Myers, 2005; Tracy et al., 2006). We can explain this seeming inconsistency using Weick’s (1995) theory of sensemaking. When people encounter unexpected or surprising situations (such as the experiences of PSEs on the job), the general scripts that guide behavior can fail, leading individuals to develop explanations about the experience (Louis, 1980). The attribution of meaning to that shock or surprise is known as sensemaking, and it is constructed through interdependent relationships and constituted in interaction. The goal of sensemaking is to create a shared, intersubjective account of the event.

Two constructs that are closely related to sensemaking are sensegiving and sensebreaking (among others). First, sensegiving is “the process of attempting to influence the sensemaking and meaning construction of others toward a preferred redefinition of organizational reality” (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991, p. 442). Second, sensebreaking is “the destruction or breaking down of meaning” (Pratt, 2000, p. 464). Although less researched, sensebreaking is relevant in that it can motivate people to reconsider and question their underlying assumptions, and to reexamine their course of action (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). Sensebreaking and sensegiving have been explored primarily in organizational settings (Pratt, 2000). We extend and deepen our understanding of these concepts by examining them in the family domain to uncover how family members make sense of the humorous communication messages of their PSE loved one.

Emotional Labor and Sensemaking

An increasing number of scholars realize the importance of studying emotion in the PS profession especially as it relates to the process of sensemaking (Bochantin, 2016; Scott & Myers, 2005; Tracy & Scott, 2006). Those employed in the PS profession face the daunting task of negotiating the communication of calming and controlled emotions in highly volatile and dangerous conditions. They must manage not only their own emotions but also the emotions of the public and those they are dealing with, which can be a source of stress (Tracy & Tracy, 1998). Because a PSE’s work is characterized by dangerous and emotionally demanding situations, the use and management of emotion is an important area of inquiry. When emotions become commodified, it is known as “emotional labor”—defined as “the act of displaying the appropriate emotion” for your audience (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999, p. 90). Given that PSEs routinely engage in emotional labor while on the job (Bochantin, 2016), it is possible that this could affect their home lives if processes of emotional labor are used in the family setting as well.

Humor and Sensemaking at Work

Workplace humor has long been acknowledged as an important form of behavior (Ackroyd & Thompson, 1999; Collinson, 1988; Lynch, 2009) and can also be used as a way to make sense of stressful situations (Bochantin, 2010; Tracy & Scott, 2006). Lynch (2002) suggested an organizational communication perspective on humor that bridges the gap between two dominant foci—motivation and function. Motivation for humor can be derived from superiority (as a way of affirming one’s superiority by laughing at others), relief (way to diffuse stressful situations), and incongruity (a psychological desire for consistency between cognitive frameworks and the outside environment; Lynch, 2002). Humor can function to discuss difficult or taboo topics in strategically ambiguous ways (Rodrigues & Collinson, 1995; Tracy et al., 2006), entertain or create friendships (Civikly, 1986), and influence job satisfaction and productivity (Roy, 1959).

This study incorporates a sensemaking-based perspective to the study of work–family (Golden, Kirby, & Jorgenson, 2006) to explore humor as a communicative, sensemaking practice in which PSEs and their family members frame and enact their situation to alleviate stress and cope with emotion that is generated from the inherent danger of the PS job. Thus, the following research questions were posed:

Research Question 1: How do PSEs use humorous communication to convey aspects of their jobs to family members?

Research Question 2: How do family members receive the humorous communication of their PSE loved ones and make sense of the information with which they are provided?

Method

Participants

Using purposive and snowball sampling (Frey, Botan, & Kreps, 2000), I conducted 36 interviews with PSEs (18 police officers and 18 firefighters), eight focus groups with family members (n = 48) and 11 individual interviews with a child and/or spouse. The sample was restricted to current PSEs, above the age of 18, who had a spouse, child, or both.

The sample of PSEs connected me with family members. A total of 59 family members participated including 27 spouses, two ex-spouses, and 32 children. Twenty children were below the age of 18. All participants were assured confidentiality and signed consent forms.

