10 pages

Humor and Administration: A Serious Inquiry into Unofficial Organizational Communication Author(s): Dean L. Yarwood Source: Public Administration Review, Vol. 55, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 1995), pp. 81-90 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/976830 . Accessed: 18/11/2014 10:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 63.138.247.2 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:01:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Humor andAdministraon: A Senous Jnquiiy into Unofficial Organizafonal Communication

Dean L. Yarwood, University of Missouri-Columbia

What is the importance of humor in public administration? Dean Yarwood examines the sources, types, and consequences of humor in administration. He suggests that much administrative humor comes from incongruity-from contrasting the naturalness and ease of traditional institutions with the forced, formal char- acter of bureaucracy. Social scientists from a variety of disciplines have carried out empirical studies of humor in organizations. They conclude that humor has important consequences for hierar- chy andfor the social dynamics of organizations. Another source for understanding humor in organizations is creative literature. Here, forms of humor abound that are not emphasized in the social science literature. The author concludes that the study of organizational humor ought to be of interest to both public man- agers and scholars because it is part of the serious business of organizations.

This article has as its focus a discussion of administrative humor. Although the topic suggests rib ticklers and knee slappers, in fact humor can be serious communication. Managers are taught about several aspects of their work such as personnel administration, budgeting, strategic planning, TQM, and so on. They may even have insights regarding informal groups that inhabit formal organizations. A type of activity that takes place at the informal level of most any organization, however, is likely to elude the typical manager but is nonetheless important to the functioning of the organization. I am referring to the humor of employees and managers of the organiza- tion. This type of communication can be supportive of the organization and its purposes or it can be detrimental. It can run the gamut from the cute, to the ridiculous, to communication which is downright offensive. It is not uncommon for humor to run afoul of emerging norms of multiculturalism. Sometimes humor is widely shared and at other times it is closely guarded. Indeed, the path taken by a humorous story or insight may even define the parameters of social interaction within an organization.

If it is clear that humor is something that ought to be of interest to a typical public manager of a stress-filled modern agency, it may still not be clear what should be made of it. The meaning humor carries is often not readi- ly apparent. Harvy Mindess quotes the comedian, Stan- ley Myron Handelman, "Life is like an onion. The outer layers are a joke, and when you peel them away, there's another joke underneath. And underneath that yet another joke, and underneath that yet another. When you get to the core of the onion, however, it's no joke" (Mindess, 1987; p. 92). So it is with humor. Here we will discuss some different types of administrative humor, the functions of such humor, and some of the patterns it can take in an organization.

Public Administration Review * January/February 1995, Vol. 55, No. 1 81

This content downloaded from 63.138.247.2 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:01:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Incongruity Humor A prominent type of administrative humor falls into the cat-

egory of incongruity humor, which is characterized by irony and contradiction.1 Common concerns viewed from novel perspectives can bring humorous results; seemingly different ideas and words are seen to have some absurd and provocative commonalities when they are juxtaposed. Often humor comes from placing meanings from different systems or paradigms into proximity. For the French philosopher Henri Bergson, influenced by his antipathy toward the mechanization of thought and behavior in the industrial period, humor resulted from the contrast between the natural and the mechanical worlds or as he put it, when something mechanical is "encrust- ed on the living." "The attitudes, gestures, and movements of the human body are laughable in exact proportion as they remind us of a mere machine" (Bergson, 1956; pp. 84, 79). Arthur Koestler in The Act of Creation, referred to incongruity humor as "bisociation" (Koestler, 1964; pp. 35-36). Humor is the result of merging or the "bisociation" of different matrices of thought. Koestler employs the term "matrix" to mean "any ability, habit, or skill, any pattern of ordered behaviour gov- erned by a 'code' of fixed rules" (p. 38). Similarly, William Fry finds much humor in paradoxes which he defines as "a break- down in our logical system." He sees an increase in paradoxes during periods of great social change, when contrasts between the old and new stand in sharp relief (Fry, 1987; pp. 42-50).

In public administration, much humor has been found in the paradigm differences between traditional society and the values of the administrative state. In the former, democracy, equality, trust (a person's word is a bond, a hand shake seals a deal), individual dignity, generalized competence, and common sense are dominant values. In the latter, stress is placed on the formalization of relationships, hierarchy, authority, specializa- tion, rules, routines, efficiency, and accountability. Humor results when the rules and assumptions of one system are brought to bear on the other.

Parkinson's Law, for example, holds that work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion (Parkinson, 1957, p. 1). Its implications for bureaucratic growth can readily be explained in terms of the logic of bureaucracy; that is, the ten- dency toward formalization, accountability, uncertainty about the designs of other agencies, increasing clientele expectations of services, and so forth. However, from a common-sense point of view, the idea that it could take more people to do less work seems ludicrous, wasteful, maybe even sinful.

The Peter Principle says that in a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his/her level of incompetence (Peter and Hull, 1969; p. 7). From a bureaucratic perspective, the manager eval- uates the work of employees, promotes those who are deserving in terms of contributions to the organization, and at the same time, helps employees achieve personal goals even as they con- tribute to organizational purposes. The goal is a management team working at peak capacity, achieving synergy, maybe even "playing over their heads" (Bennis, 1967; pp. 15- 16) . However, in the logic of common sense, the specter of organizations

staffed by managers, many of whom have exceeded their level of competence, is humorous, but also frightening.2

Miles' Law (Miles, 1978; p. 399), which states "where you stand depends on where you sit," derives its humor from the incongruity of juxtaposing predictions about the physical move- ment of one's body and predictions about the influence of movement through the bureaucracy on one's perspective. Just as one can only stand from where one sits, one must stand and fight for the interests of each agency in which one is employed as one moves through a career in the bureaucracy.

The expression "Catch-22," often used by persons in organi- zations, can be traced to the novel of the same name (Heller, 1955, 1961). It is a raucous novel that unmercifully ridicules bureaucratic rules and routines. The hero, or antihero, of the novel, Captain Yossarian, in talking to Doc Daneeka about another friend, Orr, is confronted with the paradox that if one rule is followed, another is invalidated and vice versa. Thus, a pilot has to be crazy to continue flying combat missions in the face of death and being crazy is sufficient reason to ground a pilot. However, as Doc Daneeka, pointed out:

Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to (p. 46).

An impossible situation that is the source of much mirth.

Empirical Studies of Humor and the Organization

To say that studies of humor in organizations have not occu- pied much of the time of students of public administration would risk overstating the case. The prominent empirical stud- ies of humor have been done in business organizations or in hospitals, and they have been carried out by anthropologists, sociologists, students of management, communications schol- ars, and psychologists.

