Does Leader Humor Influence Employee Voice? The Mediating Role of Psychological Safety and the Moderating Role of Team Humor

Abstract

Past research indicates that leader humor can bring many positive outcomes; however, its influence on employee voice has been largely neglected. We propose that leader humor can influence employee voice behaviors (i.e., promotive and prohibitive) via the mediating role of psychological safety. Drawing upon the substitutes for leadership theory, we further propose that team humor could moderate the influence of leader humor. Based on the latent moderated mediation structural equation modeling analysis, we found that employees whose leaders used humor more frequently perceived higher levels of psychological safety and in turn engaged in more promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors. Moreover, the indirect effects of leader humor were found to be more pronounced when teams have a low level of humor. On the other hand, leader humor has less influence on employee voice when teams have a high level of humor, which provides support for the leadership substitutes argument. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Keywords

leader humor team humor psychological safety promotive voice prohibitive voice latent moderation substitutes for leadership theory

Introduction

Humor is an important form of human communication that helps increase intimacy and understanding while reducing tensions among individuals (Cooper, 2008). In the workplace, the use of humor by team leaders has also been demonstrated to be beneficial in creating positive interpersonal interactions (Pundt & Herrmann, 2015) and reducing social distance between leaders and subordinates (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). Given their formal power and close proximity to employees on a daily basis, it has been suggested that the use of humor by leaders is a social lubricant that facilitates informal interactions, which allow employees to voice their personal concerns on matters that are important to the organization (Cooper, 2008; Romero & Cruthirds, 2006; Tan et al., 2021).

Our study aims to address the above issue by examining the influence of leader humor on employee voice, a type of discretionary behavior, which refers to the expression of challenging but constructive concerns, opinions, or suggestions about work-related issues (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998; Van Dyne et al., 2003). We focus on two specific forms of voice; namely, promotive and prohibitive voice (Liang et al., 2012). Promotive voice is an expression of new ideas or suggestions for improving organizational functioning, whereas prohibitive voice involves expressing concerns to prevent organizational failure from taking place. Most recent research has focused heavily on promotive voice while much less attention has been paid to prohibitive voice (Liang et al., 2012). Employee voice is critical to organizations because it can lead to early detection of serious problems while also promoting individual learning and organizational improvement (e.g., Bashshur & Oc, 2015; Detert & Burris, 2007; Edmondson, 1999). Although there are many managerial approaches to promoting employee voice (e.g., Detert & Burris, 2007; Gao et al., 2011; Janssen & Gao, 2015; Wang et al., 2018), there is a lack of research on leader humor and its influence on voice. More importantly, much less is known about the mechanisms through which leader humor influences employee voice (Tan et al., 2021).

We propose that perceptions of psychological safety could play an important role in linking leadership humor and employee voice. Psychological safety is described as the degree to which people believe they will not be judged, humiliated, or punished if they take risks, such as speaking up with suggestions or concerns (Edmondson, 1999). According to social information processing theory, individuals use social information cues to make sense of the immediate work environment and to form their perceptions and model their own behaviors (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Due to their direct involvement and interactions with followers, leaders serve as a key information source in the workplace (Chiu et al., 2016). Thus, we propose that when leaders use their sense of humor to lighten up a stressful situation and to alleviate interpersonal tensions within their teams, this sends significant signals to employees that their personal opinions can be expressed publicly without fear of repercussions, thus providing a psychologically secure atmosphere for voice. Although past research indicates that many leadership styles can foster perceptions of psychological safety (Frazier et al., 2017), the functional role of psychological safety in the effects of leader humor on voice has yet to be considered empirically.

Furthermore, we propose that team humor forms a relevant aspect of the work context that will determine when leader humor is most needed. Indeed, humor is a social phenomenon that is most visible among teams (Crowe et al., 2017). In this study, team humor refers to individual members’ perceptions of the extent to which humor is used to facilitate relationships and reduce interpersonal tensions among team members (cf. Crowe et al., 2017). Although humor in workgroups has been shown to be a powerful resource that results in several positive outcomes (e.g., Crowe et al., 2017; Lehmann-Willenbrock & Allen, 2014), there is a lack of consideration of this important construct in leader humor research (Pundt & Venz, 2017). We draw upon the substitutes for leadership theory (Kerr & Jermier, 1978) to propose that in teams with a high level of humor, there will be a lower need for leader humor. In particular, we argue that in such a context, team members may already be fulfilling leadership functions (e.g., in terms of creating a pleasant work environment), and so the influence of leaders may be less obvious. On the other hand, we expect that the influence of leader humor will be most noticeable in an atmosphere characterized by low team humor.

The current research adds to the leadership literature by providing a theoretical model that explains whether, when, and why leadership humor is important to employee voice. To date, there is a lack of research that focuses on the informal aspect of the social interactions between leaders and their subordinates and its influence on voice (Tan et al., 2021). Furthermore, our consideration of team humor responds to calls for research on contextual moderators of leader humor beyond the influence of individual differences of the follower (Pundt & Venz, 2017). Finally, we build on past research by also considering the mediating significance of the quality of leader–member exchange (LMX), which has been identified as a key underlying psychological process of leader humor effects (e.g., Pundt & Venz, 2017; Tan et al., 2021).

Theory and Hypotheses

Leader Humor

Humor is characterized by “amusing communications that produce positive emotions and cognitions in the individual, group, or organization” (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006, p. 59). Humor is also recognized as an important part of leaders’ communication styles that affect how well they are perceived by their followers (Cooper et al., 2018). When used appropriately, it has been shown that leaders’ humor can signal their competence, confidence, and status (Avolio et al., 1999; Decker & Rotondo, 2001; Mao et al., 2017; Priest & Swain, 2002). Although humor as a leader communication style can be both beneficial (e.g., using humor to improve relationships with followers) and socially harmful (e.g., laughing at followers for the intention of insulting them) (Martin et al., 2003; Romero & Cruthirds, 2006), this current research focuses on the positive aspects of leader humor and so does our measurement of the concept. This includes but is not limited to the use humor to relieve tension and the use of funny stories to defuse conflicts or to shift an argument in one’s favor (Avolio et al., 1999). While mean or mildly aggressive humor from leaders might still elicit laughter from others, it is unlikely to generate positive feelings and attitudes in employees, which are the central focus of this present research.