Data Collection Procedures

I conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews to give participants the best opportunity to detail their experiences (Lindlof & Taylor, 2011). Interviews ranged from 40 to 90 min. Key questions included the following: How does your personal life interact with your work-life and vice versa? What aspects of your job do you talk about at home? What communicative strategies do you use when talking to your family?

Depending on comfort levels, family members participated in either a focus group or interview. Focus groups usually consist of 5 to 10 people who, with a moderator, discuss a series of topics or questions that are more focused than casual group interaction (Morgan, 1988). As mentioned, there were a total of eight focus groups in this study, and these groups contained five to seven people, including a mixture of spouses and children. They lasted between 1.5 and 3 hr. Key questions included the following: How do you feel about what your parent/spouse/family member does for a living? How do you feel when your PS loved one talks about their workday? Can you think of better ways of communicating about their job? In addition, in both settings, I used the Critical Incident Technique to prompt participants to narrate key turning points or defining moments, settings, and characters involved (Flanagan, 1954). I asked participants questions that start with the statement, “Tell me a story about . . .” For example, “Tell me a story about a time when your work interfered with your family life. Who was involved? What happened?” All participants consented to being audiotaped.

Data Analysis

I used a combination of categorical content analysis and thematic analysis to uncover how humorous communication is used by PSEs and their families. I began by breaking the text into small units of content and categorized them in terms of both extant and emergent conceptual themes. This process is similar to the open coding process of grounded theory (Charmaz, 2000). Some initial content categories were humor, emotional labor, risk management, family fears, and misperceptions. I used ATLAS.ti qualitative software to help organize the data. After I isolated the stories, I defined the content categories. I read the subtext as openly as possible and defined the major content categories that emerged using a three-step process concurrent with the categorical content analysis process: sort the material into categories, isolate reoccurring key words or phrases, and note frequency and intensity. Using these subtexts, I created a categorization framework (see the appendix), which revealed a series of narratives or stories.

To analyze these stories, I then used thematic analysis (Boyatzis, 1998). First, because I used the Critical Incident Technique to prompt participants to narrate key turning points or defining moments, settings, and characters involved (Flanagan, 1954), I had a list of categories to work from such as humor, emotional labor, risk, and so on, and began to focus on broader patterns in the data, combining coded data with proposed themes such as productive uses of emotion or humor as an emotion management strategy. At this point, visual models can be helpful (see Coffey & Amanda, 1996), so the categorization framework that I developed was useful in organizing my thoughts. I then reviewed and refined the themes looking for any new patterns in the data. At this point, I considered how and why the themes were “fitting together” (Guest, Namey, & Mitchell, 2012). The last stage of thematic analysis involved the naming and defining of each theme. At this phase, identification related to how each specific theme affects the entire picture of the data. Subthemes also emerged. Analysis at this stage is characterized by identifying which aspects of data are being captured, what is interesting about the themes, and why themes are interesting (Guest et al., 2012). A story of each theme and its significance were revealed (see below in the “Results” section), and the final report was generated (Braun, 2006). I used member checks to determine the trustworthiness of my findings. I conducted four additional focus groups with participants to assess whether initial findings resonated with them.

Results

PSEs’ Productive Uses of Humor With Family

Life lessons

Many PSEs used humor and funny stories to teach their children valuable lessons. Marlin and Janice, both police officers and married to one another, have three children. Marlin is always worried about their teenage daughter falling in with the wrong crowd, so he cautions her against dangerous situations:

I tell my daughter all the stupid, embarrassing things people do while under the influence to deter her from wanting to use drugs or alcohol. I tell her about the drunk, naked grandfathers or the woman who was high on marijuana when she stole an ambulance.

The impact of these stories is not lost on their daughter, Selena:

My mom had to arrest a kid from my school when she found him lying naked on his front lawn, drunk from a party the night before. Everyone in the neighborhood saw him being put in the squad car, naked! How embarrassing.