The Participants in Humor in Organizations A large number of studies have followed a thesis articulated

by the eminent anthropologist, A.R. Radcliffe-Brown. Based on his research on African tribal societies, he theorized that "what is meant by the term a 'joking relationship' is a relation between two persons in which one is by custom permitted, and in some instances required, to tease or make fun of the other, who in turn, is required to take no offence" (Radcliffe-Brown, 1952; p. 90). He spoke of two types of joking relationships, a symmetrical one in which each of two persons is able to tease and poke fun at the other and an asymmetrical relationship in which one of two persons is able to tease and make fun of the other while the other cannot retaliate (p. 90).

Scholars of organizations found in this latter case an analogy to hierarchy in formal organizations and theorized that joking

82 Public Administration Review * January/February 1995, Vol. 55, No. 1

This content downloaded from 63.138.247.2 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:01:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Though humor can potentially involve any topic, the available research shows that a considerable

amount of humor between employees in organizations is ofa sexual nature.

in organizations would follow the hierarchy down from the top, but that those lower down would not retaliate. Thus in an early study of employees of a large clothing department store, Brad- ney, employing observational techniques, found joking patterns among employees similar to those Radcliffe-Brown found in tribal societies. "In general, the symmetrical joking relationship occurs most frequently, and such asymmetrical joking as does take place is usually aimed by superiors at subordinates" (Brad- ney, 1957; p. 185, emphasis in original). In observing staff meetings in a psychiatric hospital, Coser similarly found that "those who are 'on top' have more right to be aggressors; those who are low in the hierarchy are not as freely permitted this [aggressive humor] outlet..." (Coser, 1960; p. 85). C.C. Lund- berg, examining joking relationships in an electric motor repair shop, found the same asymmetrical joking patterns (Lundberg, 1969; p. 28) as did Traylor in a study he published a decade and a half later in which he reported on joking relations between members of a petroleum exploration party working on the North Slope of Alaska (Traylor, 1985; p. 483).

However, W Jack Duncan studying joking relationships in six task-oriented groups, three in business organizations and three in health care facilities, found only limited support for the Radcliffe-Brown thesis. In neither group were persons in for- mal management positions perceived to initiate jokes more often than rank-and-file employees, but in health groups, for- mal leaders were frequently the foci of jokes whereas in business groups they never were (Duncan, 1985; p. 561). He attributes these differences to the fact that in health groups, the formal managers were seldom chosen as the preferred leaders (physi- cians were the highest status profession) whereas in business groups the formal managers were almost always chosen as the preferred leaders (pp. 561-563). However, if managers took part in teasing and banter across status lines, they sent a mes- sage to employees that they were open to teasing remarks and they could expect in turn to be teased by employees (Vinton, 1989, pp. 160-163; Bradney, 1957, pp. 184-185). In these cases, joking is a leveller of class distinctions. To be clear, though, the larger implication of the research regarding the Radcliffe-Brown thesis is that joking patterns maintain distance between leaders and rank-and-file members of the organization.

Symmetrical joking, that is, between persons of the same sta- tus, occurs more frequently than asymmetrical joking. Although humor can potentially involve any topic, the available research shows that a considerable amount of humor between employees in organizations is of a sexual nature. For example, in his study of working class joking in a British lorry factory, Collinson found that the male-dominant work force was con-

cerned with asserting its masculinity. "The rules of the joking culture reflected the content of much shop-floor discourse, which centered on a preoccupation with male sexuality and the differentiation of working class men from women" (Collinson, 1988; p. 190). The younger men bragged about their sexual conquests while the older men were concerned with demon- strating dominance in their families. It was, for example, con- sidered wimpish for a man to tell his wife the amount of his wage packet and a majority of men interviewed claimed they withheld this information. "Fred, a general laborer, was ridiculed unmercifully by Jack, an axle shop steward for 'tip- ping' his wage packet.... 'She has Fred chasing his tail at home. See what an effect it has on him, he's in a daze, he's had a shel- tered life. He'd prefer to read a book than have sex"' (p. 192). In his classic study, "Banana Time," Roy found similar sexually related joking patterns. Thus, one shop worker, Sammy, "...was ribbed for being closely watched, bossed, and henpecked by his wife, and the expression, 'Are you a man or a mouse' became an echolalic utterance...." (Roy, 1959-1960; p. 163). Similarly, he found a "poom poom" theme, that is, banter about frequency of sexual activities, with the old men professing to be too old com- bined with the expectation that Roy, the young graduate stu- dent observer, was more active (Roy, 1959-60, pp. 163, 164; also Vinton, 1989, p. 161; and Boland and Hoffman, 1983, p. 191). In his study of the joking behavior between the sexes in a Glasgow printing works, Sykes found clearly defined expecta- tions. It was alright for there to be joking between old men and young women and old women and young men, and this banter could be obscene, but it was understood that they were not sex- ually available to each other. On the other hand, there was much joking between young men and young women, but it was expected that this would not be openly obscene because they were available to each other sexually (Sykes, 1966; pp.190-192).

Of course, one of the most repeated aphorisms in the humor literature is that humor is culture and time specific. In this country, laws and attitudes affecting genders in the work place have undergone major changes. Behaviors which were accepted as appropriate or at least tolerated a decade ago, may be consid- ered sexual harassment today and can cost offenders their jobs. Duncan, Smeltzer, and Leap discuss legal aspects of joking behavior and harassment on the job (1990; pp. 269-277). However, the fact that "in a survey of 13,000 federal employees, it was found that the most prevalent form of sexual harassment was 'unwanted sexual teasing"' (Duncan, Smeltzer, and Leap, 1990, p. 270; citation is to a 1988 Bureau of National Affairs poll), suggests that sexual joking on the job is hardly a thing of the past.

Humor is also directed at clients of organizations. In her study of staff meetings of a psychiatric hospital, Coser found that: "The most frequent targets of the senior staff were junior members; the humor of the latter was more frequently directed against patients and their relatives, as well as themselves" (Coser, 1960; p. 85), a conclusion consistent with the Radcliffe- Brown thesis. She concluded that humor against clients and self-effacing humor contributed to cohesion of the different ele- ments of the staff (pp. 9 1-95), and that humor tended to be directed against those who had no authority over the initiator

Humor and Administration: A Serious Inquiry into Unofficial Organizational Communication 83

This content downloaded from 63.138.247.2 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:01:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

(p. 85). In observing joking behavior of state employment agency officials that was directed at clients, Blau concluded that joking behavior directed at clients had different effects at the individual and group levels. Such joking allowed individuals to displace aggression and relieve feelings of guilt by soliciting sympathy from fellow officials and thereby protect his/her client orientation, while at the group level, it contributed to the devel- opment of anticlient norms among agency officials and thereby undermined the agency's service orientation (Blau, 1963; pp. 109-116, 115-116). In effect, displacement of aggression through anticlient jokes resulted in the re-enforcement of anti- client norms at the group level; benefits of group solidarity came at the expense of the clients.

