Leader Humor and Employee Upward Voice: The Role of Employee Relationship Quality and Traditionality

Abstract

Despite the continuous increase in empirical research on leader humor, the important issue of how and when leader humor affects employees’ interpersonal, proactive behaviors in the form of upward voice has largely been overlooked. Drawing on relational process model of humor and data from one multiwave, multisource field study and one experimental field study, we find that the positive effects of leader humor on upward voice behavior can be accounted for by both supervisor–subordinate nonwork ties (i.e., supervisor–subordinate guanxi) and supervisor–subordinate work ties (i.e., leader–member exchange). The indirect effects of both supervisor–subordinate guanxi and leader–member exchange on the relationship between leader humor and upward voice behavior are stronger when employees score low on traditionality. These results shed light on the role of leader humor in promoting the bottom–up flow of potentially critical information in organizations through high-quality relationships with followers and provide insights into who will benefit more from humor in leadership.

Keywords

leader humor upward voice behavior supervisor–subordinate guanxi leader–member exchange traditionality

Introduction

An increasing number of practitioners and researchers have highlighted the importance of workplace enjoyment. A number of Fortune’s 500 Best Companies, such as Google, IBM, and Tencent, have emphasized and incorporated humor and enjoyment into their corporate cultures with great success (Cooper & Sosik, 2012). By using humor with their subordinates, leaders incorporate humor into the workplace in an attempt to help employees experience enjoyment at work. Leader humor is particularly salient for creating workplace enjoyment, since leaders hold power and thus set the tone for humor use in the workplace (Cooper, 2005).

Leader humor is defined as “a behavior enacted by a leader and directed toward a subordinate that is intended to be amusing to the subordinate and that the subordinate perceives as an intentional act” (Cooper et al., 2018, p. 772). A number of studies link leader humor to perceived leader effectiveness, status, creativity, and employee behavioral consequences (job performance, organizational citizenship behavior, deviant behavior, innovative behavior, and informal learning), attitudinal consequences (engagement, work satisfaction, and commitment) and relational processes (leader–member exchange [LMX]; e.g., Bitterly et al., 2017; Bitterly & Schweitzer, 2019, in press; Cooper et al., 2018; Huang et al., 2015; Hughes & Avey, 2009; Huo et al., 2012; Lang & Lee, 2010; McGraw & Warren, 2010; Pundt, 2005; Pundt & Venz, 2017; Tews et al., 2017; Vecchio et al., 2009; Yam et al., 2019; Yam et al., 2018).

Despite these promising findings (for meta-analyses, see Kong et al., 2019; Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012), the important issue of whether and how leader humor affects employees’ interpersonal, proactive behaviors in the form of upward voice has received little research attention. Addressing this issue is of theoretical importance as scholars and practitioners can better understand whether, why and when leader humor facilitates employee proactive behaviors. Practically, it is crucial to explore the effects of leader humor on proactive behaviors, considering organizational initiatives for employee proactivity (e.g., Fleetwood, 2007; Wang & Verma, 2012) and the important role of upward voice in improving organizational effectiveness, identifying issues, and promoting collective learning (for reviews, see Maynes & Podsakoff, 2014; Morrison, 2011; Mowbray et al., 2015). Therefore, it is valuable to test whether leader humor behavior affects subordinates’ upward voice and, if so, why and when such positive influences are likely to occur.

To address these issues, we adopt an interpersonal resource perspective to examine the possible positive impacts of leader humor behavior on subordinates’ upward voice. We focused on the possible positive influence of leader humor on upward voice, as several theoretical and empirical studies have conceptualized humor as an interpersonal socioemotional resource. Moreover, scholars regard humor enjoyment as an important consideration in determining humor’s impacts on relationships at work, regardless of the form, content, or individual differences in humor style (e.g., Cooper et al., 2018).

To understand this positive effect, we build on the relational process model of humor, as it is particularly relevant and useful for understanding the impersonal, proactive implication of leader humor (Cooper, 2008). One core assumption of this theory is that leader humor is framed as an intentional and social communication, enacted by a leader and directed toward a subordinate intended to be amusing to the subordinate. Followers’ interpersonal, proactive reactions are likely to be key consequences of leaders’ enjoyable interpersonal behaviors (e.g., Cooper, 2008). Thus, we argue that leader humor might exert a strong influence on followers’ bottom–up interpersonal and proactive reactions, such as upward voice, which refers to a social–interactional process between leaders and followers in which followers share constructive suggestions, ideas, and concerns with leaders (c.f. Morrison, 2011).

Based on the relational process model of humor, we posit that leader humor triggers the process of voice behavior through relational mechanisms. While acknowledging the salience and criticality of work ties, we think it is crucial to add personal ties to the leader–member relationship considering their prevalence and importance (e.g., Guan & Frenkel, 2019; Millington et al., 2006; Opper et al., 2017; Warren et al., 2004; Wei et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2015). Thus, we concentrate on both nonwork ties as well as work ties. For simplicity, the terms “personal ties” and “nonwork ties” are used interchangeably below. The former was defined as supervisor–subordinate guanxi (SSG), or the personal relationship between supervisors and subordinates originating mainly from nonwork-related social interactions both inside and outside working hours (e.g., Boyd & Taylor, 1998; Farh et al., 1998). The latter often refers to LMX, the work-related dyadic relationships between leaders and members (e.g., Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Sparrowe & Liden, 1997). Specifically, the relational process model of humor suggests relationship-building is the main function of humor; thus, we propose that leader humor behavior enhances the quality of a leader–subordinate relationship, indicated by both SSG and LMX, which facilitate the bottom–up flow of constructive suggestions, concerns, and ideas.

Moreover, literature on the relational process model of humor posits that the critical function of leader humor is to reduce the hierarchy and status salience between supervisors and subordinates (Cooper, 2008). Thus, subordinates’ value toward such salience is a relevant boundary condition of the relational process elicited by leader humor. We theorize that employees’ traditional values moderate the indirect link of work and nonwork ties between leader humor and employees’ upward voice. Specifically, we argue that followers with lower traditionality will respond more sensitively to the high-quality supervisor–subordinate dyadic interaction induced by leader humor, which is consequently linked to follower upward voice. As low-traditionality employees prefer less salient hierarchical differences, equality between leaders and followers (Cooper, 2008) and relationally oriented leadership (Cooper, 2008; Pundt & Venz, 2017; Robert et al., 2015; Tan, Wang, & Lu, 2020). Moreover, the way in which authority treats followers to some extent determine followers’ behavioral responses (e.g., Farh & Chen, 2018; Farh et al., 2007; Hui et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2014).

To test our theoretical model of why and when leader humor is beneficial for followers’ upward voice, we conducted two studies adopting different designs (one experimental and one multiwave multisource study) of full-time employees. In the first study, we examine our basic hypothesis of the indirect effect of leader humor on follower upward voice through both SSG and LMX. In the second study, we cross-validate these results and examine our full theoretical model with moderated mediation.