Family Member’s Productive Uses of Humor

Several family members said they use humor when talking with other people about the PS job. Michelle, the wife of a police officer, affectionately refers to her husband’s job as a “Jack of all trades” to the community. As she explains, “He’s not just a police officer. He is a priest, a marriage counselor, a judge, an exterminator, a house cleaner. He wears many hats.” Wendy, the wife of police officer Sophie, says she jokes with her friends about the time when an elderly woman called 911 to report a young woman going around town “dressed up in a policeman costume” writing tickets. Apparently, this woman thought Sophie was pretending to be a police officer. Wendy constantly jokes to Sophie about that incident, especially when friends are over. For Wendy and Sophie, as well as several other participants, humor lightened the mood and allowed family members to feel included in the PSE’s daily life. Although this sharing of humorous stories was often productive for both PSEs and family members, there were several instances of humor that were unproductive.

PSEs’ Unproductive Uses of Humor With Family

Desensitizing tool

Humor served as a desensitizing tool that helped PSEs cope with tragic situations, but it was (at times) inappropriate. Sonny, a police officer, explains that his reliance on humor at work often spills over into his personal life:

My aunt died in a pretty bad hit and run. I’m so used to seeing these things at work and cracking jokes with other officers but I accidentally made a comment to my brother . . . that although the accident mangled her body, at least her glass eye was still intact to be able to still creep us out.

His brother was deeply offended. Sonny explained that he has difficulty “turning off” how he handles situations at work when something tragic happens in his own life. Tony, a fire chief, relayed a story about when he was called into work while watching the Super Bowl. A teenaged boy had committed suicide by jumping in front of a train. He joked to his family that he would “kill this kid a second time” if he missed any great plays. Tony’s wife, Kara, and their 20-year-old daughter, Gabbi, both addressed this example during their focus group. Gabbi was understanding, yet affronted: “I get that laughing and joking with his friends at work helps them cope but I don’t understand why he thinks it’s okay to use humor at home. I don’t find death, destruction and dismemberment particularly funny.” Emily, the 21-year-old daughter of a police officer agreed, “When my friend died in a car accident during final examination week, my dad joked that at least she didn’t have to worry about passing her exams! I didn’t speak to him for months.” For many family members, a PSEs’ use of humor at home was disturbing or, as 18-year-old Calvin put it, “unnecessarily cruel in the time of tragedy.”

Humor message NOT received

Family members discussed ways humor was ineffective at diffusing beliefs about the danger of the PSE’s career. Several PSEs said they share humorous happenings at work as a means of reducing stress about the job. Although family members claimed they enjoyed the funny stories, there was a disconnect between the perceptions of PSEs and their family members. Many family members said that although they did ask to hear the funny stories, it did not always help them deal with the dangerous nature of the job. Mary, the 13-year-old daughter of a police officer explains, “My dad might think those funny stories help but I know he is hiding the bad stuff from me. I’m scared everyday about what he does.”

Eight-year-old Alicia is afraid her father will end up getting hurt or killed on duty. Her mother, Carrie, asked Alicia why she felt that way and pointed to the humorous stories as examples that her dad is not in danger all of the time. Alicia said she knows her father’s job is not all “fun and games.” Alicia’s father, Robert, however, believed humor helps his family cope: “I know my family feels better about what I do when I tell them the funny stuff. They don’t worry about me.” However, it is clear from his daughter’s account that there is a disconnect between what Robert thinks his family’s impression is of his job versus how they actually feel. There were similar occurrences across the focus groups. Ten-year-old Lilly said that when she thinks about her father at work, she sees “gunfights” and “bad guys” trying to hurt her father. Lilly, like many children and spouses, did not find humor to be helpful in managing those worries. In fact, it often inflated their levels of fear, stress, or anxiety.

Humor as Emotion Management Strategy

Results indicate that PSEs must manage their own emotions as well as the emotions of their family members, whether through humor or by engaging in emotional labor (or more frequently, a combination of both). I refer to this process as Humorous Bilateral Emotional Labor (HBEL), which asserts that PSEs engage in humorous communication with their families as a form of emotional labor to hide or make light of their work experiences (e.g., the sharing of funny stories instead of serious or scary occurrences at work). This process is bilateral because it affects both PSEs and families. HBEL is different from traditional emotional labor in that PSEs use it as a way to manage parallels between their work and family lives and to manage their families’ impression of them.