Consequences of Humor In Organizations As we have seen, by maintaining social distance in the orga-

nization, joking patterns generally contribute to preserving social structures. Humor also preserves social structures by con- tributing to cohesion of organizations and groups. Thus, Lund- berg concluded, "...in the context of stable human organiza- tions, person-focused joking incidents seem to fulfill a social function; namely that joking defines and redefines the differen- tiated social groupings, reinforces the ranking of group mem- bers both within and between groups, and clarifies the status of one group to another" (Lundberg, 1969; p. 28). In his study of a geological unit in a bush camp, Traylor confirmed the find- ings of Lundberg. In addition, he found that there was an inverse relationship between the degree of attraction to a group and the number of jokes about persons in the group that were initiated by members of the group (Traylor, 1985; p. 483). Kahn, in a theoretical article dealing with humor in organiza- tions, asserted, "Humor helps sustain an organization's shared identity and culture, just as language, rituals, and stories do" (Kahn, 1989; p. 53).

Several authors have commented that humor contributes to the socialization of employees in the organization. Being able to participate meaningfully in the joking and teasing that takes place at work offers evidence that new employees understand the organizational culture, its status system, and its boundaries. It also lets them know that they will sometimes be the butt of humor and new comers in turn show that they can "take it" (Collinson, 1989, pp. 187-189; Bradney, 1957, p. 185). Orga- nizational socialization is an ongoing process and joking is one way values are inculcated and altered among established mem- bers as well as new members (Boland and Hoffman, 1983, pp. 194-195; Linstead, 1985, p. 761). In studying laughter among staff members of a psychiatric hospital, Coser noted that "humor and laughter often dramatize the violation of a norm and at the same time reaffirm the norm" (1960; p. 88).

Research shows that humor functions as a coping mecha- nism for persons in organizations. In her study of department store personnel, Bradney pointed out that members of the staff worked in close quarters, were required to put up with cumber- some organizational procedures, and were under a good deal of pressure to make enough sales to earn adequate commissions. Because of the frequent joking among staff, which Bradney

As we have seen, b maintaining social distance in the organization, jokingpatterns generally contribute to preserving social structures. Humor also preserves social structures by contributing to cohesion of organizations andgroups.

noted was unknown to management, "...this store is able to avoid considerable tension and disagreement that would likely occur as a result of difficulties inherent in its formal structure" (Bradney, 1957; p. 186). Vinton found similar results in her study of banter that took place across status lines in a small family-owned business (Vinton, 1983; p. 161). Another aspect of coping in organizations is alleviating boredom among employees in organizations. This topic was addressed in "Banana Time" by Roy. As a participant observer for two months, he became aware of a rather elaborate series of rituals among the small group of workers that included "peach time," "banana time," "lunch time," "fish time," "coke time," and "pick-up time." Each was accompanied by ritualistic joking and bantering with elaborated themes. Roy concluded that the boredom and fatigue, which accompanied the 12 hours of "click-move die-click-move die," was reduced by this horse play: "The 'beast of boredom' was gentled to the harmlessness of a kitten" (Roy, 1959-60; p.164). When an attempt at a new theme of humor went sour and there was no horse play in the clicking room for about 12 days, the result was that "twelve hour days were creeping again at a snails pace" and "with the return of boredom, came a return of fatigue" (p. 165). Collinson similarly contended humor was a way of coping with boredom by workers. He quoted one worker: "Some days it feels like a fortnight. A few years ago I got into a rut. I had to stop myself from getting bored so I increased the number of pranks at work" (Collinson, 1988; p. 185).

Work humor is often aggressive, even potentially hurtful. In this case, coping takes the form of a good offense-attack oth- ers before they can get to you. One employee told Collinson: "You've got to give it out or go under. It's a form of survival, you insult first before they get one back. The more you get embarrassed, the more they do it, so you have to fight back. It can hurt deep down, although you don't show it" (p. 188).

Finally, joking is a successful coping mechanism because it is often intrinsically enjoyable. Bradney concluded that "...joking not only acts as a relief from anxiety.. .but also provides positive enjoyment for those participating" (Bradney, 1957, p. 186; also Roy, 1959-1960, p. 166).

Messages, which are difficult to convey, often come easier through the medium of humor. The key here is humor's play- ful and ambiguous nature. As Kahn wrote: "It enables people to say things that, if said more directly, would make others feel hurt and defensive and would threaten relationships" (Kahn, 1989, p. 50; also Diamond, 1993, p. 70). He noted that

84 Public Administration Review * January/February 1995, Vol. 55, No. I

This content downloaded from 63.138.247.2 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:01:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

humor not only makes it easier for the source to deliver the message, it also makes it possible for the recipient to receive the message and evaluate its meaning and without seeming to do so (Kahn, 1989; p. 51). Quite often managers in organizations use humor to make orders or reprimands more palatable. Brad- ney overheard one of the buyers comment to a junior employee who seemed to be working at a sluggish pace, "Miss [the junior herself] looks as if her heart's in her boots today! Don't you like work today, dear?" (Bradney, 1957, p. 184; on the same point, also Vinton, 1989, p. 158). Not exceptionally sub- tle but less confrontational than a clear reprimand and it might have accomplished its purpose.

Humor is also frequently the medium for expressing latent hostility toward others in the organization. Kahn wrote, "Peo- ple find it less risky to couch hostility within jokes, pranks, and other humorous media than to express it directly" (Kahn, 1989, p. 52; also Collinson, 1988, esp. pp. 194-197; Roy, 1959-60, p. 165). The different meanings of humor make it possible for the initiator of humor to deny that any serious meaning was intended. On this strategy, Ullian notes: "In some cases, the target of the joke is certain about the message, but the humorous form makes it inappropriate and futile for him/her to confront the joker by responding seriously. If the target should try, the joker could always reply that his/her remarks were only meant in jest" (Ullian, 1976; p. 129).