Theory and Hypotheses

The Relational Process Model of Humor

To understand the interpersonal, proactive implication of leader humor, we draw on the relational process model of humor (Cooper, 2008). This theory highlights the relation-building function of humor: leader humor creates a possible high-quality relationship between the sender (i.e., a leader) and the recipient (i.e., a follower) of humor through deemphasizing hierarchical salience, eliciting positive affect, enhancing self-disclosure, and signaling similarity. Based on the relational process model, we propose that leaders’ humor behaviors lead to a high-quality relationship between a supervisor and a subordinate. In this study, we frame the quality of supervisor–subordinate relationships as both work ties (i.e., LMX) and nonwork ties (i.e., SSG). It is critical to add nonwork ties into the relational mechanism due to theoretical and empirical findings on their importance. Because both work-oriented (i.e., LMX) and nonwork-oriented relationships (i.e., SSG) are important in determining an employee’s career development, employees are motivated to make full use of every opportunity, both inside and outside the work domain, to establish and maintain high-quality dyadic relationships with their leaders (Guan & Frenkel, 2019; Zhang et al., 2015). Moreover, the relational process model of humor and empirical studies suggest that a high-quality relationship in the leader–member dyadic is the key proximal predictor for followers’ behaviors (e.g., Cooper, 2008; Cooper et al., 2018; Yam et al., 2018), including interpersonal and proactive behaviors, such as upward voice. Thus, relationship quality may account for an indirect effect of leader humor behavior on followers’ upward voice behavior. Through this relational perspective, we can achieve a coherent picture of the positive effects of leader humor on followers’ upward voice behaviors.

SSG and LMX as Mediators Between Leader Humor and Subordinates’ Upward Voice

According to the relational process model of humor (Cooper, 2008), a positive relationship between leaders and followers is the proximal consequence of leader humor. We propose that humorous leaders have an important influence on the relationship quality between a supervisor and a subordinate, including both SSG and LMX. Theoretically, this model suggests that humor nurtures a positive relationship between a leader and a member in four ways. First, leader humor reduces hierarchy and status salience. Lower hierarchy and status differences can elicit a perception of social equality and foster the perception of equality and similarity, which makes followers (the recipients of humor) perceive a high-quality and “close” relationship with their supervisors (the sender of humor). Second, leader humor can engender positive affective reactions to stimulate high-quality relationships. The positive affect elicited by leader humor signals a friendliness toward subordinates, which leads to a favorable leader–follower relationship characterized by trust, respect, and liking (Tan, Wang, Qian, & Lu, 2020). Third, leader humor can inform similarity perceptions, thereby enhancing relationship quality. People like and are attracted to others who are similar to them (Griffitt, 1974). Finally, leader humor can operate as a form of self-disclosure. Through self-disclosure, leader humor increases liking as well as trust between leaders and followers, which subsequently leads to a positive relationship (Cooper, 2005, 2008; Duncan, 1982, 1984). Empirically, although leader humor was demonstrated as a supervisor–subordinate relationship quality determinant (e.g., Cooper, 2008), the existing literature has primarily focused on LMX, and studies of SSG have been very limited. As argued above, by using humor, leaders may exert strong influences on both their work-related interactions and their nonwork-related, personal interactions with followers. Therefore, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 1: Leader humor is positively associated with both work ties (LMX, Hypothesis 1a) and nonwork ties (SSG, Hypothesis 1b).

We further propose that when followers perceive they have high-quality work ties or nonwork ties with their leader, they are more likely to speak up to the leader. The reason is that followers are more likely to perceive their upward voice to be safe and effective when there is a high-quality SSG or LMX. Prior meta-analyses of voice have demonstrated that voice safety and efficacy are two main predictors of the frequency of voice (e.g., Morrison, 2011). The quality of dyadic relationships with their leader is a key determinant of employees’ belief in the safety and efficacy of upward voice (e.g., Detert & Burris, 2007; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Morrison, 2011; Van Dyne et al., 2008). Therefore, open and supportive relationships (indicated by high SSG and LMX) lead to a positive sense of voice safety and efficacy, subsequently increasing the likelihood of upward voice. In addition, a study showed that the likelihood to speak up is higher when the LMX is positive and lower when employees perceive their supervisor as abusive (Burris et al., 2008). Hence, from a social interaction perspective, the supervisor–subordinate relationship is a natural starting point for predicting employees’ upward voice (e.g., Lee et al., 2017; Liang et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2013; Van Dyne et al., 2008).

Specifically, when followers feel more voice safety, they fear negative impacts on their self-image and status less (Liu et al., 2015). Increased trust related to close LMX or SSG may cause employees to believe that the interpersonal risks or potential losses associated with upward voice are less salient when communicating with their leaders. Thus, followers are less likely to worry that their expressions of concerns will irritate their leader (Van Dyne et al., 2008). Furthermore, prior studies have demonstrated that the likelihood of voicing becomes greater when subordinates perceive their leader to be supportive (Liang et al., 2013; Milliken et al., 2003).

Regarding the efficacy of voice, with high-quality LMX or SSG, employees feel more confident their supervisor will listen to them; is concerned about their best interest; and will respond favorably to their opinions, suggestions, and concerns (Liu et al., 2013). All of these factors enhance employees’ sense of efficacy. Subordinates tend to initiate voice when they believe their supervisor will consider their concerns and suggestions fairly and seriously and will act to address their concerns. Consequently, they may have higher efficacy perceptions with regard to voice behavior.

Taking the above arguments together, employees supervised by humorous leaders are more likely to perceive their relationship as more open and supportive and thus are more likely to speak up because their perceptions of voice efficacy and safety are more positive. Accordingly, we posit the following:

Hypothesis 2: Employees’ nonwork ties (SSG, Hypothesis 2a) and work ties (LMX, Hypothesis 2b) mediate the positive relationship between leader humor and employees’ upward voice.

The Moderating Affect of Traditionality

We propose that employees’ traditionality is an important boundary condition of the relational processes elicited by leader humor. Considering that the critical function of leader humor is reducing the hierarchy and status salience between supervisors and subordinates (2008), subordinates’ value of such salience is an important moderator. Different followers have different individual cultural values (i.e., traditionality) related to hierarchy and status, and some followers may benefit more from informal interaction or relationally oriented leadership. Traditionality at the individual level refers to the degree to which individuals endorse traditional values (Yang, 2003). The essential characteristics of traditionality include submission to authority, fatalism, and a general sense of powerlessness (Farh et al., 1997; Xie et al., 2008; Tan, Wang, & Lu, 2020). Low-traditionality employees prefer less salient hierarchical differences, equality between leaders and followers (Cooper, 2008) and relationally oriented leadership (Cooper, 2008; Pundt & Venz, 2017; Robert et al., 2015). Individuals with low traditionality tend to hold more modern values, such as preferring low hierarchical differences, equality, and a relational orientation, and are more likely to adopt equal exchange views toward mutual obligations (e.g., Farh et al., 1997; Pillutla et al., 2007; Wu et al., 2018).