Leader humor has important implications for organizations as it can help foster positive interpersonal relationships among employees (Kong et al., 2019). Indeed, the relational process is a commonly given explanation for the positive influence of leader humor (Cooper, 2008; Cooper et al., 2018). In particular, leader humor helps lessen formal status differences between the leader and follower (Cooper, 2008; Morand, 1995; Romero & Cruthirds, 2006) while also reducing the psychological distance between them (Kim et al., 2016). This is important because when leaders engage in humorous actions, it can signal to employees that they are willing to interact with them on an equal footing. In this respect, Pundt and Herrmann (2015) showed that leader humor helps promote employees’ identification with their leaders, in turn resulting in closer ties between them (i.e., LMX). It is thus no surprise that leaders who use humor more frequently are generally perceived more favorably as they make people feel good and at ease around them (Cooper, 2008).

A large body of research in this area has shown that leader humor is associated with several important work-related outcomes. For example, leader humor has also been demonstrated to influence the quality of relationship that employees have with their leaders, in turn affecting their citizenship behavior (Cooper et al., 2018). Similarly, Tremblay (2017) showed that leaders’ use of humor encourages employees to engage in more citizenship behavior because it generates a sense of belonging and inclusion. Moreover, the influence of leader humor has been associated with employee creativity and innovative behaviors. In particular, Yung-Tai (2008) found that the use of humor by leaders leads to more interpersonal communication and group cohesion, in turn leading to more innovative behavior among employees. More recently, Peng et al. (2020) also showed that the influence of leader humor on employee creativity is more pronounced among those who are particularly sensitive to favorable interpersonal treatment from the leader. Taken together, this body of research indicates that leaders’ humor can promote healthy social relations by making them more relatable and approachable to employees.

Leader Humor, Psychological Safety, and Employee Voice

Despite the growth in leader humor research, an important outcome that has been largely neglected in the literature is employee voice (Tan et al., 2021). Voice has been described as discretionary behavior intended at conveying critical information to organizational authorities that will improve organizational functioning, despite the fact that such information may question or disrupt the organization’s and its power holders’ status quo (Detert & Burris, 2007). Given the risks involved in engaging in voice, research has shown that those willing to raise concerns to organizational authorities tend to be those with strong moral courage (Lee et al., 2017), high performance (Detert & Burris, 2007), and long tenure (Stamper & Dyne, 2001).

Apart from the influence of these personal attributes on employee voice, we argue that through the use of humor, leaders can play an important role in providing work conditions that are conducive to such behaviors. Arguably, leaders can use a variety of communication strategies to create ideal conditions for voice. For example, they can engage in light-hearted conversations in meetings prior to getting down to business to lighten up the atmosphere. They can also use humor to break tensions and divert attention away from a difficult confrontation and toward more productive and open discussion. Even self-defeating humor may help reduce the social distance between the leaders and followers (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). Indeed, leaders who make self-deprecating jokes can be seen as more open about their genuine selves, which helps to bridge the social distance and motivate followers to participate (Smith & Powell, 1988).

In this respect, we contend that perceptions of psychological safety could be an important mechanism that explains the influence of leader humor on employee voice. As discussed, while most research has focused on the relational process in explaining leader humor influence (see Cooper, 2008 for a discussion), we argue that leader humor can also develop a psychologically safe work environment where one’s ideas and opinions can be more freely expressed. Psychological safety refers to the belief that one is able to show and express one’s self without fear of negative consequences (Edmondson, 1999). In an environment defined by psychological safety, there tends to be a high level of trust and mutual respect, where members feel comfortable discussing problems and expressing their personal opinions without fear that they will be criticized. Given lower interpersonal risks involved, people in a psychologically safe environment are also more likely to believe that they will be given the benefit of the doubt for expressing themselves (Kahn, 1990). According to a well-publicized four-year study at Google, psychological safety, more than anything else, was shown to be a critical differentiator between successful and not-so-successful teams (Duhigg, 2016).

In this respect, social information processing theory posits that individuals rely on their immediate social contexts such as their leaders for salient information cues to inform their attitudes and behaviors (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Individuals also use the behavioral reactions of those around them as an additional source of social cues to interpret the meaning of their social environment. Thus, when leaders engage in light-hearted conversations that make employees feel at ease, it is likely that team members are more likely to infer that they will not be punished for expressing their personal thoughts and disagreement and so they do not have to be so careful all the time to avoid making mistakes. Thus, even when their ideas are not fully developed, members will feel safe to speak to one another without fear that they will be judged or punished. On the other hand, employees in work units characterized by a low level of psychological safety will try to avoid disagreements and keep their ideas to themselves. Milliken et al. (2003) indicated that when individuals expect adverse consequences from engaging in voice, they will refrain from conveying negative, challenging, or unpopular information to colleagues. A recent scandal involving a startup company named ‘Theranos’ provides a good illustration of how a toxic work environment engendered by top management can keep employees silent about serious organizational wrongdoings (Carreyrou, 2016). Over the past decade, research has increasingly shown that perceptions of psychological safety are positively related to both promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors (Liang et al., 2012; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009) as well as other personally risky behaviors such as whistleblowing (Liu et al., 2015). Based on the above arguments and empirical evidence, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1: The relationships between leader humor and employee promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors are mediated by perceptions of psychological safety.