Because of the ambiguous nature of humor-its cynicism, its multiple meanings, its playfulness, its incongruity-humor can contribute to change in organizations. Ullian concludes that when new information is introduced into organizations, it is often dealt with through joking (Ullian, 1976; pp. 130-131). Another aspect of humor is that it facilitates the refraining of familiar relationships and this facilitates change. "Like metaphors, humor casts matters in a different light, letting peo- ple step back psychologically and adopt perspectives different from those they normally maintain" (Kahn, 1989, p. 50). Because humor in organizations is playful and often works through juxtaposition of the unfamiliar, it suggests new ways of looking at matters. In discussing humor as symbolic action, Boland and Hoffman explain how the multiple levels at which humor can be understood contributes to change. "The shared understanding of a multiplicity of possible frames of reference keeps the major problems of socialization and alienation open questions. It provides an ambiguity in resolving the questions of individual freedom and self-determination such that the indi- vidual both is and is not free, both is and is not self-determined, but continues to act" (Boland and Hoffman, 1983; p. 198). The dense ambiguity of humor provides a cover for individual initiative and role taking and this contributes to change in orga- nizations.

In a provocative study that took place in a hospital setting, Joan Emerson discussed the negotiations which can follow attendant to joking. It can be a complex process, fraught with the potential for embarrassment. Humor, she asserts, does not count in the official discussions; it takes place as an "aside." "Negotiations about humor, then, may be regarded as bargain- ing to make unofficial arrangements about taboo subjects"

(Emerson, 1969; p, 170). Following a joke about a forbidden subject, the recipient has a number of options. He or she can "parry" the joke with little additional comment. On the other hand, the recipient may use the occasion to enter into a serious discussion about the forbidden subject of the humor. "By mak- ing the joke in the first place, the joker risks a transition he may not desire, because the other may seize on the joke as an open- ing" (Emerson, 1969; p. 173). In this case, the joker has the option of asserting that nothing more than a joke was intended or, he or she may choose to pursue a serious discussion of a for- bidden topic. "Negotiations to include topics by transferring joking content to a serious conversation constitute private agreements to suspend general guidelines" (Emerson, 1969; p. 179). However, if a serious discussion ensues, then each must protect against the other terminating the discussion of the taboo subject and blaming the other for starting it. Withal, it is apparent that humor is important to change and maintenance of norms and procedures in organizations.

The Third Dimension: Fiction and Administrative Humor

In a perceptive essay, Morton Kroll discusses the "third dimension" of administration (Kroll, 1981; pp. 9-1 1). He notes that scholars in public administration and other disci- plines that deal with bureaucratic organizations can inform us about the first two dimensions. The first of these deals with formal organizations and concerns of rationality in decision making while the second deals with informal structures that develop in organizations and the human interaction that takes place in them. The third dimension, the one of most concern to Kroll, links the individual with the organization-it deals with motives and feelings of individuals as they make their way through life in large organizations. Here, he asserts, writers of fiction are our best sources and can provide important data for students of administration. In their own way, in some sense parallel but no less perceptive than social scientists, they deal with human nature and human beings and their role in the scheme of things in the universe. Their focus is more general and they paint with broader strokes.

Dwight Waldo, in an essay dealing with administration and literature, notes a number benefits that scholars of administra- tion might reap by paying more attention to how their subject is dealt with in literature. Among other benefits, he believes that we might hope to understand better emotionally what we already understand intellectually; as scholars we can view administration as seen by those not members of the discipline and in this way gain greater perspective on the activity; we can be made more aware of some of the moral aspects of adminis- tration; and we can hope to see administration in a broader context, freed of its focus on efficiency, behavior, and science (Waldo, 1956; pp. 80-89). Often the view that we get about administration from fiction is not very flattering. This assess- ment is sustained by McCurdy's work: "Although novelists viewed government as a great salvation, they viewed bureaucra- cy with great distress. In the eyes of most novelists, bureaucrat-

Humor and Administration: A Serious Inquiry into Unofficial Organizational Communication 85

This content downloaded from 63.138.247.2 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:01:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ic government had the potential to take back the social gains the progressive reform movement had installed in the modern state" (McCurdy, 1987; pp. 554-555).3

Fictional writers attack bureaucracy at the most general level and this provides the source of their humor. For them, it is bureaucracy itself which is ridiculous when juxtaposed to the spontaneity of human nature. As with Henri Bergson, humor results when something mechanical, in this case bureaucracy, is encrusted on something natural, the human spirit. From this construction, fictional writers ridicule such phenomena as dys- functional bureaucratic authority, inappropriate rationality, dis- placement of goals, routines which are reduced to little more than senseless rituals, bureaucratic in-fighting, and so on.

In One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (Kesey, 1962), Randle Patrick McMurphy, a "brawling, fun-loving rebel," in an effort to evade prison, pretended to be mentally ill in order to get admitted to a mental hospital. The irony is that in fleeing an institution intended as a prison, he went to an institution intended to help persons in emotional distress, only to find it was an organization that broke the will and spirit of its patients more surely than the prison he left. He came head-to-head with Big Nurse who operated the ward like a dictatorship from her glass cage up front. "The slightest thing messy or out of kilter or in the way ties her into a little white knot of tight-smiled fury. She walks around with that same doll smile crimped between her chin and her nose and the same calm whir coming from her eyes, but down inside she's as tense as steel" (p. 30). The vehi- cle for running the ward was the "The Therapeutic Communi- ty" in which the patients reported any aberrant behavior of their fellows, and group discussions, functioning as the big world Outside stood in judgment of their behavior and subconscious thoughts. McMurphy ridiculed these sessions irreverently char- acterizing them as "a bunch of chickens at a peckin' party" (p. 55). With McMurphy acting as a natural leader, the patients regained some of their confidence and began to assert them- selves, and McMurphy dominated the group meetings, all of which was a frontal challenge to Big Nurse and the "Combine." "One by one the patients are sneaking looks at her [Big Nurse] to see how she is taking the way McMurphy is dominating the meeting, and they see the same thing. She's too big to be beat- en" (p. 101). In response to her sentence suspending a patient privilege, McMurphy put his fist through Big Nurse's glass cage, shattering it and humiliating her in front of the ward's staff and patients; a few weeks later, he shattered it again after he was denied an Unaccompanied Leave. When McMurphy organized a fishing trip for the patients, things went awry. One thing led to another and Big Nurse scheduled electric shock therapy for McMurphy, which she offered to cancel if he would only admit the error in his ways (p. 236). He refused. McMurphy showed his scorn by joking throughout the shock treatment and by refusing to be broken subsequent to several other sessions of the procedure. With McMurphy growing to legend proportions among the patients, and after he smashed through the glass cage one last time and grabbed Big Nurse, tearing the front of her uniform open and humiliating her before the patients (p. 267), Big Nurse persuaded the medical staff that a lobotomy was in order for McMurphy and it was accordingly administered.