Based on these findings, we propose that low-traditionality followers are more likely to benefit from the interpersonal mechanism engendered by leader humor (Cooper, 2008). In other words, for followers relatively low in traditionality, leader humor contributes more strongly to the quality of their leader–follower relationships and their upward voice behaviors.

Hypothesis 3: Employees’ traditionality moderates the indirect effect of employees’ work ties (LMX, Hypothesis 3a) and nonwork ties (SSG, Hypothesis 3b) on the link between leader humor and employees’ upward voice: the indirect effects of both LMX and SSG on this link are stronger when employees possess low levels of traditionality.

Study 1

Sample and Procedure

We initially recruited 225 employees through alumni networks of a few colleges in Southern China. Previous research has suggested that this method can enhance the external validity of the findings, as the employees are from various industries and positions (e.g., Qin et al., 2018). We followed prior studies’ protocols to ensure our data’s authenticity and validity by restricting participants to those meeting the following two criteria: (1) having regular and direct interactions with their immediate supervisor and (2) working full-time and 5 consecutive days per week (Wheeler et al., 2014). The 225 participants were randomly assigned to the following two conditions: control condition (n = 112) and humor condition (n = 113). They were given US$2 as reimbursement. Six employees were excluded, as they could not recall the described incident. Of the 219 employees, 109 were in the control condition and 110 in the humor condition. Indeed, 120 were females (54.8%) and 99 were males (45.2%). The percentage of married individuals was 76.3%. Most respondents were between 20 and 40 years of age (92.7%). Regarding education, 84.5% had a bachelor’s degree or higher.

We used the critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954), which has been widely used in previous work (e.g., Liang et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2018; Wellman et al., 2016). The study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines established by the Declaration of Helsinki. Under the humor condition, the participants were instructed to recall an incident in which a leader communicated with them in a humorous manner at work within the prior 3 months. Under the control condition, the participants were asked to recall an incident in which a leader communicated with them at work within the prior 3 months. If the participants could recall such an incident, they were instructed to provide the initials of the supervisor and describe the incident in as much detail as possible. After completing the recall task, the respondents rated their SSG, LMX, upward voice intention, and perceived leader humor. Then they provided information regarding their demographic variables (see the appendix for the detailed flow of the experimental procedure).

Measures

All measures used in this study were translated from English to Mandarin Chinese following Brislin’s (1970) translation/back-translation procedure (Brislin, 1970). Unless otherwise noted, all measures in Studies 1 to 2 were rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). We modified the items in Study 1 slightly to fit the experimental scenario.

Leader Humor

Subordinates responded to the three-item leader humor measure (α = .96), which was developed and validated by Cooper et al. (2018). Subordinates indicated their perceptions of their leaders by responding to the following statement: “This supervisor expressed humor with me at work.”

Leader–Member Exchange

LMX (α = .89) was measured by the LMX-7 scale (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). This scale has been well validated in the Chinese context (Liu et al., 2013). A sample item is “This supervisor understood my problems and needs.”

Supervisor–Subordinate Guanxi

SSG (α = .90) was assessed by a six-item scale (Law et al., 2000) that was developed and has been well validated in previous studies (Chen & Tjosvold, 2006; Wei et al., 2010; Wong et al., 2010). One sample item is “This supervisor invited me to his or her home for lunch or dinner.”

Upward Voice

Participants reported their upward voice to their supervisor (α = .80) using three adapted items from Liu et al. (2017). Sample items are “In interactions with this supervisor, (1) I will probably give this supervisor constructive suggestions regarding work-related issues, (2) I will probably express my opinions to this supervisor that differ from those of the supervisor, and (3) I will probably point out problems in our work or company.”

Control Variables

We explored the viability of several control variables that could provide alternative explanations for the hypothesized relationships among the constructs in our model: subordinate-reported dyadic tenure and subordinates’ sex (0 = male; 1 = female), age in years, educational background, marital status, and position (e.g., Morrison, 2011).

Manipulation Checks

Regarding leader humor behavior manipulations, participants in the humor condition (M = 5.84, SD = 0.77) were significantly more inclined than those in the control condition, M = 2.55, SD = 1.26, t(217) = −23.47, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 3.15, to describe their supervisor as humorous. Additionally, we asked three undergraduate students to independently code the critical incidents: the three coders reviewed all source material and extracted critical incidents related to leader humor behavior. The results indicated leader humor was rated significantly higher in the condition of leader humor (M = 5.52, SD = 0.49) than in the control condition, M = 2.50, SD = 0.51, t(217) = −44.83, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 6.04. Thus, our manipulations of leader humor behavior were successful.

As shown in Table 1, a t test revealed that followers’ SSG was rated significantly higher in the humor condition (M = 5.01, SD = 1.09) than in the control condition, M = 3.19, SD = 1.64; t(217) = −11.97, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.31. Similarly, followers’ LMX was rated significantly higher in the humor condition (M = 5.37, SD = 0.77) than in the control condition, M = 4.28, SD = 1.20; t(217) = −7.96, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.08, and followers’ upward voice intention was rated significantly higher in the humor condition (M = 5.50, SD = 0.83) than in the control condition, M = 4.69, SD = 1.21; t(217) = −5.82, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .78.

Table 1.

Study 1: Means and Standard Deviations for Dependent Variables by Experimental Condition.

Dependent variable	Control condition		Humor condition
	n = 109		n = 110
	M	SD	M	SD
SSG	3.19	1.64	5.01	1.09
LMX	4.28	1.20	5.37	0.77
Upward voice intention	4.69	1.21	5.50	0.83

Note. SSG = supervisor–subordinate guanxi; LMX = leader–member exchange.

Hypotheses Testing

Mediator Model

We tested the hypothesized model to analyze the direct effect of leader humor on subordinates’ SSG and LMX (Hypotheses 1a and 1b), the indirect effect of employees’ SSG on the link between leader humor and employees’ upward voice (Hypothesis 2a), and the mediating effect of employees’ LMX on the link between leader humor and employees’ upward voice (Hypothesis 2b). We report unstandardized coefficients below.

Table 2 shows the results of the tests of Hypotheses 1a and 1b, which predicted significantly positive effects of leader humor on subordinates’ SSG and LMX. The main effect model revealed a significant effect of leader humor on subordinates’ SSG and LMX (SSG: b = 1.79, standard error [SE] = 0.15, confidence interval [CI: 1.50, 2.09]; LMX: b = 1.08, SE = 0.13, CI [0.82, 1.34]).

Table 2.

Study 1: Path Coefficients and Indirect Effects for the Multiple Mediation Model.

Model	Path coefficients			Indirect effects
Model	To SSG	To LMX	To upward voice intention	Estimate	95% Confidence interval
Leader humor	1.79 (0.15)	1.08 (0.13)	0.16 (0.15)
SSG			0.14 (0.06)
LMX			0.38 (0.07)
Gender			−0.16 (0.12)
Age			0.09 (0.14)
Education			0.12 (0.11)
Marital status			0.31 (0.16)
Position			0.21 (0.09)
Tenure			−0.01 (0.03)
Total				0.66 (0.12)	[0.44, 0.92]
SSG as a mediator				0.25 (0.12)	[0.04, 0.51]
LMX as a mediator				0.41 (0.10)	[0.24, 0.64]

Note. SSG = supervisor–subordinate guanxi; LMX = leader–member exchange.

