Humour and Leadership
Chair: Michael Meany
Humour Use in Workplace Leadership – The Signals of Intention
Caroline Rosenberg and James N. Eracleous, Deakin
Laughter and Learning: Clarity in Value and Caution in Evaluation When Applying Humour within Education
Martin Billingham, UCL
Bureaucracy and Humour in Parks and Recreation
Holly Randell-Moon and Arthur J. Randell, Charles Sturt
Comments 13
Hi Everyone!
Welcome to the Humour and Leadership Panel. It’s a joy to chair this panel. First of all I would like to thank the presenters: Caroline Rosenberg and James N. Eracleous; Martin Billingham; and, Holly Randell-Moon and Arthur J. Randell. Their presentations are damn fine pieces of performance and technical, video wizardry. I would also like to thank the conference organisers for making this platform available and for doing such a stellar job of curating the panels.
The presentations in this panel are diverse yet they are unified by questions of intention, communication and incongruous pairing of ideologies. Caroline and James examine the relationship between humour usage leadership styles. Martin offers a novel analysis of the reliability, validity and value of humour in education. And Holly and Arthur offer an analysis of Parks and Recreation to provide insights into the aspirations of bureaucracy.
As a heart-starter I’d like to ask all of the presenters to consider the distinction between humour and of comedy. This is important when links are made between back to the concept of intention. A humorous incident may well be completely unintentional. Does a comedy event always require intention?
Also, does incongruity need resolution?
To all participants, please feel free to add to the discussion.
Thanks,
Michael M
Hey Michael,
Thank you for chairing this panel and the questions about intention!
Having watched your presentation, we’re aware of the definitions that you used for humour and comedy, which is important in how we respond to your questions. We do agree with you that comedy requires intention based on the definitions that you provided.
However, in the workplace leadership context, intention, humour, and comedy tend to take on a slightly different meanings in practice. Within the leadership context, humour is often used to facilitate a goal or an objective that the leader wants to achieve in that situation, for example, pointing out a mistake in a funny way. As such, the ultimate intention for leaders when using humour is rarely to be funny, but rather, to use humour as a tool to better meet their leadership goals. Humour and comedy are not necessarily differentiated in the leadership context, since workplace leaders don’t tend to have a reputation for getting up and doing a comedy routine. It’s tricky to answer directly if comedy always requires intention, but what we have learned through our research and some literature is that when humour is used by leaders that don’t have clear intention, they tend to be less effective at achieving their desired outcomes. Similarly, incongruity doesn’t necessarily need resolution, but incongruent humour that has a resolution tends to have better outcomes.
Thank you for the questions, we look forward to the discussion session!
James and Caroline
Looking forward to discussing these presentations online later today. Come and join the discussion!
1-2pm Perth
3-4pm AEST (Brisbane)
3.30pm Adelaide
4-5pm AEDT (Melbourne/Sydney/Canberra)
Zoom link https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83269611574 [Meeting ID: 832 6961 1574]
Hi Michael,
Many thanks for chairing this session and thanks for your question. In the paper, Arthur and I argue that the mockumentary aesthetic works to ‘mock’ factual discourse so much of the humour in Parks stems from unintentional comedy. On a much broader level, we argue this aesthetic serves a political purpose in critiquing neoliberal and anti-statist views of public administration and bureaucracy so using humour to underscore the serious consequences of these views. I’ll have to have a think about the distinction between comedy and humour a little further and I’m interested in seeing what the other presenters think.
Kind regards,
Holly.
Also just wanted to add that Arthur is an independent scholar based in New York.
Hi Holly,
Thanks for the reply. You make really interesting points about the unintentional elements in mockumentary. Craig Hight makes the point in his book that documentaries are always planned but rarely scripted. (Craig is a colleague of mine at Newcastle, so there’s a chance that I’m referencing a conversation rather than the book 🙂 ). Documentary making has an element of serendipity – regardless of the amount of planning you may not get the right person in the right place place saying / doing the right things to support your project. This suggests that mockumentaries may actually be more scripted.
All the best,
Michael M
Hi Holly
Great presentation!
I really enjoyed the consideration of the current U.S. political context, including Swanston’s staunch libertarianism and the Clinton/Trump parallels, and I have a couple of broader speculative questions about that. Firstly, given that Parks originally aired a year into the Obama administration, do you think such a show, with its reasonably hopeful challenge to truisms of bureaucracy, would be able to make the same critiques now?
Secondly, have you thought much about similar shows in other countries – the ABC’s Utopia for instance – and how they are similar or different in what is being challenged or reinforced?
(On a personal note as someone who also works in government, in fact in the building that they use for the exterior shots in Utopia, I have had several colleagues complain to me that they can’t watch Parks or Utopia because “it’s too real”. Not quite sure what this says about the state of bureaucracy in Victoria but I’m sure it says something.)