In the play, Mr. Roberts (Heggen and Logan, 1948), we again see the common sense of a natural leader, Mr. Roberts, juxtaposed with the contorted formal authority of the captain. As Doc told Mr. Roberts, "...the Captain of a Navy ship is the most absolute monarch left in this world" (p. 10). Though AK 601 was a cargo ship, carrying its loads in safe Pacific waters "...from Tedium to Apathy and back again-with an occasional side trip to Monotony...." (p. 159), the captain imposed disci- pline as though it were operating under combat conditions. The men hated the captain for it, and Mr. Roberts, the cargo officer, pleaded their case with the captain. Whereas under real combat conditions, the crew could have been a part of the major war of their century and won medals for valor in defend- ing their country, the only award AK 601 received was a "...scrawny palm tree, potted in a five-gallon can, standing to the right of the Captain's cabin door" (p. 3). Though a source of extreme pride to the captain, Mr. Roberts ridiculed it as "The Admiral John J. Finchley award for delivering more toothpaste and toilet paper than any other Navy cargo ship in the safe area of the Pacific" (p. 8). In a dictatorial manner, the captain can- celled the evening movie when he caught some sailors on deck without their shirts, he mercilessly belittled Mr. Roberts in front of the crew, and at one point he threatened to have Mr. Roberts confined to his quarters for ten days when he, in viola- tion of the captain's orders, gave a couple of crates of the AK 601's extra fruit to the crew of an LCT which had been at sea for two months. When Mr. Roberts arranged for a liberty for the crew by bribing the Port Director with a bottle of the ship's scotch, the captain cancelled it at the last minute until Mr. Robert's agreed to his terms-quit attempting to transfer off AK 601 and stop talking back to the captain in front of the crew. In the most dramatic scene of the play, which took place on the night of V-E Day, Mr. Roberts, while the radio in the background played "The Stars and Strips Forever," jerked the captain's palm tree up by the roots and threw it into the sea!

In the tension that takes place between natural leaders and formal leaders in these two pieces of literature, we see a more robust humor than in the empirical studies. Randle Patrick McMurphy ridicules Big Nurse, takes over her meetings, puts his fist through her glass cage, and finally rips her uniform down the front in view of the patients, and she in turns has electric shock treatments and ultimately, a lobotomy performed on him.4 The captain belittles Mr. Roberts, who, in turn, throws the Captain's award/palm tree over board. In these situ- ations, we see behavior which clearly fits into the "superiority theory of humor." This humor, which depends on a sense of one s own superiority, or on the inferiority of others, is attribut- ed to Thomas Hobbes who wrote: "The passion of laughter is nothing else but the sudden glory arising from a sudden con- ception of some eminency in ourselves by comparison with the infirmity of others, or with our own formerly" (cited in Berger, 1987, p. 7; also Berlyne, 1969, p. 800; and Koller, 1988, p. 9). This humor is aggressive in nature. A communications scholar likened it to the primordial victory scream:

What touched off his [man's] nonverbal grunting, facial contortions, muscular dissembling, and breathing irreg- ularities that presaged our modern 'laughter'? 'Why, one

86 Public Administration Review * January/February 1995, Vol. 55, No. I

This content downloaded from 63.138.247.2 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:01:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

thing that was available to each of our bestial ancestors: victory. Success in combat. Usually success in combat with a fellow man. Sudden victory. The sudden real- ization that one has triumped, that the prize is his, that his opponent is defeated! (Gruner, 1978; pp. 42-43, emphasis in original).

In this view, the object of humor is the neutralizing or van- quishing of the other. The tools of combat are ridicule and derision. The subjects in the empirical studies engaged in humor for a variety of reasons and attempted to keep humor in bounds. In contrast, the characters in these literary pieces threw caution to the wind and engaged in mortal combat with their barbs and tricks.

In Heller's Catch-22, we see outrageous cases of the dis- placement of ends by means. General Peckem and General Dreedle did not like each other and spent most of their time in jurisdictional disputes. At one point, Peckem explained to Colonel Scheisskopf that Dreedle was the enemy and his objec- tive was to take over Dreedle's four bomb groups (Heller, 1961; p. 332).

Again, Colonel Cathcart regularly volunteered his men for dangerous missions and kept raising the number of missions they had to fly before rotation as a way to get himself promot- ed. This same Colonel Cathcart determined that he could send a single form letter over his signature to all next of kin of com- bat fatalities and increase his chances of getting his name in the Christmas issue of The Saturday Evening Post through this show of pseudo-compassion (pp. 287-29 1). Milo Minderbinder, the supply clerk, formed a syndicate and came to control commer- cial trade in the whole Mediterranean and European regions. He contracted with both the Americans to bomb a bridge and with the Germans to defend the same bridge (p. 261). Milo defended this arrangement by pointing out that the Germans "...pay their bills more promptly than some allies of ours I could name" (p. 263). He even went so far as to enter into a contract with the Germans to bomb the U.S. base at which he was located (p. 264). "And the sweetest part of the whole deal was that there really was no need to reimburse the government at all. 'In a democracy, the government is the people... .We're the people aren't we? So we might just as well keep the money and eliminate the middleman. Frankly, I'd like to see the gov- ernment get out of war altogether and leave the whole field to private industry"' (p. 266).

When rules are separated from their meanings compliance becomes ritualistic. Heller's novel abounds with such instances. A case in point, Captain Yossarian was caught in yet another Catch-22 when he had to live with the belongings of a dead man in his tent. Because the replacement pilot, Mudd, was killed in a combat mission before he officially reported for duty, Yossarian could not get rid of the belongings because Mudd had never officially arrived (Heller, 1961; p. 111). Common sense finally prevailed, after much time, when four young kids, newly assigned to Yossarian's tent, simply threw the belongings outside into the bushes (p. 359). Another case proved to be the down- fall of Doc Daneeka. He was terrified of flying but driven by greed, and thus arranged to have a pilot by the name of McWatt

An important kind of humorfound in most organizations is 'gallows humor " Koller defnes gallows humor as

"that brand of ironic humor that acknowledges certain

dehumanizing, life-threatening circumstances and seeks to transform them into something human, delighoul, and worthy" (Koller, 1988; p. 10).

sign his name in the flight log whenever he flew so he could col- lect his flight pay without ever leaving ground (p. 180). When McWatt crashed and was killed, Doc was listed on McWatt's flight log and so declared dead. He was unable to draw any pay or food rations and as a result was forced to live like an animal in the woods (pp. 350-354). In this case, the fact that Doc was obviously alive and well could not overcome the paperwork imperative. It was simply a "thorny administrative problem" for Sergeant Towser.