In Hypothesis 2a, we predicted that employees’ SSG mediated the positive relationship between leader humor and employees’ upward voice (Figure 1). Consequently, bootstrap estimates were used and a bias-corrected CI (95%) was constructed to test the indirect effect (Hayes, 2013). The results indicated that through the mediation of SSG, leader humor had a significant indirect effect on employees’ upward voice (b = .25, SE = .12, CI [0.04, 0.51]).

Figure 1.

Study 1: The mediating model of SSG and LMX between leader humor and upward voice intention.

Then, in accordance with Hypothesis 2b, as shown in Table 2, the results revealed that with the mediation of employees’ LMX, leader humor had a significant indirect effect on upward voice (b = .41, SE = .10, CI [0.24, 0.64]). Leader humor resulted in an increase in employees’ LMX. This increase was positively associated with employees’ upward voice.

Study 2

Sample and Procedure

The participants in Study 2 were employees from a large manufacturing company located in an Eastern province of China and a large real estate company located in a central province of China. With strong support from the human resources departments, invitations to participate were sent to 506 supervisors and, for each supervisor, one randomly selected subordinate. Participants received 30 Yuan (approximately $4) for their participation. Additionally, to ensure the data collected were authentic and valid, we followed the same two inclusion criteria as in Study 1 (Wheeler et al., 2014).

The study adopted a three-wave design using the same sample at each wave. However, 2 weeks separated the three waves. At Time 1, demographic, moderator (traditionality), and predictor (leader humor) variables were rated by employees. At Time 2, employees rated their SSG and LMX. At Time 3, employees’ corresponding supervisors rated employees’ upward voice. Deleting cases produced a useable sample size of 456 independent supervisor–subordinate dyads (response rate = 85%). Of the 456 employees, 276 were male (60.5%), and 180 were female (39.5%). The percentage of married employees was 50%. The mean age of employees was approximately 30 years. Regarding education, 91.9% had a bachelor’s degree or higher.

Measures

Leader humor (α = .93) and LMX (α = .94) were the same as those in Study 1.

Supervisor–Subordinate Guanxi

We measured SSG (α = .90) using the seven-item scale, which has shown good cross-cultural validity (Wong et al., 2010). Sample items include “I have frequent interactions with my immediate supervisor after work,” and “My immediate supervisor and I often have dinner together after work.”

Upward Voice

Leaders reported the upward voice of their subordinates (α = .90) using three items from Liu and colleagues (Liu et al., 2017). Sample items are “In interactions with me, this employee (1) gave me constructive suggestions regarding work-related issues, (2) expressed his or her opinions to me that are different from mine, and (3) pointed out problems in our work or company.”

Traditionality

We used six items (α = .91) from a shortened version adapted by Xie et al. (2008), which has been shown to be reliable and valid (e.g., Farh et al., 1997; Xie et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2014). Sample items were “Powerful leaders are more important than a well-established legal system” and “The chief government official is like the head of a household; the citizen should obey his decisions on all state matters.”

Control Variables

To rule out various alternative explanations concerning the implications of leader humor, we included the control variables, subordinate gender, subordinate years at age, subordinate education background, and marital status (Cooper, 2005).

Result

Correlation Analyses

Table 3 displays the means, standard deviations, and correlations of all study variables.

Table 3.

Study 2: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlation Matrix (N = 456).

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1. Leader humor	4.83	1.24	.93
2. SSG	4.81	1.07	.47**	.90
3. LMX	5.35	0.98	.42**	.55**	.94
4. Upward voice	5.45	0.99	.37**	.58**	.77**	.90
5. Traditionality	4.35	1.43	.09	.44**	.31**	.26**	.91

Note. SSG = supervisor–subordinate guanxi; LMX = leader–member exchange.

p < .05. ^**p < .01.

Preliminary Analyses

We conducted similar confirmatory factor analyses to examine the distinctiveness of our six key variables using Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 2010). The results of the confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the hypothesized five-factor model consisting of leader humor, LMX, SSG, upward voice, and traditionality fit the data reasonably well, χ²(289) = 1361.02, p < .01, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .09, comparative fit index (CFI) = .89. This model is superior to alternative nested models, including a four-factor model in which leader humor and SSG were loaded on a single factor, Δχ²(4) = 916.06, p < .01, RMSEA = .12, CFI = .80; a three-factor model in which leader humor, SSG, and LMX were constrained to one factor, Δχ²(7) = 1969.16, p < .01, RMSEA = .15, CFI = .69; a two-factor model in which leader humor, SSG, LMX, and upward voice were constrained to one factor, Δχ²(9) = 2185.17, p < .01, RMSEA = .16, CFI = .67; and a one-factor model in which all variables were combined as one factor, Δχ²(10) = 3691.99, p < .01, RMSEA = .19, CFI = .52 (Table 4).

Table 4.

Study 2: Alternative Model Fit Indices for Models.

Model	χ²	df	CFI	NFI	RMSEA	SRMR	χ² difference(df)^a
Five factors (intended)^b	1361.02	289	.89	.88	.09	.09	—
Four factors^c	2271.08	293	.80	.78	.12	.10	910.06(4)**
Three factors^d	3330.18	296	.69	.66	.15	.12	1969.16(7)**
Two factors^e	3546.19	298	.67	.64	.16	.12	2185.17(9)**
One factor^f	5053.01	299	.52	.48	.19	.16	3691.99(10)**

Note. CFI = comparative fit index; NFI = normed fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; SSG = supervisor–subordinate guanxi; LMX = leader–member exchange; df = degrees of freedom.

Comparison with the intended measurement model with five factors. ^bIntended measurement model. ^cModel with four factors: (1) leader humor + SSG, (2) LMX, (3) upward voice, and (4) traditionality. ^dModel with three factors: (1) leader humor + SSG + LMX, (2) upward voice, and (3) traditionality. ^eModel with two factors: (1) leader humor + SSG + LMX + upward voice and (2) traditionality. ^fModel with one factor: All items combined with one factor.

p < .01.

Hypotheses Testing

Mediator Model

As shown in Table 5 and Figure 2, the results of a bootstrapping-based mediation analysis using the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013) replicated the findings in Study 1. We report unstandardized coefficients below. In line with Hypotheses 1a and 1b, the results showed that the main effect model revealed a significant effect of leader humor on SSG (b = 0.41, SE = 0.04, p < .001) and LMX (b = 0.34, SE = 0.03, p < .001).

Table 5.

Study 2: Path Coefficients and Indirect Effects for the Multiple Mediation Model.