Managing personal parallels

PSEs are seldom personally affected by what they see on the job. However, when an incident does resonate, PSEs try to keep it from hindering their role performance both at work and at home, which is at the heart of HBEL. Walter, a firefighter, explained the challenge of coping with his emotions during a difficult situation while trying to keep the victim calm:

A brick wall had fallen on two boys—ages 6 and 9. I held the 6-year old boy in my arms while the rescue crew moved bricks off of him. I remember him asking if he was going to be okay. I told him that he was going to be just fine, knowing that he was probably not going to make it. It took every ounce of me to not start sobbing right there. Just after, the little boy nodded his head and passed away. My boy was also 6 at the time. Later, I went back to the department and cried in the locker room for an hour.

Engaging in emotion management is necessary on the scene. This management, however, does not remain on the scene and is also performed at home. When Walter returned home the next morning, still covered in soot and residue from the falling brick wall, his wife commented on his clothing. Because he could not imagine sharing what had happened at work, Walter used emotional labor through humorous communication (or HBEL), laughing it off and saying that he and the other firefighters were doing some “spring cleaning” at the firehouse.

Impression management

In addition to managing parallels to their own lives, PSEs use emotion management strategies to manage the impressions of their job for family members. As Edward explained,

I don’t want my kids thinking I’m in danger every time I go to work because I’m not. They get that from TV. So, I share funny stories as I roll my eyes about stupid, bad guys doing funny things and that gets them laughing.

For Edward, like others, the use of humorous, emotion-focused communication is an attempt to create a perception of what the job is like as they interact with family members. Similarly, when Jason, a police officer, is asked by his family about his day, he responds, “You know, just another day at the circus.” However, PSEs are not alone in this effort, as family members also participate in humorous emotional labor for the benefit of their PSE loved one. Both spouses and children perform emotion management but do so in very different ways. Furthermore, PSEs are typically in the dark about the emotional labor performed by family members.

Many of the children interviewed were worried about what their parent does for a living but would never tell their parent. Fifteen-year-old Claudia and 18-year-old Terry have a mother who is a police officer and expressed their concern for what she does for a living. Terry said his fears about her job were worse when he was younger. He recalls being tucked in before she left for her midnight shift and “putting on a brave face” and using humor to tell her to “go kick some bad-guy butt.” He would joke but as soon as she left, he cried himself to sleep, wracked with fear. When asked why he did not tell his mother his concerns, he said that if she knew how worried he was, she would not have been able to concentrate on her job and could open herself up to danger and risk. Several other children echoed this notion. Eighteen-year-old William says,

What good is it for my dad to worry that I’m worrying about him? If he knew that, he wouldn’t be in the right mindset and I need him to come home after his shift. I’m all smiles when he leaves for work and I always ask him to share funny stories so we can laugh.

Like children, spouses also engaged in performances of emotional labor to keep their PSE loved one happy and the mood light. Renee, the wife of a police officer, recalled the time when her husband was hospitalized in critical condition after being shot while on duty:

I couldn’t run away from him or ever tell him how scared I was that this could happen to him again and force him to quit. Policing is his life and I couldn’t take that away from him so I pretended I was okay. I even cracked jokes telling him that at least his video game hand wasn’t affected by the shooting. We both laughed.

Similarly, Lynette, wife of a firefighter, shared a story about the time her husband suffered major smoke inhalation damage after responding to a severe fire. He required surgery and was unable to speak for 3 months as he healed. She adds,

I was beyond worried about him but didn’t want him to know. So, while he was recovering and kind of down on himself I joked that at least my parents will understand why he can’t speak to them during their visit later that month.

Many spouses expressed a desire for maintaining the idea that they accept what their husbands do for a living. One way they show their support of the job is through the retelling of humorous stories.

Discussion

This study used a sensemaking approach to examine humor among PSEs and their family members. Humor, both as a storytelling device and communication construct, plays a crucial role in navigating this relationship by reducing fears and engaging in emotion management strategies.