The Role of Team Humor

Apart from considering the role of leader humor, we argue that a key factor that influences employee perceptions of psychological safety and voice behaviors is team humor. For persons working in an organization, perhaps the most prominent social context is their immediate work group. Hackman (1992) indicates that groups establish norms and expectations as well as provide salient social cues, which are the primary proximal causes of group members’ work-related behaviors. We expect that the stimuli that result from team humor will act as a glue that holds group members together while offering a social context for desirable behaviors that shape what happens in the group. Crowe et al. (2017) aptly noted that “in the workplace, humor manifests most prominently in teams of employees that work together” (p. 108).

Accordingly, Crowe et al. (2017) suggested what is considered humorous in teams is generally determined by the interactions among members and also the behaviors that are elicited by the humorous actions. In their observation study, Lehmann-Willenbrock and Allen (2014) found that when humor is embedded in team interactive processes (i.e., team meetings), it can lead to an increase in the generation of new ideas and team performance. In particular, their findings revealed that when humorous jokes are started in groups, they are brought up again later, eliciting a series of bouts of laughter. Such humor patterns then were found to trigger positive socioemotional behaviors among team members (e.g., delivering praise and encouraging participation) as well as problem-solving behaviors (e.g., asking for others’ opinions). It can thus be expected that, in a setting characterized by team humor, members will learn how to behave toward one another, thereby creating positive norms of respect and psychologically safe environment that encourages them to express themselves more openly and freely. Thus, we form the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: The relationships between team humor and employee promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors are mediated by perceptions of psychological safety.

We further propose that team humor will moderate the relationship between leader humor and perceptions of psychological safety and voice. This hypothesis is based on the assumption that the influence of leader humor could be more or less salient in a certain work environment. Indeed, the contingency approach to leadership has long suggested that the effect of specific leader behaviors is generally contingent upon the social context in which the leader operates (Fiedler, 1964). In particular, Kerr and Jermier (1978) proposed that work groups that can self-manage and sustain certain team norms to guide and monitor each other’s behavior are less reliant on their leaders. This theory thus essentially contends that the influence of leaders could be neutralized if accompanied by social contexts with a similar emphasis.

In this respect, we argue that team humor is a relevant factor that could neutralize the influence of leader humor. Specifically, we propose that teams with high humor are already characterized by a climate of trust where new ideas and dissent can emerge in team interaction processes (Crowe et al., 2017; Lehmann-Willenbrock & Allen, 2014; Tremblay, 2017). It is therefore conceivable that the influence of leadership could become attenuated, if not redundant, in such a context where members are already fulfilling the functions of leadership. So long as members can maintain high levels of humor in their teams, the significance of leader humor may not be especially noteworthy. We thus argue that team humor can act as a substitute for leadership in generating a safe environment for expressing voice. In contrast, it is expected that teams with low humor (e.g., teams where attempts at humor are not recognized by members) will benefit more from the use of humor by their leaders. Based on these reasons, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 3: Team humor moderates the relationship between leader humor and perceptions of psychological safety such that the relationship is stronger when team humor is low than when they are high.

Integrating the ideas discussed above, we further propose that the influence of leader humor on employee promotive and prohibitive voice that is transmitted through perceptions of psychological safety will be stronger when team humor is low rather high. Thus, we form an additional hypothesis as follows:

Hypothesis 4: The conditional indirect effects of leader humor on promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors via psychological safety are stronger when perceptions of team humor are low than when they are high.

Methodology

Overview of Sample and Data Collection

We tested the above hypotheses using a sample of employees working in a state-owned enterprise in the water treatment industry in Thailand. Surveys were sent to the employees via the intraoffice mail. Permission was obtained from the human resource department of the agency. A benefit of using email-based surveys is that the anonymity of respondents is better assured. We invited the employees to complete the survey at two time points, one week apart. In the first survey, they were asked to respond to questions about leader and team humor, LMX and psychological safety. In the second survey, they were asked to indicate the extent to which they engaged in promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors. At time 1, we sent the survey to 359 full-time employees and a total of 230 successfully completed the survey, with a 64.00% response rate. At time 2, the survey was sent to these employees and a total of 200 successfully completed the survey, resulting in a final response rate of 56%. The respondents were on average 35.7 years old; 49% were male; 86.5% had an undergraduate-level degree or higher; and the average organizational and dyad tenures were 7.02 and 3.22 years, respectively.

Measures

The original scales were developed in English and they were translated into the Thai language using back-translation techniques (Brislin, 1970).

Leader Humor. We measured leader humor (α = .89) using the 5-item scale developed by Avolio et al. (1999). As discussed, we are interested in the global evaluation of the positive aspects of leader humor. In particular, this measurement has been used in previous recent studies (e.g., Pundt & Venz, 2017). Employees were asked to indicate the extent of their agreement with each item using a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very frequently). A sample item includes, “My supervisor makes us laugh at ourselves when we are too serious.”

Team Humor. We measured team humor (α = .88 using three items from the above 5-item leader humor scale (Avolio et al., 1999). Specifically, we replaced the word “my supervisor” with “my team.” A sample item is, “My team uses humor to take the edge off during stressful periods.” The other two items were omitted because they are less applicable to the use of humor by teams. The measurement was based on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very frequently).

Psychological Safety. We measured psychological safety (α = .87) using the 5-item scale developed by Liang et al. (2012). Employees were asked to assess the degree to which they feel safe to express themselves at work. A sample item includes, “In my team, I can express my true feelings regarding my job.” The measurement was based on a 5-point Likert type format (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).

Employee Voice. We measured promotive voice (α = .90) and prohibitive voice (α = .84) using the 10-item scale developed by Liang et al. (2012). Sample items include, “proactively develop and make suggestions for issues that may influence the team” (i.e., promotive voice) and “I advise other colleagues against undesirable behaviors that would hamper job performance” (i.e., prohibitive voice). The measurement was based on a 5-point Likert type format (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).