Model	Path coefficients			Indirect effects
Model	To SSG	To LMX	To upward voice	Estimate	95% Confidence interval
Leader humor	0.41 (0.04)	0.34 (0.03)	−0.02 (0.03)
SSG			0.22 (0.03)
LMX			0.64 (0.04)
Gender			0.05 (0.06)
Age			0.007 (0.006)
Marital status			0.06 (0.06)
Education			0.05 (0.07)
Total				0.30 (0.03)	[0.25, 0.37]
SSG as a mediator				0.09 (0.02)	[0.05, 0.14]
LMX as a mediator				0.21 (0.03)	[0.16, 0.28]

Note. SSG = supervisor–subordinate guanxi; LMX = leader–member exchange.

Figure 2.

Study 2: The mediating model of LMX and SSG between leader humor and upward voice.

In Hypotheses 2a and 2b, our results indicated that through the mediation of SSG and LMX, leader humor had a significant indirect effect on employees’ upward voice (SSG: b = 0.09, SE = 0.02, CI [0.05, 0.14]; LMX: b = 0.21, SE = 0.03, CI [0.16, 0.28]). Leaders’ humor expression resulted in an increase in employees’ SSG and LMX. This increase was positively associated with employees’ upward voice.

Moderating Effect

Tables 6 and 7 show the results of the moderated mediation analysis. Hypotheses 3a and 3b proposed that traditionality would moderate the relationship between leader humor and LMX and SSG. The coefficients are presented in the upper part of Tables 6 and 7. The moderation was significant for both LMX (b = −.07, t = −2.70, p < .01) and SSG (b = −.06, t = −2.64, p < .01).

Table 6.

Study 2: Results of the Moderation and Moderated Mediation Analyses.

Predictor variable	SSG
Predictor variable	b	SE	t
Constant	4.82	0.04	122.51***
Leader humor	0.37	0.03	11.66***
Traditionality	0.31	0.03	11.03***
Leader humor	−0.06	0.02	−2.64**
^*Traditionality
R ²	.39***
Traditionality	Ustd boot	Boot SE	LLCI	ULCI
Traditionality	Conditional indirect effect at traditionality = M ± 1 SD
−1 SD	0.12	0.03	0.06	0.18
M	0.09	0.02	0.05	0.14
+1 SD	0.06	0.02	0.03	0.11

Note. SSG = supervisor–subordinate guanxi; SE = standard error.

p < .01; ***p < .001.

Table 7.

Study 2: Results of the Moderation and Moderated Mediation Analyses.

Predictor variable	LMX
Predictor variable	b	SE	t
Constant	5.36	0.04	137.80***
Leader humor	0.31	0.03	9.65***
Traditionality	0.20	0.03	7.13***
Leader humor	−0.07	0.02	−2.70**
^*Traditionality
R ²	.27***
Traditionality	Ustd boot	Boot SE	LLCI	ULCI
Traditionality	Conditional indirect effect at traditionality = M ± 1 SD
−1 SD	0.26	0.05	0.17	0.36
M	0.20	0.03	0.15	0.26
+1 SD	0.14	0.03	0.08	0.20

Note. LMX = leader–member exchange; SE = standard error.

p < .01; ***p < .001.

Next, we conducted simple slope analyses (Hayes, 2013). First, we tested the interactive effect of employee traditionality and leader humor on SSG and LMX, respectively. The index of moderated mediation is significant (SSG: index = −0.02, SE = 0.01, CI [−0.03, −0.01]; LMX: index = −0.04, SE = 0.02, CI [−.09, −.003]). When employee traditionality is high (i.e., 1 standard deviation above the mean), the mediated model was significant (SSG: conditional indirect effect = 0.06, SE = 0.02, CI [0.03, 0.11]; LMX: conditional indirect effect = 0.14, SE = 0.03, CI [0.08, 0.20]), When employee traditionality is low (i.e., 1 standard deviation below the mean), the mediated model was much more significant (SSG: conditional indirect effect = 0.12, SE = 0.03, CI [0.06, 0.18]; LMX: conditional indirect effect = 0.26, SE = 0.05, CI [0.17, 0.36]). This result indicates the relationships between leader humor and SSG and LMX were stronger for low levels of traditionality, which supported Hypothesis 3a and 3b. The significant interaction effects are displayed in Figures 3 and 4.

Figure 3.

Moderating effects of traditionality on direct and indirect effects through followers’ SSG.

Figure 4.

Moderating effects of traditionality on direct and indirect effects through followers’ LMX.

Discussion

Across an experimental study and a multiwave, multisource field study, we addressed the important issues of why and how leader humor affects followers’ interpersonal and proactive behavior in the form of upward voice. Building on relational process model of humor, we consistently find that leader humor can induce a high-quality dyadic relationship between leaders and followers, including work ties (i.e., LMX) and nonwork ties (i.e., SSG). Moreover, LMX and SSG mediate the positive link between leader humor and employees’ upward voice. We further demonstrate that these mediated effects are moderated by followers’ individual cultural value of traditionality. Specifically, employees with low traditionality are more likely to benefit from the interpersonal mechanism engendered by leader humor.

Theoretical Implications

First, this study enhances our understanding of the relational benefits of leader humor for followers’ upward voice and highlights the need for a relational perspective on the consequence of humor usage in organizations. Past research and theory have focused mainly on noninterpersonal behavioral outcomes as consequences of leader humor (e.g., Cann et al., 2011; Mesmer-magnus et al., 2012; Pundt, 2015; Yam et al., 2018). However, as a form of top–down communication, leader humor’s effects on followers’ bottom–up influence has received little research attention. We address this important research question through two studies to provide empirical evidence of the positive effect of leader humor on employees’ upward voice. Across two studies, we demonstrate that employees who are under the supervision of humorous leaders are more likely to voice their concerns to their leaders. Hence, our research also adds to the leadership literature showing that leader humor behavior plays a crucial role in influencing employees’ interpersonal, proactive behaviors in the form of upward voice.

Second, our study enhances our understanding of the relational mechanism underlying the relational benefits of leader humor for followers, and it answers calls for a fine-tuned framework to explore the link between leader behavior and voice (Farh & Chen, 2018; Morrison et al., 2011). Although interest is increasing in exploring the relational benefits of leader humor, previous studies have mainly focused on work ties as the relational mechanism between leader humor and its effect (e.g., Cooper et al., 2018; Kong et al., 2017; Wisse & Rietzschel, 2014; Yam et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2015), another important relationship between leaders and followers, personal ties have received relatively less empirical research attention. Drawing from the relational process model of humor (Cooper, 2008), we integrate work tie and nonwork tie mechanisms, indicated by LMX and SSG, to explain why leader humor affects upward voice (Zhang et al., 2015). We believe integrating both work ties and nonwork ties into leader–member relationships is important and timely, considering its role in serving as a key underlying mechanism of leader behavior’s effects on followers (e.g., Guan & Frenkel, 2019; Rockstuhl et al., 2012). Our findings demonstrate that both LMX and SSG explain the effects of leader humor on employees’ upward voice. Hence, our study provides a more comprehensive picture of the relational mechanism underlying the effect of leader humor.