An important kind of humor found in most organizations is "gallows humor." Koller defines gallows humor as "that brand of ironic humor that acknowledges certain dehumanizing, life- threatening circumstances and seeks to transform them into something human, delightful, and worthy" (Koller, 1988; p. 10). It is important to morale building.5 Koller traced this type of humor to Obrdlik who found himself in war-time Czechoslovakia for nine months after it was invaded. There Obrdlik observed a brand of humor, widely used, that was directed at the Gestapo, which he interpreted as an index of Czech morale (Obrdlik, 1942; also Hanser, 1952). Gallows humor in the organization addresses dehumanization in the work place through ridicule of the management; it contributes to morale among workers and differentiates them from manage- ment. Generally, this type of humor does not figure in empiri- cal studies. An exception is the one by Collinson conducted in a British lorry factory. He pointed out the shop-floor workers worked the longest hours, had the most tightly controlled and least secure work, the worst canteen and parking facilities, and had the poorest benefits. However, they responded to their condition by emphasizing their own masculinity and authentic- ity compared to the femininity and phoniness of the managers. Thus "Dirty Bar," as one of the workers was nick-named, was quoted as saying, "Fellas on the shop-floor are genuine. They're the salt of the earth, but they're all t-ts and nancy boys in th' offices" (Collinson, 1988; pp. 185-186). Workers labeled an in-house magazine put out by management as the "Goebbel's Gazette" (p. 187).

Catch-22 is especially rich in gallows humor. One of the most dreaded assignments for the men of the 256th Squadron was a mission over Bologna. "They began to invent humorless, glum jokes of their own and disastrous rumors about the destruction awaiting them in Bologna" (Heller, 1961; p. 128). A drunken Yossarian saw Colonel Korn in the officers' club and

Humor and Administration: A Serious Inquiry into Unofficial Organizational Communication 87

This content downloaded from 63.138.247.2 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:01:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

asked him if he knew about the new Lepage gun the Germans had developed. "The new three-hundred-and-forty-four mil- limeter Lepage glue gun," Yossarian answered. "It glues a whole formation of planes together in mid-air" ( p. 128).

In discussing duty versus survival, Yossarian told Clevinger that the enemy "...is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on..." (p. 127, emphasis in orginal).

Major Major was popular with his fellow aviators who often invited him to go swimming, and when they played basketball with him, they did not even care about winning. However, when Colonel Cathcart promoted him to squadron comman- der, everything changed. "Almost on cue, everyone in the squadron stopped talking to him and started staring at him. He walked through life self-consciously with downcast eyes and burning cheeks, the object of contempt, envy, suspicion, resent- ment and malicious innuendo everywhere he went" (Heller, 1961; p. 91). When loneliness got the best of him, he disguised himself by wearing dark glasses with magenta rims and an organ-grinders's mustache, and went to have a friendly game of basketball as one of the guys. Just when he thought he had fooled his former pals:

he was bumped hard by one of his opponents and knocked to his knees. Soon he was bumped hard again, and it dawned on him that they did recognize him and that they were using his disguise as a license to elbow, trip, and maul him. They did not want him at all. And just as he did realize this, the players on his team fused instinctively with the players on the other team into a single, howling, blood-thirsty mob that descended upon him from all sides with foul curses and swinging fists (p. 101).

Having become squadron commander, he lost all of this friends!

The fool plays a major part in group dynamics. There are, broadly speaking, two kinds of fools, the sage-fool and the buf- foon or the butt (for discussions of fools, see Klapp, 1949; Klapp, 1972; Sypher, 1956; Kahn, 1989; and Kets de Vries, 1993).6 The wise fool uses his or her wit to articulate the incon- gruities that abound in the human condition and often speaks in riddles; the buffoon makes obvious misjudgments about his or her audience, the culture, the context, or the task, and as a con- sequence is ridiculed and otherwise treated with disrespect. Kahn noted groups often assign a role of "clown" to those willing to play it and stated further that: "We can learn much about the dynamics of a group or department by observing these 'clowns' perform, defusing bombs at one point and lobbing them at another" (Kahn, 1989, p. 50; also Kets de Vries, 1993, p. 93). Clowns can point up the absurdity of life in an organization but also can be absurd-the butt of jokes themselves.

The role of the clown was developed especially poignantly in A Thousand Clowns (Gardner, 1962).7 In the play, the ostensi- ble clown was a creative free spirit who through his use of wit and keen observation, made those around him who led more conventional social and organizational lives appear as the real clowns. The main character was Murray Burns who had been unemployed for several months since he quit a job as a writer

for a character called "Chuckles the Chipmunk," star of a TV network child's program. Murray could not abide the phoni- ness of the organization or the saccharine character of "Chip- permunkie." His brother, Arnold, was employed with a show business talent agency and was very much the successful organi- zation man so as one might expect, there was a great deal of ten- sion between the two characters; Murray was the dropout- clown, a free spirit in every sense, and Arnold, the no-nonsense, organization man. Murray had been raising his nephew, Nick, a 12-year-old "middle-aged" boy, since his sister went out to buy a pack of cigarettes and did not return for six years. The Bureau of Child Welfare (B.C.W) had been conducting an investigation of Nicks home circumstances because he had been truant from school too often and also because he had written, in the estimation of school officials, some bizarre things about his family life. Nick was in clear danger of being taken from Murray and placed in a foster home.

The principal B.C.W investigator, Albert Amundson, was a caricature of the dull-witted bureaucrat. He was efficient, offi- cious, and humorless. He approached Nick as just another case to be dealt with in the context of organizational rules and rou- tines. Albert's behavior was the incarnation of Bergson's "some- thing mechanical encrusted on something living." Hence, the interaction between Albert and Murray focused on the contrast between the spontaneous, common sense, and ironic observa- tions of Murray and the rigid, cold, bureaucratic responses of Albert. At one point, Murray told Albert that he talked like he had written everything down before he said it. Albert respond- ed: "Yes, I do speak that way, Mr. Burns.... I realize that I lack warmth. I will always appear foolish in a conversation with a person of your imagination..." (p. 68). In effect, Albert was aware that he appeared as something of a buffoon to those out- side his system, but he was content that he was right in his actions.

In their interaction with the clown and his or her sharp wit- ticisms, which can have the ring of truth, other characters are forced to respond or reconsider their values. Murray aimed his caustic wit at his brother-at his plastic life style and superficial values, and Arnold was finally drawn out and compelled to defend his values.

Unfortunately for you Murray, you want to be a hero....I am not an exceptional man, so it is possible for me to stay with things the way they are. I'm lucky. I'm gifted. I have a talent for surrender. I'm at peace. But you are cursed... you don't have the gift; and I see the torture of it. All I can do is worry for you. But I will not worry about myself. You cannot convince me that I am one of the Bad Guys. I get up, I go, I lie a little, I peddle a little, I watch the rules, I talk the talk. We fel- las have those offices high up there so we can take the wind and go with it, however it blows. But, and I will not apologize for it, I take pride; I am the best possible Arnold Burns... (Gardner, 1961-1962. p. 104).