We also controlled for the quality of LMX, which has been shown to be an important underlying mechanism linking leader humor and outcomes (e.g., Cooper, 2008; Cooper et al., 2018; Pundt & Herrmann, 2015; Pundt & Venz, 2017; Tan et al., 2021). Controlling for LMX allows us to test the effect of psychological safety independent of LMX. We used Liden and Maslyn’s (1998) 3-item scale, which captures the affect dimension of LMX. This specific LMX scale captures the mutual affection among members of a dyad, which is based primarily on interpersonal attraction, rather than work or professional values (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). The measurement was based on a 5-point Likert type format (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).

Analytic Procedure

We tested the study hypotheses using latent moderated structural equation modeling in Mplus Version 7.2 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012). Using latent variables to studying moderated mediation has been shown to produce more accurate estimated effects than a regression-based approach (Cheung & Lau, 2017). First, we determined the fit of the measurement model using several indices including the overall model chi-square, the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). After the fit of the measurement model was obtained, we then estimated the hypothesized structural model in two steps (Klein & Moosbrugger, 2000). The first step involves testing the structural model without the latent interaction term (model 0). Model 0 results were used to test the indirect effects of leader humor on both forms of voice behaviors via psychological safety. The second step involves testing the structural model with the latent interaction term (model 1). To determine whether it is statistically meaningful to include the latent interaction term, we used a log-likelihood ratio test to examine the relative fits of model 0 and model 1 (see Maslowsky et al., 2015 for a detailed procedure). The log-likelihood ratio test can be used to determine whether the more parsimonious model 0 represents a significant loss in fit relative to the more complex model 1. The D statistic was calculated using the log-likelihoods from model 0 and model 1, the values of which are fairly distributed as χ². The difference in the free parameters between the two models is df = 1. Finally, model 1 results were used to test the conditional indirect effects of leader humor on both forms of voice via psychological safety. Standardized coefficients for model 1 were obtained by constraining the predictor variances to 1.

Results

The Measurement Model

As shown in Table 1, we first examined the hypothesized six-factor measurement model. The results showed that this model had a poor fit to the data (χ² = 771.26, df = 284, p < .001; CFI = .87; TLI = .85; RMSEA = .09, model 1). Based on modification indices, we made a few changes to the hypothesized model by correlating the error terms of six pairs of items within the same factors that were similarly worded or shared similar meanings (Brown, 2006). The results showed that this adjusted model had an acceptable fit to the data (χ² = 566.12, df = 278, p < .001; CFI = .93; TLI = .92; RMSEA = .07, model 2) and was significantly better than the original model (Δχ² = 205.14, Δdf = 6, p < .001). When leader humor and team humor were combined, this procedure led to a significantly poorer fit (Δχ² = 364.99 Δdf = 5, p < .001; model 3), which suggests that the two variables are distinct. Similarly, when promotive voice and prohibitive voice were combined, this procedure resulted in a significantly poorer fit (Δχ² = 69.12, Δdf = 5, p < .001; model 4). Finally, when all the indicators were loaded onto a single factor, this model resulted in a significantly poorer fit (Δχ² = 2,011.00, Δdf = 15, p < .001; model 5). Thus, model 2 was accepted as the best fitting model.

Table 1.

Comparison of Measurement Models.

Model	χ²	df	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	Model	Δχ²/Δdf
1. Six-factor (hypothesized)	771.26	284	.09	.87	.85	—
2. Six-factor (adjusted)	566.12	278	.07	.93	.92	2 vs. 1	205.14/6**
3. Five-factor (LH and TH merged)	931.11	283	.10	.83	.80	3 vs. 2	364.99/5**
4. Five-factor (PM and PH merged)	635.24	283	.08	.90	.89	4 vs. 2	69.12/5**
5. One-factor (All factors merged)	2,011.00	293	.17	.55	.50	5 vs. 2	1,444.88/15**

Note. N = 200; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; LH = leader humor; TH = team humor; PM = promotive voice; PH = prohibitive voice. In the adjusted six-factor model, we correlated the error terms of six pairs of items within the same factors that were similarly worded or shared similar meanings (Brown, 2006).

To test for convergent validity, factor loadings of each construct were examined (Hulland, 1999; Tenenhaus et al., 2005). As shown in Table 2, the factor loadings were all above .60, ranging from .62 to .93. The size of the average variance extracted (AVE) for each variable was also acceptable except for the measures of prohibitive voice and team humor, which fell slightly below the recommended value of .50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Composite reliabilities (CRs) of constructs also ranged from .81 to .95, exceeding the recommended value of .60 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). In addition, Cronbach’s alphas showed satisfactory levels of internal consistency, ranging from .84 to .95 (Nunnally, 1978). The discriminant validity of the constructs was assessed using the square roots of the AVEs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). As shown in Table 3, the size of the AVE values was greater than the correlations shared between the construct and other constructs in the model.

Table 2.

Factor Loadings, AVE and CR (Based on a 6-Factor CFA Model).

Variables	Items	Loadings
Leader humor	AVE = .52; CR = .89; α = .89
	1. My supervisor uses humor to take the edge off during stressful periods	0.70
	2. My supervisor uses a funny story to turn an argument in his or her favor	0.72
	3. My supervisor makes us laugh at ourselves when we are too serious	0.80
	4. My supervisor uses amusing stories to defuse conflicts	0.84
	5. My supervisor uses wit to make friends of the opposition	0.85
Psychological safety	AVE = .56; CR = .86; α = .87
	1. In my team, I can express my true feelings regarding my job.	0.70
	2. In my team, I can freely express my thoughts.	0.73
	3. In my team, expressing your true feelings is welcomed.	0.86
	4. Nobody in my team will pick on me even if I have different opinions.	0.71
	5. I am worried that expressing true thoughts in my team would do harm to myself®.	0.72
Promotive voice	AVE = .63; CR = .89; α = .90
	1. I proactively develop and make suggestions for issues that may influence the team.	0.82
	2. I proactively suggest new projects which are beneficial to the team.	0.77
	3. I raise suggestions to improve the team’s working procedure.	0.82
	4. I Proactively voice out constructive suggestions that help the team reach its goals.	0.74
	5. I Make constructive suggestions to improve the team’s operation.	0.81
Prohibitive voice	AVE = .47; CR = .81; α = .84
	1. I advise other colleagues against undesirable behaviors that would hamper job performance.	0.65
	2. I speak up honestly with problems that might cause serious loss to the team, even when/though dissenting opinions exist.	0.79
	3. I dare to voice out opinions on things that might affect efficiency in the team, even if that would embarrass others.	0.67
	4. I dare to point out problems when they appear in the team, even if that would hamper relationships with other colleagues.	0.65
	5. I proactively report coordination problems in the team to the management.	0.62
Team Humor	AVE = .44; CR = .89; α = .88
	1. My team uses humor to take the edge off during stressful periods.	0.74
	2. My team makes us laugh even when we are too serious.	0.90
	3. My team uses humor to defuse conflicts.	0.89
LMX	AVE = 0.52; CR = 0.95; α = .95
	1. I like my supervisor very much as a person.	0.93
	2. My supervisor is the kind of person one would like to have as a friend.	0.92
	3. My supervisor is a lot of fun to work with.	0.93