Third, our study adds to the knowledge of the relationship between leader humor and followers’ upward voice by uncovering individual cultural (i.e., traditionality) boundary conditions that remain unknown. We find that employees’ traditionality moderates the indirect effect of relationship quality on the effect of leader humor on upward voice. The indirect effects of both LMX and SSG on the link between leader humor and voice behavior are stronger when employees possess low levels of traditionality. Specifically, followers with high traditionality are less likely to base their behavioral responses on how authority figures treat them (Farh & Chen, 2018; Farh et al., 2007; Hui et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2014). Followers with lower traditionality, however, respond more sensitively to social interaction with their supervisor induced by leader humor. Although traditionality reflects the emphasis of traditional values in Eastern society, research has shown that traditional values also influence individuals in other societies (e.g., Germany, the United States, and the United Kingdom; Fischer & Smith, 2004; Spreitzer et al., 2005). Our findings extends relational process theory by demonstrating that the interpersonal outcome of leader humor does not occur in a vacuum but is shaped by the individual cultural value of followers (Yang, 2003).

Managerial Implications

Our findings highlight the role of leader humor in promoting the bottom–up flow of potentially constructive suggestions, ideas, and concerns in organizations through high-quality relationships with followers. On the one hand, our study suggests that leaders can consider using humor to motivate followers to speak up. For example, leaders can use top–down communication (i.e., humor behaviors) to create a trusting, open, and supportive climate in which upward voice is encouraged (Cooper et al., 2018; Obthani et al., 2013; Robert & Wilbanks, 2012). Leaders’ humor behaviors signal openness and support, such as encouraging opinion expression, considering employees’ ideas, and responding favorably to employees’ input. As a result, followers may feel safe and effective in addressing their concerns, suggestions, and ideas.

On the other hand, our findings of the mediation effect reveal that a potential effective way to facilitate followers’ upward voice is by strengthening supervisor–subordinate personal and work ties. A valuable practical implication for organizations is that managers can be better informed about what is happening “on the ground” by establishing and maintaining high-quality relationships with followers. In particular, our results underscore that leaders can benefit from high-quality relationships with their employees. Thus, organizations may consider strengthening personal and work ties between supervisors and subordinates to increase the ability of employees to express their suggestions and concerns to managers.

In addition, our finding of the moderating effect of followers’ traditionality value shows that leaders should use humor when interacting with their followers, particularly those with low traditionality, as these employees prefer less salient hierarchical differences and more relationally oriented leadership than those with high traditionality. Such a supportive and open environment particularly suits “new generation” employees’ demands in the workplace, as these modern employees possess relatively low levels of traditionality (e.g., Gilbert, 2011).

To summarize, managers’ humor is instrumental to organizational effectiveness. Our results suggest one possible way for organizations to increase supervisor–subordinate relationship quality and followers’ upward voice is to develop and improve leader humor behaviors. It has been suggested that education, training, and coaching interventions for leader humor can enhance leader effectiveness (Dampier & Walton, 2013).

Limitations and Future Research Direction

First, our study may raise concern regarding common method variance (CMV) bias (Podsakoff et al., 2012), but this concern is reduced for some reasons. First, CMV is reduced due to the 2-week interval between each of the three waves. We measured the variables simultaneously in Study 1 but temporally separated them in Study 2. Temporal separation, which is as effective as source separation, is among the most effective means of reducing CMV (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Moreover, in Study 2, we collected data from different sources to minimize CMV. Overall, CMV seems less likely to be a major concern in our study.

A second limitation is related to causality. Causal conclusions are difficult to draw based on field and survey studies. However, some measures were taken to improve the nature of causality in our study. First, we assessed our dependent variables separately from our independent variables, which prior studies argue enhances causal inference (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Although theory and our experimental design in Study 1 provided some evidence regarding the causal ordering of our model, we tested an alternative, reverse causal model in which followers’ upward voice behaviors affected their LMX and SSG and compared this model with our proposed model in Study 2. As suggested by Kline (2011), when the values of Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) are lower, the model fits the data better and is most likely to replicate the results (for an example, see Matta et al., 2017). The results demonstrate that our proposed model (AIC = 3724.44 and BIC = 3773.91) had lower AIC and BIC values than the alternative, reverse causal model (AIC = 3855.09 and BIC = 3904.56), indicating our model (leader humor → SSG/LMX → upward voice) fits the data better than the reverse causal model (upward voice → SSG/LMX → leader humor).

In addition, beyond the dyadic relationship, other important mechanisms underlie the relationship between leader humor and employees’ upward voice. For instance, a meta-analysis of voice suggests that the possible theoretical and empirical mechanisms underlying the relationship between predictors and voice include attitudes and emotion variables (e.g., Morrison, 2011). Employees’ positive emotion and job satisfaction can be included in future studies to better understand the mechanism underlying leader humor and upward voice (e.g., Frazier & Fainshmidt, 2012).

Third, this study uses a vertical perspective to examine the effect of leader humor on employees’ upward voice. Instead, future studies might adopt a horizontal perspective, such as examining employees speaking up to their coworkers. Furthermore, based on whether employee voice is suggestion or problem focused, voice can be classified as promotive or prohibitive (Liang et al., 2013). Whether leader humor exerts the same influence on promotive and prohibitive voice is another interesting research question for future studies.

Conclusion

Our study highlights the importance of leader humor as a critical facilitator affecting both leader–member relationship quality and upward voice behavior. Through two studies, our findings demonstrate that the relational mechanism of leader humor should consider both personal and work-related interactions between leaders and employees. Moreover, our results reveal that the indirect effects of LMX and SSG on the link between leader humor and upward voice is contingent on followers’ traditionality.

Footnotes

Appendix

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the grants funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71802203, and 71772184), The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities to L. T. (Grant No. 18wkpy16)

ORCID iD

Ling Tan

Author Biographies

Ling Tan (tanling@gdut.edu.cn) is an assistant professor in the School of Management at Guangdong University of Technology. Her current research interests include leadership, employee well-being.

Yongli Wang (wangyli@sysu.edu.cn) is a professor in the School of Business, Sun Yat-sen University. Her research focuses on work-family balance, workplace spirituality.

Hailing Lu (hailinglu@outlook.com) is an assistant professor in the School of Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Science and Technology. His research focuses on work-family balance, workplace spirituality.

References

Bitterly

T. B.

Brooks

A. W.

Schweitzer.

M. E.

(2017). Risky business: When humor increases and decreases status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(3), 431-455. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000079

Bitterly

T. B.

Schweitzer

M. E.

(2019). The impression management benefits of humorous self-disclosures: How humor influences perceptions of veracity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151(March), 73-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.01.005

Bitterly

T. B.

Schweitzer

M. E.

(in press). You’ re getting warmer: The impression management benefits of humorous self-disclosure. Social Science Research Network.