Theoretical Implications

Humor, sensemaking, and emotion management

Understanding the sensemaking role of humor contributes to existing theory in two ways. First, the results of this study indicate that the use of humor does more than just help individuals through the stress of their day. Rather, humor, like sensemaking, is retrospective in that it occurs after the event takes place. When PSEs tell stories to their families about transporting “land whales” (i.e., overweight individuals) to the hospital, ambulance thieves, or “naked grandfathers,” they attempt to ease stressful situations. Consistent with Tracy et al.’s (2006) findings, humor aids employees and their families in maintaining a preferred identity as they make sense of the people, situations, and tasks that characterize their work. It can also ease the tension family members may experience as they worry about their loved one. That said, it is useful to consider humor as a metanarrative sensemaking strategy. Results revealed that humorous communication provides a linking pin between individual stories and the ability to sensemake (or take). Through the use of comic frames (i.e., humor), PSEs attempted to ease the worries of their loved ones (Burke, 1937).

Second, humor as a sensemaking tool has the ability to influence others. Results revealed that HBEL occurs to help manage PSEs emotions and the emotions of their family. This complements past research on emotion management strategies such as Tracy and Tracy’s (1998) notion of double-faced emotion management or Scott and Myers’s (2005) notion of emotional buffering. Similar to these constructs, PSEs attempt to control not only their own emotions but also the emotions of others. The current study departs from previous research by revealing how PSEs use emotional labor specifically for the purpose of managing relationships with their family members. Most interestingly, results indicate that HBEL does not always work. There were instances where PSEs attempted to use humor as a way to hide their experiences and relieve family member stress, but it actually increased family member stress in some cases (Super Bowl example). The fact that HBEL increased stress could be connected to a construct I refer to as sensetaking.

Sensetaking

Although humor was productive in helping PSEs make sense of their work roles and deal with stress, there was a disconnect between how PSEs use humor with family and how family receives the humorous exchanges. Although PSEs thought their use of humor was helpful to family members, discussions with children and spouses revealed a different story. As a result, HBEL was counterproductive and actually removed the ability to make sense of a situation. Not knowing the truth about daily work results in more worry about the PSE because they feel like they are kept in the dark. This is sensetaking.

One crucial principle of the sensemaking concept is that it is ongoing and social (Weick, 1995). Meaning is created and is intersubjective, or agreed upon between people. This also occurs with sensetaking. PSEs in the present study intentionally did not provide information to their family members and instead communicated in a humorous manner. Family members observed this behavior at the interpersonal or dyadic level and then created their own interpretations of what is happening to their PSE loved one while at work. Due to the lack of disclosure by PSEs, they are removing the ability for their family members to make sense of their job, thus the notion of sensetaking in that families must attribute their own meaning to their loved one’s job. Moreover, the lack of any “real” detail provided about the PSEs job could give the impression that the real details might be negative. Hence, it could be that family members fill in the blanks with fear-based impressions about the job. As a result, family members and PSEs result in different understandings of what the PSEs’ job is like based on the use of humorous stories.

This notion of sensetaking contributes to and extends the current body of literature on sensemaking. First, most sensemaking constructs (e.g., sense-exchanging) are related to organizational life and how employees use sensemaking at work. Sensetaking, the construct introduced here, does not necessarily have to be applied at work. While sensetaking relies on the notion that meaning is not always shared, it departs from other research in that it happens in the absence of information.

Second, most existing sensemaking constructs typically result in a cohesive understanding of a situation (Maitlis, 2005). However, sensetaking does not rely on rationality because the opportunity for making sense is removed for family members. In other words, both PSEs and family members already have their own understandings of the job, either based on doing the job itself or, for family members, perhaps based on media portrayals. Humorous stories complement those logics. Interestingly, although PSEs attempt to shape family members’ understandings of their jobs, their humorous stories or use of HBEL sometimes fail to bring those understandings or logics into alignment.

Finally, sensetaking is action oriented and emotion based which extends work by Dougherty and Drumheller (2006) and Scarduzio and Tracy (2015) on emotional buffering and sensemaking. The present study complements this research by considering how emotion and sensemaking moves from work-life into family life. When family members are unable to collectively engage in productive sensemaking with the PSE, they are left to make sense of the situation on their own. The present results indicate that a mental model seems to develop through reciprocal relationships between sensemaking, humor, and emotion, with interpretations of a situation evoking emotions (specifically the emotion of fear) that shape subsequent interpretations and actions via humorous communication. Negative emotions that family members feel and express as a result of their loved one’s jobs likely lead to mental models that are not ultimately shared by the family.