Note. AVE = average variance extracted; CR = composite reliability; LMX = leader–member exchange; α = Cronbach’s alpha; all factor loadings are significant at p < .001 level.

Table 3.

Bivariate Correlations, Means and Standard Deviations.

	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Leader humor	2.90	.94	(.72)
2. Psychological safety	3.77	.69	.45**	(.74)
3. Promotive voice	3.72	.60	.15*	.39**	(.79)
4. Prohibitive voice	3.53	.70	.21**	.50**	.50**	(.68)
5. Team humor	3.84	.75	.18**	.41**	.19**	.23**	(.66)
6. LMX	3.94	1.18	.59**	.33**	.10	.17*	.17*	(.72)

Note. N = 200; *p < .05; **p < .01; numbers in the parentheses are square roots of AVEs, which are greater than the size of the correlations shared between the construct and other constructs in the model. LMX = leader–member exchange; AVE=average variance extracted.

Common Method Bias

Because self-reported data were used in this study, Harman’s single-factor test was performed to examine the possible issue of common method bias (CMB) (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Harman’s single-factor test assumes that CMB is present in the data set when one factor accounts for more than 50% of the variance of the items in the factor analysis (i.e., unrotated matrix). Based on the unrotated principal component factor analysis, we found that six factors accounted for 74.96% of the variance and that the first largest factor accounted for 36.15% of the variance, less than 50%. This is consistent with the above Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) results, which showed that the single-factor model did not fit the data well. These results suggest that CMB is not of great concern and thus is unlikely to confound the interpretations of results.

The Structural Model

As support was found for the validity and reliability of the measurement instruments, the hypothesized structural model was then examined. All paths in the model were freely estimated.

As shown in Figure 1 and Table 4, model 0 results showed that leader humor and team humor had direct positive effects on psychological safety (β = .43, p < .0001; β = .39, p < .0001, respectively). Psychological safety in turn was positively related to promotive and prohibitive voice (β = .67, p < .0001; β = .92, p < .0001, respectively). Neither leader humor nor team humor had significant effects on the promotive and prohibitive voice. This suggests that the effects of leader humor and team humor on voice behaviors were completely mediated (Baron & Kenny, 1986). The results also showed that leader humor had a significant positive effect on LMX (β = .69, p < .001); however, LMX was not significantly related to either promotive or prohibitive voice (β = −.11, p > .10; β = −.00, p > .10, respectively). Overall, this model explained 43%, 34% and 66% of the variance in psychological safety, promotive voice, and prohibitive voice, respectively.

Figure 1.

Latent moderated mediation structural equation modeling results. Note. Nonsignificant paths and the effect of leader–member exchange (LMX) are not reported here (see Table 4); coefficients are standardized; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

Table 4.

Path Coefficients for the Latent Moderated Mediation Structural Equation Models.

Estimated paths	Model 0 (without interaction)	Model 1 (with interaction)
Main paths
Leader humor→promotive voice	.00	−.00
Leader humor→prohibitive voice	−.14	−.25
Team humor→promotive voice	−.09	−.13
Team humor→prohibitive voice	−.08	−.16
Leader humor→psychological safety	.43***	.62***
Team humor→psychological safety	.39***	.49***
Psychological safety→promotive voice	.67***	.61***
Psychological safety→prohibitive voice	.92***	1.16***
Interaction effect path
Leader humor×team humor→psychological safety	—	.22**
Controlled paths
Leader humor→LMX	.69***	.97***
LMX→promotive voice	−.11	−.10
LMX→prohibitive voice	−.00	−.01
R² (psychological safety)	.43	.46
R² (promotive voice)	.34	.34
R² (prohibitive voice])	.66	.66
Free parameters	97	98
Log (L)	−4,335.64	−4,330.43

Note. N = 200; * p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. LMX = leader–member exchange.

In terms of indirect effects, as shown in Table 5, the results revealed that the indirect effect of leader humor on promotive voice through psychological safety was significant (β = .36, p < .001). Likewise, the indirect effect of leader humor on prohibitive voice through psychological safety was significant (β = .69, p < .001). This provides support to Hypothesis 1. Furthermore, the indirect effect of team humor on promotive voice through psychological safety was significant (β = .33, p < .001). Likewise, the indirect effect of team humor on prohibitive voice through psychological safety was significant (β = .63, p < .001). This provides support to Hypothesis 2.

Table 5.

Indirect Effects.

Mediated paths	Indirect effects			Total effects
Mediated paths	Coefficient	SE	p value	Coefficient	SE	p value
Hypothesis 1
1. Leader humor→psychological safety→promotive voice	.36	.09	.000	.36	.14	.011
2. Leader humor→psychological safety→prohibitive voice	.69	.17	.000	.45	.20	.026
Difference between 1 and 2	.33	.13	.015	.09	.17	.622
Hypothesis 2
3. Team humor→psychological safety→promotive voice	.33	.08	.000	.20	.09	.034
4. Team humor→psychological safety→prohibitive voice	.63	.16	.000	.48	.15	.002
Difference between 3 and 4	.30	.12	.015	.27	.13	.038

We conducted additional analyses to see whether the indirect effects of leader humor and team humor on prohibitive voice were significantly stronger than their indirect effects on promotive voice (see Table 5). Liang et al. (2012) indicated that prohibitive voice involves challenging the status quo of others and disrupting those who benefit from existing work practices and thus there could be a stronger relationship between psychological safety and prohibitive voice. Recent research also showed that engaging in a prohibitive voice is more psychologically depleting than engaging in a promotive voice because one must anticipate and control the negative emotional reactions of others (Lin & Johnson, 2015). As expected, the results showed that the indirect effects of leader humor and team humor on prohibitive voice were significantly stronger than the indirect effects on promotive voice (β = .33, p < .05; β = .30, p < .05, respectively).

When the latent interaction term was added in model 1, we found that it had a significant effect in the predicted direction (β = −.23, p < .01). The relative fit of model 1 versus model 0 was determined via a log-likelihood ratio test comparing the log-likelihood values of model 0 and model 1, yielding a log-likelihood difference value of D = 5.21. Based on the number of free parameters of model 0 (97) and model 1 (98), the difference in free parameters = 1, which represents the df value we should use for the log-likelihood ratio test. Using a chi-square distribution, this log-likelihood ratio test proved significant (p < .05), indicating that the null model (model 0) represents a significant loss in fit relative to the alternative model (model 1).

Furthermore, we conducted simple slope tests to examine the nature of the interaction (Dawson, 2013). As shown in Figure 2, the results showed that leader humor had a stronger effect on psychological safety when team humor was low (1 SD below the mean) (β = .89, p < .001), rather than when it was high (1 SD above the mean) (β = .41, p < .01). This provides support for Hypothesis 3. Furthermore, as shown in Table 6, the results regarding the conditional indirect effects of leader humor on both forms of voice via psychological safety revealed that leader humor had a stronger effect on promotive voice via psychological safety when team humor was low (β = .52, p < .001) than when it was high (β = .23, p < .01). The difference between the two conditional indirect effects was significant at the .004 level. Likewise, leader humor had a stronger effect on prohibitive voice via psychological safety when team humor was low (β = 1.00, p < .001) than when it was high (β = .45, p < .01). The difference between the two conditional indirect effects was also significant at the .004 level. These results provide full support for Hypothesis 4.

Figure 2.

Interaction between leader humor and team humor on psychological safety.

Table 6.

Conditional Indirect Effects (Moderated Mediation).

Mediated paths	Levels of team humor	Indirect effects			Total effects
Mediated paths	Levels of team humor	Coefficient	SE	p value	Coefficient	SE	p value
Leader humor→psychological safety→promotive voice	Low	.52	.15	.000	.41	.11	.000
	High	.24	.08	.004	.13	.10	.205
	Difference	.28	.10	.004	.27	.09	.005
Leader humor→psychological safety→prohibitive voice	Low	1.00	.24	.000	.73	.23	.002
	High	.45	.16	.006	.18	.20	.363
	Difference	.54	.19	.004	.54	.19	.004

We conducted additional analyses controlling for the influence of several demographic variables that are generally controlled for in voice research (Detert & Burris, 2007; Janssen & Gao, 2015; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009), including gender (0 for male and 1 for female workers), age (in years), education (1 = below bachelor’s; 4 = PhD), organizational tenure (in years), dyad tenure (in years), and position levels (1 through 7). The results showed that none of the control variables had significant effects on voice behaviors and thus they were not included in the analysis. The reported findings here were also unaltered with or without the controls.

Discussion

In this current research, we propose that leader humor can influence employee voice behaviors (i.e., promotive and prohibitive voice) via the mediating role of psychological safety and that team humor could be an important social context that may moderate the influence of leader humor. The results provided full support for the proposed hypotheses. We discuss below how our work contributes to the current literature and practice.

Study Implications

First and foremost, our study adds to the leadership literature by shedding light on the importance of leader humor on employee voice. Although research and theory are quite clear about the benefits of leader humor for employee attitudes and behaviors (Kong et al., 2019), the implications of leader humor for employee voice are not well understood. Past research indicates that employee voice is significantly influenced by leaders who are supportive (Edmondson, 1999), open (Detert & Burris, 2007), ethical (Lee et al., 2017; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009), authentic (Liu et al., 2015), responsive (Janssen & Gao, 2015), trustworthy (Gao et al., 2011), and humble (Wang et al., 2018). Our study thus adds to the current knowledge by showing that leader humor is another type of leader behavior that can contribute significantly to building a positive work environment that promotes employees’ willingness to speak up.

Secondly, our study helps clarify the relationship between leadership humor and employee voice. Although it has been suggested that leader humor generally influences employee outcomes through the relational process (e.g., Cooper, 2008; Cooper et al., 2018; Pundt, 2015; Pundt & Venz, 2017; Tan et al., 2021), our research departs from previous research by focusing on the role of psychological safety as an underlying explanation for the leader humor–voice relationship. Importantly, our findings reveal that the indirect effects of leader humor via perceptions of psychological safety were significant independent of the effect of LMX, a commonly used mediator in leader humor research. Interestingly, the results also showed that perceptions of psychological safety played a particularly important role in eliciting prohibitive voice in comparison with promotive voice. Indeed, prohibitive voice involves expressing one’s disagreements with authorities, which could be construed as a form of disobedience and, as a result, could be regarded by employees as personally riskier than promotive voice (Liang et al., 2012). This further emphasizes the importance of fostering a healthy work atmosphere in which employees feel that they can open up about even the “messy” aspects of their workplace without fear of retaliation (Edmondson, 2018).

Third, our study contributes to the literature by considering the role of team humor. Humor is a social phenomenon that is most visible among teams (Crowe et al., 2017), yet research on team humor has been lacking (Lehmann-Willenbrock & Allen, 2014; Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012) especially in the leader humor literature (Pundt & Venz, 2017). Drawing from the substitutes for leadership theory, we found that team humor attenuates the positive effect of leader humor. When individuals perceive their teams to enjoy a high level of humor, the influence of leader humor becomes less noticeable. This provides strong support for the leadership substitutes hypothesis, which suggests that certain contextual factors could neutralize or lessen the virtuous effect of leadership behavior, making leaders less relevant. On the contrary, we found that teams that take a more serious tone in group processes seem to reap the most benefits from leader humor. This suggests that leaders’ influence could be amplified when their humor stands out against a background of low-humor teams. In this respect, Frazier et al. (2017) indicated that it is not enough to simply examine the direct effect of leader behaviors on perceptions of psychological safety but it is also important to explore the boundary conditions of leadership influence. More importantly, our study is among the first to show that leader humor and team humor are distinct constructs and that they could have independent as well as interactive effects on work-related outcomes.

Finally, our study has important implications for practice. Currently, employees spend most of their time collaborating with others and thus it is important for them to feel safe to express their opinions and to be themselves in the social environment so that they can reach their fullest potential. While employees may engage in voice for various noble reasons (e.g., Tangirala et al., 2013), it is important to recognize that there are personal costs associated with expressing one’s voice. Our findings indicate that the use of humor by leaders can to a certain degree alleviate such psychological costs. Given the significance of leader humor in creating an open and inclusive work environment, now is a better time for leaders to use humor to motivate their employees to contribute constructively to the organization. This is especially true during the unfolding disaster of COVID-19 where team members may have a hard time finding humor in their work. It is thus recommended that organizations find ways to educate their leaders on how humor tactics can be properly used in team processes. Finally, as our findings showed, organizations will benefit from hiring team members with a good sense of humor so as to strengthen team atmosphere.

Study Limitations and Future Research

Despite our study contributions, our study has several limitations that are worth noting. First, although we were able to collect our data at two time points, we are still unable to rule out the possibility that there could be a reverse causality among the study variables. For example, perceptions of psychological safety could encourage team members and their leaders to become more humorous over time. Future research may wish to situate our theoretical model in a longitudinal design with additional waves of data collection to explore the ongoing interplay between the use of humor and psychological safety. Secondly, the measurements of all the study variables were based on employees’ self-reports, which could raise concerns about CMB. Although interaction effects tend to be robust against CMB (Siemsen et al., 2010), future research should use multiple sources of data (e.g., supervisor reports of employee voice) to reduce this potential problem. Third, we situated our examination of humor and perceptions of psychological safety within the individual-level process, which may limit our ability to uncover patterns and relationships that may exist across different levels of analysis. Future research should extend our research by using a multilevel approach.

Furthermore, our study only narrowly focused on the positive aspect of leader and team humor, whereas, in practice, the use of humor by leaders may encompass a combination of affiliative (i.e., enhancing one’s relationship with others), self-defeating (i.e., enhancing relationships at the expense of self), self-enhancing (i.e., enhancing one’s image relative to others) or even aggressive (i.e., enhancing the self at the expense of others) humor styles (Martin et al., 2003). Future research may wish to examine how different humor styles influence perceptions of psychological safety and employee voice. While affiliative and defeating humor styles may be beneficial in promoting positive work climates, self-enhancing and aggressive humor could undermine team interactive processes (Kim et al., 2016; Pundt & Herrmann, 2015; Tremblay, 2017). Finally, it is a known fact that Thailand is a “Land of Smile” that puts much importance on fostering social cohesion and face-saving among members and thus humor could be particularly salient in this societal context. It would thus be worthwhile for future research to replicate our findings in different organizational and cultural settings.

Conclusion

This study examined the effects of leader humor on employee voice. The results suggest that when leaders use humor more frequently, followers experience higher levels of psychological safety, which in turn encourages them to engage in more promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors. The indirect effects of leader humor on employee voice via perceptions of psychological safety were found to be most pronounced when employees perceived their teams to have low levels of humor, which suggests that the effectiveness of leadership behavior partly depends on the social context in which it takes place.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Wisanupong Potipiroon

Author Biographies

Wisanupong Potipiroon is an assistant professor in the Faculty of Management Sciences at Prince of Songkla University in Thailand. He conducts research on managerial leadership, workplace incivility, motivation and gender issues. His work appears in the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology and several leading journals in public management.

Michael T. Ford is an associate professor in the Culverhouse College of Business at the University of Alabama. His research falls within the domain of attitudes and emotions toward organizations and occupational stress. His work appears in Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management and Psychological Bulletin.

References

Avolio

B. J.

Howell

J. M.

Sosik

J. J

. (1999). A funny thing happened on the way to the bottom line: Humor as a moderator of leadership style effects. Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 219-227. https://doi.org/10.5465/257094

Bagozzi

R. P.

. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A

. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Bashshur

M. R.

. (2015). When voice matters: A multilevel review of the impact of voice in organizations. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1530-1554. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314558302

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

Brown

T. A

. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Publications.

Carreyrou

(2016). Theranos Whistleblower Shook the Company—And His Family. http://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-has-struggled-with-blood-tests-1444881901

Cheung

G. W.

Lau

R. S

. (2017). Accuracy of parameter estimates and confidence intervals in moderated mediation models: A comparison of regression and latent moderated structural equations. Organizational Research Methods, 20(4), 746-769. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115595869

Chiu

C.-Y. C.

Owens

B. P.

Tesluk

P. E

. (2016). Initiating and utilizing shared leadership in teams: The role of leader humility, team proactive personality, and team performance capability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(12), 1705. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000159

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.

Crowe

Allen

J. A.

Lehmann-Willenbrock

. (2017). Humor in workgroups and teams. In Robert

(Ed.), The psychology of humor at work (pp. 96-108). London and New York: Routledge.

13.

Dawson

J. F

. (2013). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7

14.

Decker

W. H.

Rotondo

D. M

. (2001). Relationships among gender, type of humor, and perceived leader effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13(4), 450-465.

15.

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

16.

Duhigg

. (2016). What google learned from its quest to build the perfect team. The New York Times Magazine, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-fromits-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html

17.

Edmondson

A. C

. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

18.

Edmondson

A. C

. (2018). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons.

19.

Fiedler

F. E

. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 149-190). Academic Press.

20.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F

. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing research, 18(3), 382-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313

21.

Frazier

M. L.

Fainshmidt

Klinger

R. L.

Pezeshkan

Vracheva

. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113-165. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183

22.

Gao

Janssen

Shi

. (2011). Leader trust and employee voice: The moderating role of empowering leader behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 787-798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.05.015

23.

Hackman

J. R

. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. In Dunnette

M. D.

Hough

L. M.

. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 199-267). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

24.

Hulland

. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195-204. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199902)20:2<195::AID-SMJ13>3.0.CO;2-7

25.

Janssen

Gao

. (2015). Supervisory responsiveness and employee self-perceived status and voice behavior. Journal of Management, 41(7), 1854-1872. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312471386

26.

Kahn

W. A

. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724. https://doi.org/10.5465/256287

27.

Kerr

Jermier

J. M

. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22(3), 375-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(78)90023-5

28.

Kim

T.-Y.

Lee

D.-R.

Wong

N. Y. S

. (2016). Supervisor humor and employee outcomes: The role of social distance and affective trust in supervisor. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31(1), 125-139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9406-9

29.

Klein

Moosbrugger

. (2000). Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction effects with the LMS method. Psychometrika, 65(4), 457-474. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296338

30.

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

31.

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

32.

Lehmann-Willenbrock

Allen

J. A

. (2014). How fun are your meetings? Investigating the relationship between humor patterns in team interactions and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1278. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038083

33.

Liang

Farh

C. I.

Farh

J. L

. (2012). 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

34.

Liden

R. C.

Maslyn

J. M

. (1998). Multidimensionafity of leader–member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24(1), 43-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(99)80053-1

35.

Lin

S.-H. J.

Johnson

R. E

. (2015). A suggestion to improve a day keeps your depletion away: Examining promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors within a regulatory focus and ego depletion framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1381. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000018

36.

Liu

S.-m.

Liao

J.-q.

Wei

(2015). Authentic leadership and whistleblowing: Mediating roles of psychological safety and personal identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(1), 107-119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2271-z

37.

Mao

J.-Y.

Chiang

J. T.-J.

Zhang

Gao

. (2017). Humor as a relationship lubricant: The implications of leader humor on transformational leadership perceptions and team performance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 24(4), 494-506. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051817707518

38.

Martin

R. A.

Puhlik-Doris

Larsen

Gray

Weir

. (2003). Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the humor styles questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(1), 48-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00534-2

39.

Maslowsky

Jager

Hemken

. (2015). Estimating and interpreting latent variable interactions: A tutorial for applying the latent moderated structural equations method. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 39(1), 87-96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025414552301

40.

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

41.

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

42.

Morand

D. A

. (1995). The role of behavioral formality and informality in the enactment of bureaucratic versus organic organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 831-872. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9512280023

43.

Muthén

. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide. Muthén and Muthén.

44.

Nunnally

J. C

. (1978). Psychometric methods. New York: New York: McGraw-Hill.

45.

Peng

Lei

Guo

Qiu

(2020). How can leader humor enhance subordinates’ service creativity? The moderator of subordinates’ SFIT and the mediator of role modeling. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 41(6), 865-882. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-03-2020-0087

46.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Jeong-Yeon

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

47.

Priest

R. F.

Swain

J. E

. (2002). Humor and its implications for leadership effectiveness. Humor, 15(2), 169-190. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2002.010

48.

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

49.

Pundt

Herrmann

. (2015). Affiliative and aggressive humour in leadership and their relationship to leader–member exchange. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(1), 108-125. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12081

50.

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

51.

Romero

E. J.

Cruthirds

K. W

. (2006). The use of humor in the workplace. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(2), 58-69. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2006.20591005

52.

Salancik

G. R.

Pfeffer

. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224-253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392563

53.

Siemsen

Roth

Oliveira

. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 456-476. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109351241

54.

Smith

C. M.

Powell

. (1988). The use of disparaging humor by group leaders. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 53(3), 279-292. https://doi.org/10.1080/10417948809372729

55.

Stamper

C. L.

Dyne

L. V

. (2001). Work status and organizational citizenship behavior: A field study of restaurant employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(5), 517-536. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.100

56.

Tan

Wang

. (2021). Leader humor and employee upward voice: The role of employee relationship quality and traditionality. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 28(2), 221-236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051820970877

57.

Tangirala

Kamdar

Venkataramani

Parke

M. R

. (2013). Doing right versus getting ahead: The effects of duty and achievement orientations on employees’ voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 1040. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033855

58.

Tenenhaus

Vinzi

V. E.

Chatelin

Y.-M.

Lauro

. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 48(1), 159-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2004.03.005

59.

Tremblay

. (2017). Humor in teams: Multilevel relationships between humor climate, inclusion, trust, and citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(4), 363-378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9445-x

60.

Van Dyne

Ang

Botero

I. C.

(2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1359-1392. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00384

61.

Van Dyne

LePine

J. A.

(1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108-119. https://doi.org/10.5465/256902

62.

Walumbwa

F. O.

Schaubroeck

. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1275-1286. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015848

63.

Wang

Liu

Zhu

. (2018). Humble leadership, psychological safety, knowledge sharing and follower creativity: A cross-level investigation. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1727. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01727

64.

Yung-Tai

. (2008). The relationship between use of humor by leaders and R&D employee innovative behavior: Evidence from Taiwan. Asia Pacific Management Review, 13(3), 635-653. https://doi.org/10.6126/APMR.2008.13.3.06