Boyd

N. G.

Taylor

R. R.

(1998). A developmental approach to the examination of friendship in leader-follower relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 9(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(98)90040-6

Brislin

R. W.

(1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301

Burris

E. R.

Detert

J. R.

Chiaburu

(2008). Quitting before leaving: The mediating effects of psychological attachment and detachment on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 912-922. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.912

Cann

Davis

H. B.

Zapata

C. L.

(2011). Humor styles and relationship satisfaction in dating couples: Perceived versus self-reported humor styles as predictors of satisfaction. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 24(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2011.001

Chen

Y. F.

Tjosvold

(2006). Participative leadership by American and Chinese managers in China: The role of relationships. Journal of Management Studies, 43(8), 1727-1752. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00657.x

Cooper

C. D.

(2005). Just joking around? Employee humor expression as an ingratiatory behavior. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 765-776. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.18378877

10.

Cooper

C. D.

(2008). Elucidating the bonds of workplace humor: A relational process model. Human Relations, 61(8), 1087-1115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726708094861

11.

Cooper

C. D.

Kong

D. T.

Crossley

C. D.

(2018). Leader humor as an interpersonal resource: Integrating three theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 61(2), 769-796. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0358

12.

Cooper

C. D.

Sosik

J. J.

(2012). The laughter advantage: Cultivating high quality connections and workplace outcomes through humor. In Spreitzer

G. M.

Cameron

(Eds.), The handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 474-489). Oxford University Press.

13.

Dampier

Walton

(2013). White House wit, wisdom, and wisecracks. Barzipan Publishing.

14.

Detert

J. R.

Burris

E. R.

(2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869-884. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.26279183

15.

Duncan

W. J.

(1982). Humor in management: Prospects for administrative practice and research. Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 136-142. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1982.4285511

16.

Duncan

W. J.

(1984). Perceived humor and social network patterns in a sample of task-oriented groups: A reexamination of prior research. Human Relations, 37(11), 895-907. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678403701102

17.

Farh

C. I. C.

Chen

(2018). Leadership and member voice in action teams: Test of a dynamic phase model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(1), 97-110. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000256

18.

Farh

J. L.

Earley

P. C.

Lin

S. C.

(1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 421-444. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393733

19.

Farh

J. L.

Hackett

R. D.

Liang

(2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support-employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 715-729. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.25530866

20.

Farh

J. L.

Tsui

A. S.

Xin

Cheng

B. S.

(1998). The influence of relational demography and guanxi: The Chinese case. Organization Science, 9(4), 471-488. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.4.471

21.

Fischer

Smith

P. B.

(2004). Values and organizational justice-Performance- and seniority-based allocation criteria in the United Kingdom and Germany. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(6), 669-688. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022104270110

22.

Flanagan

J. C.

(1954). The critical incident technique. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 51(4), 327-358. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061470

23.

Fleetwood

(2007). Why work-life balance now? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(3), 387-400. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190601167441

24.

Frazier

M. L.

Fainshmidt

(2012). Voice climate, work outcomes, and the mediating role of psychological empowerment: A multilevel examination. Group & Organization Management, 37(6), 691-715. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601112463960

25.

Gilbert

(2011). The millennials: A new generation of employees, a new set of engagement policies. IVEY Business Journal. https://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/the-millennials-a-new-generation-of-employees-a-new-set-of-engagement-policies/

26.

Graen

G. B.

Uhl-Bien

(1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5

27.

Griffitt

(1974). Attitude similarity and attraction. In Huston

(Ed.), Foundations in interpersonal attraction (pp. 285-308). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-362950-0.50018-5

28.

Guan

Frenkel

S. J.

(2019). Explaining supervisor-subordinate guanxi and subordinate performance through a conservation of resources lens. Human Relations, 72(11), 1752-1775. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718813718

29.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

30.

Huang

Gino

Galinsky

A. D.

(2015). The highest form of intelligence: Sarcasm increases creativity for both expressers and recipients. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 131(November), 162-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.07.001

31.

Hughes

W. L.

Avey

B. J.

(2009). Transforming with levity: Humor, leadership, and follower attitudes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30(6), 540-562. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730910981926

32.

Hui

Lee

Rousseau

D. M.

(2004). Employment relationships in china: Do workers relate to the organization or to people? Organization Science, 15(2), 232-240. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1030.0050

33.

Huo

Lam

Chen

(2012), Am I the only one this supervisor is laughing at? Effects of aggressive humor on employee strain and addictive behaviors. Personnel Psychology, 65(4), 859-885. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12004

34.

Kline

R. B.

(2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.

35.

Kong

D. T.

Cooper

C. D.

Sosik

J. J.

(2019). The state of research on leader humor. Organizational Psychology Review, 9(1), 3-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386619846948

36.

Kong

Huang

Liu

Zhao

(2017). Why voice behavior? An integrative model of the need for affiliation, the quality of leader–member exchange, and group cohesion in predicting voice behavior. Group & Organization Management, 42(6), 792-818. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601116642084

37.

Lang

J. C.

Lee

C. H.

(2010). Workplace humor and organizational creativity. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(1), 46-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190903466855

38.

Law

K. S.

Wong

C. S.

Wang

D. X.

Wang

L. H.

(2000). Effect of supervisor–subordinate guanxi on supervisory decisions in china: an empirical investigation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(4), 751-765. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190050075105

39.

Lee

Choi

Youn

Chun

J. U.

(2017). Ethical leadership and employee moral voice: The mediating role of moral efficacy and the moderating role of leader-follower value congruence. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(1), 47-57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2689-y

40.

Liang

Farh

C. I. C.

Farh

J.-L.

(2013). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 71-92. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0176

41.

Liang

L. H.

Lian

Brown

Ferris

D. L.

Hanig

Keeping

(2015). Why are abusive supervisors abusive? A dual-system self-control model. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1385-1406. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0651

42.

Liu

Song

Liao

(2017). Why and when leaders’ affective states influence employee upward voice. Academy of Management Journal, 60(1), 238-263. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.1082

43.

Liu

Tangirala

Lam

Chen

Jia

R. T.

Huang

(2015). How and when peers’ positive mood influences employees’ voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 976-989. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038066

44.

Liu

Tangirala

Ramanujam

(2013). The relational antecedents of voice targeted at different leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5), 841-851. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032913

45.

Matta

F. K.

Scott

B. A.

Colquitt

J. A.

Koopman

Passantino

L. G.

(2017). Is consistently unfair better than sporadically fair? An investigation of justice variability and stress. Academy of Management Journal, 60(2), 743-770. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0455

46.

Maynes

T. D.

Podsakoff

P. M.

(2014). Speaking more broadly: An examination of the nature, antecedents, and consequences of an expanded set of employee voice behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(1), 87-112. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034284

47.

McGraw

A. P.

Warren

(2010). Benign violations: Making immoral behavior funny. Psychological science, 21(8), 1141-1149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610376073

48.

Mesmer-Magnus

Glew

D. J.

Viswesvaran

(2012). A meta-analysis of positive humor in the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(2), 155-190. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941211199554

49.