Hi Til,
Great question, I do think Parks did respond to some of the ideals of public administration popularised by the Obama campaign. There’s an episode where Leslie is put on a poster called ‘Knope’ which is similar to the ‘Hope’ posters by Shepard Fairey. We talk a bit more about the politics of the show in the full article:
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/761227
The show does engage with the sexism and racism of public administration so I think there would have been scope to adapt the show to the Trump regime. I think also that the longer the show ran, the more Leslie Knope’s personal politics aligned with Amy Poehler’s and her version of feminist comedy. What was interesting for me and Arthur doing the paper is that Parks seems relatively distinct from Utopia, Veep, or In the Thick of It, by having an ultimately positive view of public servants, at least Knope, and the capacity for progressive and processual change even if short term goals are often thwarted.
Did you see Leslie’s letter after Trump was elected?
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2016/11/10/13580582/leslie-knope-donald-trump
I think that the show is largely making similar points to Veep et al. about political processes and public administration but the humour is oriented through a different route.
Kind regards,
Holly.
Thanks for the link to the full article. Feminist Media Studies has published a lot on the figure of Leslie Knope (and her female comic contemporaries). I’m really interested to read more about bureaucratic milieu. Fascinating paper.
Hi Til,
I just tried responding to your great question and it disappeared so here goes again.
I think for sure that the presentation of Leslie does align with an Obama-era notion of public administration and hope. There was even an episode which featured a ‘Knope’ poster in the vein of the Shepard Fairey ‘Hope’ posters. The show does tackle sexism and racism in public administration as well as corporate anti-statism so I think it could have adapted quite well to the Trump era. We do talk about politics in more depth in the full paper:
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/761227
Did you see Leslie’s letter after Trump was elected?
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2016/11/10/13580582/leslie-knope-donald-trump
What was interesting for me and Arthur writing the paper is that unlike Veep, In the Thick of It, Utopia et al. (apologies for glossing the differences here) was the show ultimately took a positive view towards the processual elements of public administration. I do think Parks is largely making the same points as these other shows but the humour is directed in a different orientation.
I also think that as the show progressed, Leslie’s personal politics aligned more closely with Amy Poehler’s and her feminist comedy.
Kind regards,
Holly.
Kia ora Martin, having just watched your presentation, I’m interested to hear whether you’ve come across value assessments of humorous teachers themselves? As a lecturer who employs humour as a deliberate teaching strategy for both effective communication and breaking down boundaries, I worry that drier authoritarian lecturers are perceived as comparatively all-knowing. Not to suggest that the humorous teacher might not be more effective despite any such perceptions.
Hi Bryce – wow my first Maori greeting!
Thanks for the question, I can answer from a UK perspective (but very keen to know more from outside my bubble)
The short answer is that ‘engagement’ tends to be a factor is teacher assessment (e.g. Ofsted) but it’s not really defined what that means and it’s usually something that’s written into the notes e.g. “Great rapport. good engagement with students” However, I have been involved in a lot of teacher observations and the use of humour is certainly a talking topic afterwards – it’s just not written down (so not officially reported)
There is hope for future assessments as ‘socio-emotional engagement’ is becoming a growing topic and I would certainly argue that humour is great example of exactly that kind of interaction.
Thrilled that you brought up the topic of lecturing, it’s at the centre of a really big debate about the function of Higher Education right now – remote learning during Covid has really pushed this to the forefront – I’m actually in the middle of a Science communication project with a lecturer in the UK on this topic.
Would love to know more about your deliberate use of humour as a teaching & learning tool. What’s the best way to stay in touch?
Hi Til,
Great question, I do think Parks did respond to some of the ideals of public administration popularised by the Obama campaign. There’s an episode where Leslie is put on a poster called ‘Knope’ which is similar to the ‘Hope’ posters by Shepard Fairey. We talk a bit more about the politics of the show in the full article:
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/761227
The show does engage with the sexism and racism of public administration so I think there would have been scope to adapt the show to the Trump regime. I think also that the longer the show ran, the more Leslie Knope’s personal politics aligned with Amy Poehler’s and her version of feminist comedy. What was interesting for me and Arthur doing the paper is that Parks seems relatively distinct from Utopia, Veep, or In the Thick of It, by having an ultimately positive view of public servants, at least Knope, and the capacity for progressive and processual change even if short term goals are often thwarted.
Did you see Leslie’s letter after Trump was elected?
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2016/11/10/13580582/leslie-knope-donald-trump
I think that the show is largely making similar points to Veep et al. about political processes and public administration but the humour is oriented through a different route.
Kind regards,
Holly.