Practical Implications

Past research suggests that humor is beneficial in the short term and provides instant gratification (Pogrebin & Poole, 1991). This study revealed that humor has a more lasting effect on PSEs and family members, sometimes affecting their emotional psyche. Because humor can make messages more memorable, it has the potential to influence future behaviors by those who use humor (Schmidt, 1994; Tracy et al., 2006). In this way, humor allows for sensemaking to occur by providing a memorable vehicle through which PSEs learn, select, confirm, challenge, and transform identity (Tracy et al., 2006). Perhaps training workshops within police and fire academies could be developed that have both PSEs and their family members participate in “mock” role-play situations that typical PSE families encounter as a way to introduce both the employee and family member to possible emotional responses to these situations. Providing an opportunity for PSEs and family members to learn about expectations early on may help curb future negative repercussions. Furthermore, PSEs and family members participating in this type of workshop together may create stronger bonds and healthier relationships by being able to communicate openly and learning strategies for humorous communication. This learning should not stop after the academy. Follow-up training workshops should be held throughout the career.

Limitations, Future Research, and Conclusions

The participants for this study were located in the Midwestern states. PSEs and their families in other parts of the county may face unique challenges. A comparative analysis from different regions may illuminate unique regional challenges. Furthermore, I only sampled two high-risk employment professions. Those in similar professions should also be engaged.

Footnotes

Appendix

Categorization Framework.

Category	Sample exemplar
Humor
Unproductive uses with family: desensitizing tool	Yeah, when my good friend died in a tragic car accident a few years ago during final examination week, my dad joked that at least she didn’t have to worry about passing her exams! I was literally shocked by his comment and didn’t speak to him for months. Upon reflection, I know that he was just trying to make light of the situation and make me feel better about the loss of a friend but honestly, it’s just inappropriate. (Emily, daughter of a police officer)
Unproductive uses with family: humor message NOT received	I think my kids like hearing about the funny stuff at work. They always laugh and breathe a sigh of relief when I tell them that stuff because I think that they think that my day wasn’t too stressful or too dangerous. And usually it’s not a high stress day so what I tell them is often the truth. (Amanda, police officer) Yes, I like the funny stories my dad tells me but I know that more goes on than he is telling me. He might think those stories help but I know he is hiding the bad stuff from me. I’m still scared everyday about what he does for a living. (Mary, daughter of a police officer)
Humor
Productive uses with family: stress diffuser	Being fire fighters, we work a 24-hour shift so usually, after a really bad call, we have hours and hours to help diffuse the emotions of the situation so we can go home in a better place. Even just joking about something funny we saw in the house of the victim or laughing about a victim who died while having sex, it helps us release pent up emotion through our laughter. We go home much better for it. (Anthony, firefighter) I think my kids like hearing about the funny stuff I see at work. They always laugh and breathe a sigh of relief when I tell them that stuff because then I think that they think that my day wasn’t too stressful or too dangerous. (Amanda, police officer)
Productive uses with family: life lessons	I tell my daughter all the stupid, embarrassing things people do while under the influence to deter her from wanting to partake in drugs or alcohol. I tell her about the drunk, naked grandfathers or the woman who was high on marijuana when she stole an ambulance. (Marlin, police officer)
Humor
Types
Morbid	We were on a call where a new wife had just chopped off her husband’s penis in the limo after the ceremony. There was this new kid on the force who was thinking about proposing to his girlfriend, which I of course thought was a terrible idea so I said to him, “If this Lorena Bobbitt situation doesn’t deter you from popping the question, I don’t know what will . . . marriage will literally, cut you off at the dick!” (Douglas, police officer)
Other-centered/distancing	This guy calls 911 to report that his brother had stolen something from him. The funny part was that he called the police to say his brother had stolen his marijuana pipe from him and that we needed to come and arrest his brother. He was probably high himself while making that phone call but nonetheless provided weeks of joking among the police officers that were on that night. Really??! What kind of idiot does that?! (Sophie, police officer)
Innocuous	This kid had just burglarized an arcade and started running. I yelled at him: “If you run, you’ll only go to jail tired.” (Carol, police officer)
Emotion management—family
Emotional labor	It’s not my job to be a counselor or a therapist to my husband after a bad day but yet I do. I put on my concerned/happy face and let him vent. But how I really feel? Let his co-workers or the counselors at work help him cope. I really can’t relate to what he is going through. (Lori, wife of firefighter) I sometimes feel like I have to fake being happy and okay and emotionally stable when my husband comes home from work rather than revealing my true self. So, I put on the happy face. (Kara, wife of a firefighter)
Emotion management—PSEs
Humorous bilateral emotional labor	In order to reassure my kids that I am fine on a day where I am actually not fine, I usually have to tell a funny story. But what’s interesting is that the telling of a funny story actually makes me feel better to. (Steven, firefighter)
Emotion management—PSEs
Managing parallels	Before I became a fire fighter, I was first a paramedic and we got a call about a kid who had gotten hit by a train. I was first on the scene and when I approached the boy, I stopped dead in my tracks because all I saw was my son. This kid that got hit looked identical to my own son with his bright red hair and freckles. For about 10 seconds time stood still and I literally thought it was my kid. Then I realized it wasn’t but I couldn’t shake that feeling. His parents arrived to the scene shortly after and I had to maintain my calm in order to keep them as calm as could be. But that was hard. It hit home for me too much. (Tom, firefighter) I had a call involving a suicide of a teenaged transgender boy. He was being bullied so severely at school that he resorted to suicide. I also have a teenaged son who is starting to transition and I am scared everyday about what might happen if he starts getting bullied. I can’t handle that. (Douglas, police officer)
Emotion management—PSEs and family
Impression management	I don’t want my kids thinking I am in danger everytime I go to work. So, I share funny stories about stupid bad guys doing funny things and that gets them laughing. They then can go on thinking my job is all fun and games. That is a perception I can live with. (Edward, police officer) Even though I am so scared about what my mom does, I always tell her to “go kick some bad-guy butt” right before she leaves for work. I feel better that she feels better even if it’s not how I actually feel. (Claudia, daughter of police officer)

Note. PSEs = public safety employees.

Author’s Note

This manuscript is part of a larger dissertation project. In addition, a version of this manuscript was presented at the 2013 National Communication Association.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Jaime E. Bochantin is an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and received her PhD from Texas A&M University in 2010. Her research examines the social issues, member behavior and cultural landscape of organizations to provide managers and HR practitioners with strategies for the implementation of policies, practices and procedures to better the organization and relationships between employees and managers. Current research examines work-life/family, stress and well-being, organizational conflict and negotiation, leadership communication, and workplace mistreatment including incivility and bullying.

References

Ackroyd

Thompson

(1999). Organizational Misbehaviour. SAGE: SAGE Publications.

Ashforth

B. E.

Kreiner

G. E.

(1999). “How can you do it?”: Dirty work and the challenge of constructing a positive identity. Academy of management Review, 24(3), 413-434.

Bochantin

(2010). Sensemaking in a high-risk lifestyle: The relationship between work and family for public safety families (Doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University, College Station.

Bochantin

(2016). “Tornadoes,” “roller coasters,” and “escaping Alcatraz”: Examining metaphors used by public safety employees and their families. Communication Monographs, 83, 214-238. doi:10.1080/03637751.2015.1073853

Boyatzis

(1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Braun

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 96, 77-101.

Burke

(1937). Attitudes toward history. Los Altos, CA: Hermes Publications.

Charmaz

(2000). Constructivist and objectivist grounded theory. Handbook of qualitative research, 2, 509-535.

Civikly

J. M.

(1986). Humor and the enjoyment of college teaching. New directions for teaching and learning, 1986(26), 61-70.

10.

Coffey

Amanda

(1996). Making sense of qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

11.

Collinson

(2002). Managing humor. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 269-288. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00292

12.

Collinson

D. L.

(1988). ‘Engineering humour’: masculinity, joking and conflict in shop-floor relations. Organization Studies, 9, 181-199.

13.

Dougherty

D. S.

Drumheller

(2006). Sensemaking and emotions in organizations: Accounting for emotions in a rationalized context. Communication Studies, 57, 215-238. doi:10.1080/10510970600667030

14.

Fahy

LeBlanc

Molis

(2015). Firefigther fataliaties in the United States. Retrieved from National Fire Protection Association: http://www.nfpa.org/news-and-research/fire-statistics-and-reports/fire-statistics/the-fire-service/fatalities-and-injuries/firefighter-fatalities-in-the-united-states

15.

Flanagan

(1954). The critical incident technique. The Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327-358. doi:10.1037/h0061470

16.

Frey

Botan

Kreps

(2000). Investigating communication. New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.

17.

Gioia

D. A.

Chittipeddi

(1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 433-448. doi:10.1002/smj.4250120604

18.

Golden

Kirby

Jorgenson

(2006). Work-life research from both sides now: An integrative perspective for organizational and family communication. In Beck

(Ed.), Communication yearbook 30 (pp. 143-195). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

19.

Guest

Namey

E. E.

Mitchell

M. L.

(2012). Collecting qualitative data: A field manual for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

20.

Kirschman

(2006). I love a cop, revised edition: What police families need to know. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

21.

Kirschman

(2011). I love a fire fighter: What the family needs to know. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

22.

Lindlof

Taylor

(2011). Qualitative communication research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

23.

Louis

M. R.

(1980). Surprise and sensemaking: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar thinking. Human Relations, 44, 55-76.

24.

Lynch

O. H.

(2002). Humorous communication: Finding a place for humor in communication research. Communication Theory, 12, 423-445. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2002.tb00277.x

25.

Lynch

O. H.

(2009). Kitchen antics: The importance of humor and maintaining professionalism at work. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 37, 444-464. doi:10.1080/00909880903233143

26.

Maitlis

(2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 21-49.

27.

Maitlis

Christianson

(2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. The Academy of Management Annals, 8, 57-125. doi:10.1080/19416520.2014.873177

28.

Morgan

D. L.

(1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

29.

National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (2016). 2016 preliminary end-of-year law enforcement officer fatatlities report. Retrieved from the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund: http://www.nleomf.org/facts/research-bulletins/

30.

Pogrebin

M. R.

Poole

E. D.

(1991). Police and tragic events: The management of emotions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 19(4), 395-403.

31.

Pratt

M. G.

(2000). The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among Amway distributors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 456-493. doi:10.2307/2667106

32.

Rodrigues

Collinson

(1995). “Having fun”? Humor as resistance in Brazil. Organization Studies, 16, 739-768. doi:10.1177/017084069501600501

33.

Roy

(1959). “Banana time”: Job satisfaction and informal interaction. Human Organization, 18, 158-168. doi:10.17730/humo.18.4.07j88hr1p4074605

34.

Scarduzio

J. A.

Tracy

S. J.

(2015). Sensegiving and sensebreaking via emotion cycles and emotional buffering: How collective communication creates order in the courtroom. Management Communication Quarterly, 29, 331-357. doi:10.1177/0893318915581647

35.

Schmidt

S. R.

(1994). Effects of humor on sentence memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(4), 953.

36.

Scott

Myers

(2005). The socialization of emotion: Learning emotion management at the fire station. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33, 67-92. doi:10.1080/0090988042000318521

37.

Shuler

Sypher

(2000). Seeking emotional labor: When managing the heart enhances the work experience. Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 50-89. doi:10.1177/0893318900141003

38.

Tracy

S. J.

Scott

(2006). Sexuality, masculinity, and taint management among firefighters and correctional officers getting down and dirty with “America’s heroes” and the “scum of law enforcement”. Management Communication Quarterly, 20(1), 6-38.

39.

Tracy

S. J.

Myers

Scott

(2006). Cracking jokes and crafting selves: Sensemaking and identity management among human service workers. Communication Monographs, 73, 283-308. doi:10.1080/03637750600889500

40.

Tracy

S. J.

Tracy

(1998). Emotion labor at 911: A case study and theoretical critique. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 26, 390-411. doi:10.1080/00909889809365516

41.

Weick

K. E.

(1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.