Milliken

F. J.

Morrison

E. W.

Hewlin

P. F.

(2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1453-1476. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00387

50.

Millington

Eberhardt

Wilkinson

(2006). Guanxi and supplier search mechanisms in China. Human Relations, 59(4), 505-531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726706065372

51.

Morrison

E. W.

(2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373-412. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2011.574506

52.

Morrison

E. W.

Wheeler-Smith

S. L.

Kamdar

(2011). Speaking up in groups: A cross-level study of group voice climate and voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 183-191. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020744

53.

Mowbray

Wilkinson

A. J.

Tse

H. H.

(2015). An integrative review of employee voice: Identifying a common conceptualization and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(3), 382-400. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12045

54.

Muthén

L. K.

(2010). Integrating person-centered and variable-centered analyses: Growth mixture modeling with latent trajectory classes. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, 24(6), 882-891. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2000.tb02070.x

55.

Obthani

H. S. A

Omar

Bakri

(2013). The origins of workplace humor and its definition. American Academic & Scholarly Research Journal, 5(1), Article 67.

56.

Opper

Nee

Holm

(2017). Risk aversion and guanxi activities: A behavioral analysis of ceos in China. Academy of Management Journal, 60(4), 1504-1530. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0355

57.

Pillutla

M. M.

Farh

J. L.

Lee

Lin

(2007). An investigation of traditionality as a moderator of reward allocation. Group & Organization Management, 32(2), 233-253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601106288067

58.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Mackenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

59.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2012). Sources of Method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

60.

Pundt

(2015). The relationship between humorous leadership and innovative behavior. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(8), 878-893. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-03-2013-0082

61.

Pundt

Venz

(2017). Personal need for structure as a boundary condition for humor in leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(1), 87-107. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2112

62.

Qin

Huang

M. P.

Johnson

R. E.

Q. J.

(2018). The short-lived benefits of abusive supervisory behavior for actors: An investigation of recovery and work engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 61(5), 1951-1975. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.1325

63.

Robert

Dunne

T. C.

Iun

(2015). The impact of leader humor on subordinate job satisfaction. Group & Organization Management, 41(3), 375-406. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115598719

64.

Robert

Wilbanks

J. E.

(2012). The wheel model of humor: Humor events and affect in organizations. Human Relations, 65(9), 1071-1099. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726711433133

65.

Rockstuhl

Dulebohn

J. H.

Ang

Shore

L. M.

(2012). Leader-member exchange (LMX) and culture: A meta-analysis of correlates of LMX across 23 countries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1097-1130. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029978

66.

Sparrowe

R. T.

Liden

R. C.

(1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 522-552. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9707154068

67.

Spreitzer

G. M.

Perttula

K. H.

Xin

(2005). Traditionality matters: An examination of the effectiveness of transformational leadership in the United States and Taiwan. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(3), 205-227. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.315

68.

Tan

Wang

(2020). Why so humorous? The roles of traditionality and gender (Dis)Similarity in leader humor behavior and employee job performance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051820964145

69.

Tan

Wang

Qian

(2020). Leader humor and employee job crafting: The role of employee-perceived organizational support and work engagement. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.499849

70.

Tews

M. J.

Michel

J. W.

Noe

R. A.

(2017). Does fun promote learning? The relationship between fun in the workplace and informal learning. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 98(February), 46-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.09.006

71.

Van Dyne

Kamdar

Joireman

(2008). In-role perceptions buffer the negative impact of low LMX on helping and enhance the positive impact of high LMX on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1195-1207. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.6.1195

72.

Vecchio

R. P.

Justin

J. E.

Pearce

C. L.

(2009). The influence of leader humor on relationships between leader behavior and follower outcomes. Journal of Managerial Issues, 21(2), 171-194. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268328257_The_Influence_of_Leader_Humor_on_Relationships_between_Leader_Behavior_and_Follower_Outcomes

73.

Wang

Verma

(2012). Explaining organizational responsiveness to work-life balance issues: The role of business strategy and high-performance work systems. Human Resource Management, 51(3), 407-432. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21474

74.

Wang

Restubog

Shao

Van Kleef

G. A.

(2018). Does anger expression help or harm leader effectiveness? The role of competence-based versus integrity-based violations and abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 61(3), 1050-1072. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0460

75.

Warren

D. E.

Dunfee

T. W.

N. H.

(2004). Social exchange in China: The double-edged sword of guanxi. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(4), 355-372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-004-1526-5

76.

Wei

L. Q.

Liu

Chen

Y. Y.

L. Z.

(2010). Political skill, supervisor-subordinate Guanxi and career prospects in Chinese firms. Journal of Management Studies, 47(3), 437-454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00871.x

77.

Wellman

Mayer

D. M.

Ong

Derue

D. S.

(2016). When are do-gooders treated badly? Legitimate power, role expectations, and reactions to moral objection in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(6), 793-814. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000094

78.

Wheeler

A. R.

Shanine

K. K.

Leon

M. R.

Whitman

M. V.

(2014). Student-recruited samples in organizational research: A review, analysis, and guidelines for future research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12042

79.

Wisse

Rietzschel

(2014). Humor in leader-follower relationships: Humor styles, similarity and relationship quality. Humor, 27(2), 249-269. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2014-0017

80.

Wong

Y. T.

Wong

S. H.

Wong

Y. W.

(2010). A study of subordinate–supervisor guanxi in Chinese joint ventures. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(12), 2142-2155. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2010.509621

81.

X. F.

Kwan

H. K.

L. Z.

(2018). The effect of workplace negative gossip on employee proactive behavior in China: The moderating role of traditionality. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(4), 801-815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-3006-5

82.

Xie

J. L.

Schaubroeck

Lam

S. S. K.

(2008).Theories of job stress and the role of traditional values: A longitudinal study in China. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 831-848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.831

83.

Yam

K. C.

Barnes

C. M.

Leavitt

Wei

Lau

Uhlmann

E. L.

(2019). Why so serious? A laboratory and field investigation of the link between morality and humor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(4), 758-772. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000171

84.

Yam

K. C.

Christian

M. S.

Wei

Liao

Nai

(2018). The mixed blessing of leader sense of humor: Examining costs and benefits. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 348-369. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.1088

85.

Yang

Kitchen

P. J.

Bacoueljentjens

(2015). How to promote relationship-building leadership at work? A comparative exploration of leader humor behavior between North America and China. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(10), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1089065

86.

Yang

K. S.

(2003). Methodological and theoretical issues on psychological traditionality and modernity research in an Asian society: In response to Kwang-Kuo Hwang and beyond. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 6(3), 263-285. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-839X.2003.00126.x

87.

Zhang

Deng

Wang

(2014). An exploratory study of Chinese motives for building supervisor–subordinate Guanxi. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(4), 659-675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1899-4

88.

Zhang

X. A.

Harris

T. B.

(2015). Putting non-work ties to work: The case of guanxi in supervisor–subordinate relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 26(1), 37-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.04.008