The irony, however, is that ultimately Murray was forced to go back to his previous job in order to escape the sanctions of the B.C.W.

88 Public Administration Review * January/February 1995, Vol. 55, No. 1

This content downloaded from 63.138.247.2 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:01:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

For Kets de Vries the wise fool is especially important because he or she counteracts the hubris of the leader. "Cer- tainly, in relation to the king, the jester's traditional props of cap-and-bells and bladder-on-a-stick are an unsubtle mockery of the ruler's crown and scepter" (Kets de Vries, 1993; p. 97). He sees a creative tension between the leader and the sage fool. "I would suggest that the power of the leader needs the folly of the fool. The interaction of the two keeps each-and the orga- nization-in psychological equilibrium" (p. 98). According to Kets de Vries, one person cannot play both roles. The leader is the protector of authority and authority must be solemn and clear. The fool deals in ambiguity and playfulness. In the most general sense, for Kets de Vries, the wise fool is any "...coura- geous individual who is willing to challenge the leader and give him or her a different perspective, free from the distortions of sycophancy" (p. 102). It seems clear that if leaders are to bene- fit from the talents of the fool, they must be willing to tolerate their potentially stinging criticisms and witticisms. Further, in systems of multiple advocacy such as was put forth by George (1972), it would seem as important for those who act as custo- dians of policy discussions to protect the access of the sage fool so that the benefits of refraining, incongruity, irony, and play- fulness are brought to bear on decisions, as it would be to watch to see that all substantive sides of an issue are represented. What at first blush is thought to be outrageous, even bordering on the irreverent, may in time come to be perceived as the epit- ome of rationality when viewed in a new light.

Conclusion Much mirth involving organizations results from the juxta-

position of the naturalness and common sense of traditional institutions with the forced, mechanical nature of bureaucracies. Out of such comparisons come Parkinson's Law, the Peter Prin- ciple, and Catch-22. Incongruity humor also accounts for Miles' Law. The empirical studies of humor tell us much about the lawful nature of humor in organizations, how humor relates

to the hierarchy and its important contributions to organiza- tional functioning. The authors of popular literature about organizations showcase a more outrageous humor. Here we see examples of superiority humor, the displacement of ends by means, ritualistic compliance, gallows humor, and the role of the wise fool.

It is important for both practitioners and scholars to take heed of humor in organizations. Managers need to accept humor as an important form of communication to understand why both they and employees engage in humor, and seek to understand alike its contributions and dysfunctions relative to organizational purposes and more general societal standards of fair play. Scholars should not ignore the study of humor just because it smacks of fun. They need to be aware of organiza- tional humor as they pursue their understanding of organiza- tional culture and the informal side of organizations. They will find it worthwhile to search out both the social science and the creative literature dealing with the subject to gain a well-round- ed understanding of organizational humor.

In peeling the onion, students of organizations, practitioners and scholars alike, need to know that humor in organizations is serious communication and that it can convey important insights about the social dynamics of individuals and groups in organizations. The outer layers may be funny, but if you peel away enough layers, there is usually a deeper message to be found. Most of us suspect as much-at least some of the time.

Dean L. Yarwood is the Frederick A. Middlebush Professor of Political Science at the University of Missouri-Columbia. He is the editor of The National Administrative System and Public Administration, Politics, and the People. He has authored or coauthored articles that have appeared in such journals as PAR, Administration &- Society, American Review of Public Administra- tion and Public Administration Quarterly. He has served as chair of the Section on Public Administration Education of ASPA and as President of the Central Missouri Chapter of ASPA.

Notes 1. For general discussions of this and other types of humor, see Berlyne (1969); Freud

(1960), Gruner (1978), Koestler, (1989), Koller (1988), and Sypher (1956). 2. However, note that three decades before Laurence J. Peter formulated the Peter

Principle, Chester Barnard (1938; p. 272) wrote to the contrary, "I do not hesitate to affirm that those whom I believe to be the better and more able executives regard it as a major malefaction to induce or push men of fine character and great sense of responsibility into active positions greatly exceeding their technical capacities. Unless the process can be reversed in time, the result is destruction."

3. In this study, we are concerned with fictional sources that have a substantial humorous element and at the same time, deal with bureaucratic organizations. To identify these, several bibliographic essays dealing with literature and public admin- istration were consulted (Waldo, 1956; Egger, 1959; McCurdy, 1973; McDaniel, 1978; Kroll, 1965, 1981; and McCurdy, 1987). Our effort is not to do an exhaustive survey of fictional sources but to select some rich sources for illustrative purposes.

4. It may seem strange to lump electric shock treatments, lobotomies, and the extor- tion of promises with humor. So it is. However, Big Nurse and the Captain are part of the humorous situation. The fact that they respond straight-faced rather than with humor, adds to the humor of their adversaries. The extreme responses of

these characters are the reactions of persons who have been beaten and humiliated by humor and ridicule.

5. Although Koller attributes the term "gallows humor" to Obrdlik's article about humor in Nazi occupied Czechoslovakia which was published in 1942, in fact Freud used the term in Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious, which first appeared in 1905 (Freud, 1960; p. 229). Freud's example: a rogue being led out to execution on Monday, comments, "Well, this week's beginning nicely."

Gallows humor in the work place typically does not involve "life-threatening" circumstances, though in some lines of work it might. However, the other aspects of gallows humor are often met in organizations in the office and on the shop floor.

6. The cited authors all discuss fools in some depth and most of them find these two types. However, some find still other types. Klapp, for example, identifies five types in his book, Heros, Villains and Fools (1972, chap. 3).

7. A Thousand Clowns does not appear on the various lists of literature relevant to public administration. It belongs. One of the major themes of the play involves the Bureau of Child Welfare and the question of whether Nick should be removed from Murray's custody and placed in foster care. Moreover, the characters are con- cerned about the worthwhileness of organizational life and talk about the problem in very thoughtful terms.

Humor and Administration: A Serious Inquiry into Unofficial Organizational Communication 89

This content downloaded from 63.138.247.2 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:01:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

References Bennis, Warren, 1967. "Organizations of the Future." Personnel Administration, vol.

30 (September/October), pp. 6-19. Berger, Arthur Asa, 1987. "Humor: An Introduction." American Behavioral Scientist,

vol. 30 Uanuary/February), pp. 6-15. Bergson, Henri, 1956 (orig. 1900). "Laughter." In Wylie Sypher, ed., Comedy. Balti-

more: Johns Hopkins Press, pp. 61-190. Berlyne, D.E., 1969. "Laughter, Humor, and Play." In Gardner Lindzey and Elliot

Aronson, eds. The Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley. pp. 795-852.

