Study sheds light on the cases of bullying packaged as workplace jokes
Cracking jokes in the workplace once in a while could help lighten the mood and ease the stress that comes with our jobs. However, a recent study showed that humour at work also has a dark side, negatively affecting morale. A paper published in the European Journal of Humour Research revealed that in one specific company studied, organizational humour exposed “control, power, and masculine dominance.”
“Humour was both controlled and controlling and masculine hegemonic power was reinforced through extreme and offensive humour,” the paper, published by Dr. Barbara Plester, Emily Brewer, and Tim Bentley, noted.
In the researchers’ study within four New Zealand-based organizations, one particular business caught their attention as it revealed a culture around organizational humour that was not entirely funny, which was not observed in any other studied companies.
The owner-operated small company had less than 30 people, and the researchers noted that such a workplace revolved around sexualised, controlling, and hierarchical humour. Yet, the employees in the company never considered these humours as forms of bullying.
“I didn’t want to get into what I call the dark side of humour, but I found it, and our paper investigates the relationship between humour and bullying and suggests that this type of bullying can be even more insidious and difficult to address because the use of humour creates a smokescreen, which to some extent protects the perpetrator,” Plester said according to the National Safety Council of Australia (NSCA) Foundation.
Among the humour incidents in the company include the poster “punch her in the face to show that you are right,” displayed in the company’s staff kitchen, naked buttocks displayed on the computer screen to prank with one worker, and simulating sexual acts that caused the outrage of one client.
Plester explained that employees find it difficult to call out bullying when it is wrapped like a joke, as this separates them from the people involved in the humour and defines them as ‘other’ or boring within their work culture. This in itself could leave employers open to harassment and discrimination lawsuits, a high price for office ‘banter’.
“Although the interactions we looked at were unanimously identified as humour by all staff members, our interpretation and construction suggest that these joking social behaviours can be perceived as bullying,” Plester said.
The researchers noted that in all the jokes in the company, there was a specific target, and choosing who the victims are may create fake solidarity and enjoyable group dynamics for those who are ‘in on’ the joke.
The study also showed that the dark side of humour could increase the chances of psychological damage to the subordinate or targets who only have limited response options.
“The key contribution is in the acknowledgment that not only does the device of using humour protect (to a certain extent) the protagonists of sexual, sexist and aggressive humour, but simultaneously it prevents the victims from challenging such situations for fear of further ridicule or being branded ‘humourless’,” the paper noted.
Thus, in addressing these alarming findings, Plester enjoined others to further explore the relationship between humour and bullying and reaffirm that in some cases, “just joking may not be funny at all.”