Blau, Peter M., 1963. The Dynamics of Bureaucracy, rev. ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Boland, Richard J. and Raymond Hoffman, 1983. "Humor in a Machine Shop: An Interpretation of Symbolic Interaction." In Louis R. Pondy, et al., eds., Organiza- tional Symbolism. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 187-198.

Bradney, Pamela, 1957. "The Joking Relationship in Industry." Human Relations, vol. 10 (2), pp. 179-187.

Collinson, David L., 1988. "'Engineering Humour': Masculinity, Joking and Conflict in Shop-floor Relations." Organizational Studies, vol. 9 (2), pp. 181-199.

Coser, Rose Laub, 1959. "Some Social Functions of Laughter: A Study of Humor in a Hospital Setting." Human Relations, vol. 12 (2), pp. 171-182

, 1960. "Laughter Among Colleagues: A Study of the Social Functions of Humor Among the Staff of a Mental Hospital." Psychiatry, vol. 23 (February), pp. 8 1-95.

Diamond, Michael, 1993. The Unconscious Life of Organizations. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Duncan, W. Jack, 1985. "The Superiority Theory of Humor at Work: Joking Rela- tionships as Indicators of Formal and Informal Status Patterns in Small, Task-Ori- ented Groups." Small Group Behavior, vol. 16 (November), pp. 556-564.

Duncan, W. Jack, Larry R. Smeltzer, and Terry L. Leap, 1990. "Humor and Work: Applications of Joking Behavior to Management." Journal ofManagement, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 255-278.

Egger, Rowland, 1959. "The Administrative Novel." American Political Science Review, vol. LIII (June), pp. 448-455.

Emerson, Joan P., 1969. "Negotiating the Serious Import of Humor." Sociometry, vol. 32 (June), pp. 169-181.

Freud, Sigmund, 1960 (orig. 1905). Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious. trans. and ed. by James Strachey. New York: W. W. Norton.

Fry, William, Jr., 1987. "Humor and Paradox." American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 30 (anuary/February), pp. 42-71.

Gardner, Herb, 1962. A Thousand Clowns. New York: Random House. George, Alexander L., 1972. "The Case for Multiple Advocacy in Making Foreign Pol-

icy." American Political Science Review, vol. LXVI (September), pp. 751-785. Gruner, Charles R., 1978. Understanding Laughter: The Workings of Wit &- Humor.

Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Hanser, Richard, 1952. "Wit as a Weapon." The Saturday Review, vol. 35 (Novem-

ber 8), pp. 13-14, 51. Heggen, Thomas and Joshua Logan, 1948. Mr. Roberts. New York: Random House. Heller, Joseph, 1961. Catch-22. New York, NY: Dell Publishing. Kahn, William A., 1989. "Toward a Sense of Organizational Humor: Implications for

Organizational Diagnosis and Change." The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, vol. 25, no.1, pp. 45-63.

Kesey, Ken, 1962. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. New York: Signet. Kets de Vries, Manford F. R., 1993. Leaders, Fools, and Impostors. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass. Klapp, Orrin E., 1949. "The Fool as a Social Type." American Journal of Sociology, vol.

55 (September,), pp. 157-162. , 1972. Heros, Villains and Fools. San Diego: Aegis.

Koestler, Arthur, 1989 (orig. 1964). The Act of Creation. London: Arkana. Koller, Marvin R., 1988. Humor and Society. Houston, TX: Cap and Gown Press. Kroll, Morton, 1965. "Administrative Fiction and Credibility." Public Administrative

Review, vol. 25 (March), pp. 80-84. , 1981. "The Third Dimension: Uses of Fiction in Public Affairs." Dia-

logue, vol. 3 (4), pp. 9-12. Linstead, Steve, 1985. "Jokers Wild: The Importance of Humour in the Maintenance

of Organizational Culture." Sociological Review, vol. 33 (November), pp. 741-767. Lundberg, Craig C., 1969. "Person-Focused Joking: Pattern and Function," Human

Organization, vol. 28 (Spring), pp. 22-28. McCurdy, Howard E., 1973. "Fiction, Phenomenology, and Public Administration."

PublicAdministration Review, vol. 33 Uanuary/February), pp. 52-60. , 1987. "How Novelists View Public Administration." In Ralph Chandler

Clark, ed., A Centennial History of the American Administrative State. New York.: Free Press. pp. 543-574.

McDaniel, Thomas R., 1978. "The Search for the Administrative Novel." Public Administration Review, vol. 38 (November/December), pp. 545-549.

Miles, Rufus E., 1978. "The Origin and Meaning of Miles' Law." Public Administra- tion Review, vol. 38 (September/October), pp. 399-403.

Mindess, Harvey, 1987. "The Panorama of Humor and the Meaning of Life." Ameri- can Behavioral Scientist, vol. 30 (anuary/February,), pp. 82-95.

Obrdlik, Antonin, 1942. "'Gallows Humor'-A Sociological Phenomenon." American Journal of Sociology, vol. 47 (5), pp. 709-716.

Parkinson, C. Northcote, 1957. Parkinson's Law and Other Administrative Studies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Peter, Laurence J. and Raymond Hull, 1969. The Peter Principle. New York: Bantam Books.

Radcliffe-Brown, A. R., 1952. Structure and Function in Primitive Society. London: Cohen & West, Ltd.

Roy, Donald F., 1959-1960. "'Banana Time' Job Satisfaction and Informal Interac- tion." Human Organization, vol. 18 (Winter), pp. 158-168.

Sykes, A. J. M., 1966. "Joking Relationships in an Industrial Setting." American Anthropologist, vol. 68 (February), pp. 188-193.

Sypher, Wylie, ed., 1956. Comedy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. ,_____ 1956. "The Meanings of Comedy." In Wylie Sypher, ed., Comedy. Balti-

more: Johns Hopkins Press. Traylor, Gary, 1985. "Joking in a Bush Camp." Human Relations, vol. 26 (August),

pp. 479-486. Ullian, Joseph Alan, 1976. "Joking at Work." Journal of Communication, vol. 26

(Summer), pp. 129-133. Vinton, Karen L., 1989. "Humor in the Workplace Is More Than Telling Jokes."

Small Group Behavior, vol. 20 (May), pp. 151-166. Waldo, Dwight, 1956. Perspectives on Administration University, AL: University of

Alabama Press.

90 Public Administration Review * January/February 1995, Vol. 55, No. I

This content downloaded from 63.138.247.2 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 10:01:07 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions