Humour in University and Humour

in
Corporate Training: Training
A Comparison of Trainer
Perceptions 33
Gundars E. Kaupins
Boise State University, USA

Humour is valuable in university and corporate settings. Researchers of

educational institutions suggest that trainer humour helps learning and increases
student attentiveness[1-5]. In corporations, managers believe their humour
increases employee attendance, decreases lateness and improves their abilities
to meet job demands[6]. Krohe[7] links humour with employee health, creativity,
and efficiency in companies. Other studies suggest there is a correlation between
humour and increased attention[8], relaxation[9] and increased retention of
students[10].
Though humour has been positively viewed in universities and companies,
no research has compared the humour used by trainers in both settings. Such
comparison could show trainers if they should change their humour as they
transfer from the university to the corporation (and vice versa). A comparison
could also help university students see what humour they might face when they
enter the corporation.
To be effective in class, trainers might have to share the same type of humour
and cover the same humorous topics as their students. Boskinf[11] suggests
that humour is connected to time and frame. Fadiman[12] says that age, class,
race, place and time affect our perception of humour. For example, jokes about
Watergate would probably not do well now because it is a distant event in time.
University and corporate trainees have different experiences. University
students might share experiences such as sororities, football games and a full-
time schedule of classes. Meanwhile, corporate trainees might have to work
at their company while taking corporate courses. University students are
probably younger and more inexperienced than students in corporate training
programmes. Seltzer[13] points out that, as people get older, they tend to accept
and deliver more sophisticated humour. This is especially true of people in their
middle ages. Only when the body slows down after retirement is simpler and
less humour acceptable.
Purpose
The purpose of this article is twofold. First, it aims to discover if there are
major differences in the humour used in universities and corporations.
Journal of Management
Development, Vol. 10 No. 1, 1991,
An earlier version of the paper on which this article was based was presented at the Association pp. 33-41. © MCB University
of Management Conference, Boston, 1989. Press, 0262-1711
Journal of Accordingly, the amount and type of humour university business professors
Management and corporate trainers claim to use while teaching is compared, as are the
Development reasons why business professors and corporate trainers use humour. The training
10,1 techniques in which professors and corporate trainers use humour most are
also compared.
Kaupins'[14] research has inspired these three comparisons. He investigated
the types of humour used, reasons for their use, and training techniques where
34 corporate trainers use the most humour. He discovered that corporate trainers
claim to use many types of humour (e.g. short stories, puns, exaggeration).
They claim that hiding trainer errors is not an important reason for using humour
and highlight the importance of encouraging trainees to relax. They also claim
to use humour frequently with many training techniques (e.g. lectures, discussion
groups, films). Kaupins' paper, however, did not compare corporate trainers
to other trainers nor did it discuss applications of the results for trainers.
The second purpose of this article-is to apply what was learned from the
forementioned comparisons and suggest approaches to improve the humour
used in universities and corporate training programmes. Stories of the transition
from university to corporate training programmes are provided.

Humour Survey
To compare humour use, 1,138 surveys were sent to corporate trainers and
business professors throughout the United States and 426 were returned. The
243 corporate trainers who responded were contacted through the American
Society for Training and Development Directory. The 183 business professors
who responded were contacted through the Academy ofManagement Directory
and faculty directories in management information systems, finance, accounting,
industrial relations, personnel, and marketing. About 41 per cent of the corporate
trainers and 33 per cent of the professors responded.

Research Population
A variety of corporate trainers and business professors responded to the survey.
It was intended that a representative sample of both populations should be
obtained.
Corporate trainers in the study:
● Came from a variety of industrial, consumer goods, and service private-
sector organisations
● About half were male
● About half had at least Master's degrees
● Averaged six years in their company
● Taught a variety of subjects including management development,
accounting, finance, organisation behaviour.
University professors in the study:
● Came from a variety of business schools from large, public universities
to small, private schools
 ● About three-quarters were male Humour
● About 90 per cent had at least Master's degrees in
● Averaged four years in their school Training
● Taught a variety of subjects including management development,
accounting, finance, organisation behaviour.
Survey Questions 35
Humour researchers cannot agree on an operational definition of humour. They
have described it by the volume of student laughter, amount of laughter, amount
of smiling, and trainee or trainer reports of the amount of humour used[15].
The research documented here used trainer reports of their humour. Through
reports, many responses are easy to obtain and personal opinions can be
solicited. To estimate the amount of humour used in training, trainers were
asked how often they used eight types of humour. The listof humour categories
comes from Salameh's[16] classification. This was chosen because the categories
appear easy for respondents to understand and because they use common words
(e.g. short stories). The respondents received definitions and business-related
examples of each humour category.
Respondents also rated the importance of various reasons for using humour,
which include such factors as helping students to relax and increasing the amount
of learning (this list comes from Kaupins'[15] list of reasons for using humour).
Respondents also rated the amount of humour they used with various training
methods. The methods chosen were the most popular ones used in corporate
training[17].

Comparisons of Humour between Settings

Types of Humour
Table I shows rankings of the types of humour trainers claim to use. Short
stories were the most popular for both corporate trainers and university
professors. Confrontation was the least popular. Both groups also claimed to
have the same rankings of exaggeration, surprise, absurdity and generalisation.
Corporate trainers ranked bodily humour higher and university professors ranked
word play higher. In general, there were few differences in the rankings.

Reasons for Humour

Table II shows rankings of the reasons for using humour in training. Helping
trainees to relax and keeping the training environment interesting were the most
popular reasons cited. Helping to hide trainer errors was the least popular.
There was little difference in the way the instructors ranked the reasons for
using humour.

Humour among Training Methods

Table III shows how the amount of humour among training methods was ranked.
Lectures and discussions showed the most humour and audio-visual
presentations showed the least.
Journal of
Management Humour Types Corporate University
Ranking Ranking
Development
10,1 Short Stories
True or false story (e.g. fish story) 1 1
Exaggeration
36 Over- or understatement (e.g. "Learn French in
minutes") 2 2
Bodily Humour
Physical movement to convey thought (e.g. trainer
demonstrates avoidance behaviour by looking away from
students) 3 7
Surprise
Using unexpected events to convey a message (e.g. the
trainer's notes fall. The trainer says, "This lecture is
prepared from the ground up") 4 4
Absurdity
Irrational statements (e.g. the trainer says, "I'm late
because my clock runs backwards") 5 5
Generalisation
Putting people into categories (e.g. ethnic jokes) 6 6
Word Play
Puns, song lines, sayings (e.g. "Are these jokes
punishing enough?") 7 3
Confrontation
Confronting incorrect behaviour (e.g. Don Rickles-type
Table I. humour) 8 8
Humour Usage

Reasons Corporate University

Importance Importance
Ranking Ranking

Humour in training should...

Help trainees relax 1 2
Keep training interesting 2 1
Keep trainees alert 3 3
Increase trainee participation 4 4
Increase learning 5 5
Help trainees know each other 6 8
Clarify instruction 7 6
Motivate trainees 8 7
Entertain trainees 9 9
Table II.
Reasons for Using Hide trainer errors 10 10
Humour
 Humour
Training Methods Corporate University
Humour Use Humour Use in
Ranking Ranking Training
How often is humour used in...
Lectures 1 1
Other training methods* 2 2 37
Discussions 3 3
Role plays 4 4
Simulations 5 6
Case studies 6 5
Slides 7 8
Videos 8 7
Films 9 9
Programmed instruction 10 10
Audio-cassettes 11 11
Table III.
* Demonstrations, experiential exercises games, video, role play, video discs, small group Humour Frequency
work, company-produced video. among Training
Methods

For both settings, it appears that interaction with people is the most important
consideration in determining the amount of humour used. Lectures and
discussion groups can promote much interaction between trainer and students.
The more mechanised the training method, the less chance that humour will
arise, it appears. Therefore, we see audio-visual presentations,filmsand slides
ranked low.
Survey Conclusions
There appear to be few differences in the humour perceptions of university
business professors and corporate trainers. With few exceptions, the rankings
of humour use, reasons for humour, and humour among various training methods
were similar. Both groups used short stories, more than any other category.
Both groups believed that helping trainees relax was the most important reason
for using humour. Both groups saw the most humour in training methods that
involved the most interaction between student and trainer.

Implications
Future Research
The similarities in the ranking of humour suggest that trainers have similar types
of humour, reasons for using humour, and training methods where they use
humour. This information provides a hint that humour in one setting might be
applicable in another.
However, the conclusion that humour can be transferred from the university
to the corporation (and vice versa) may not be correct, for the following reasons.
Journal of First, not all aspects of humour were studied. The topics trainers cover, when
Management trainers should use humour, how frequently it is used in various locations, and
Development how frequently in front of different people (e.g. managers, subordinates,
10,1 customers) were not analysed. Second, each department, corporation, college,
or school must be considered individually. Each place may have a different culture
to which a trainer needs to adapt. The survey results provide only general views
of universities and corporations. Future researchers should study each of the
38 above mentioned issues.
The present research asked corporate and university trainers the reasons
for using humour in training. "Helping trainees to relax" and "keeping training
interesting" were the most important reasons for its use in the classroom.
The next research step is to study if humour in training does help trainees to
relax and keep training interesting.

Humour Instruction
Humour instruction might be helpful in making students realise the role of
humour in many settings — not only universities and corporate institutions.
Such instruction could be in the form of seminars, communication courses,
business courses, or literature on improving humour.
The existing literature, and the survey results reported in this article show
what aspects of humour might be helpful for the movement of trainers between
corporations and universities:

(1) Humour should be understandable. According to McGhee and Goldstein[15],

humour becomes funny when the joke teller links two topics that do not belong
together and the listener figures out how to unite them. Accordingly, trainer
humour that works in a university (e.g. humour about the school's football team)
might not work in a corporation. The trainer should make sure that the corporate
audience understands the content and background of the humour.

Example

I was walking with a friend near the Heidi Motel. As we walked by, I said: "I bet they
don't show football here". My friend did not laugh. He did not know the linkage between
Heidi and football. He did not know that, in the late 1960s, a major TV network pre­
empted the final two minutes of a football game to show "Heidi". During that final two
minutes, the teams scored three touchdowns. A massive uproar from TV football fans
followed. If my friend had known the background to this joke, he might have "got it".

(2) Humour should include and not exclude trainees. Humour in group training
settings should be made to be understood by the group rather than a few
individuals. If the same few individuals are the only ones to understand the
jokes, the others will feel left out.
 Humour
Example in
At an MBA programme, a few of my student colleagues disliked the inner circle of class
Training
members from one company. The inner circle shared jokes about their company that were
funny to them but not understandable to the rest of the class. The other students felt
like second-class citizens. The professor let the jokes continue until a few of us protested.
39
(3) Humour should be kept relevant to training. Research has shown that, for
training adults, humour relevant to the training situation is valuable[15]. Humour
integrated with the instruction can enhance learning by helping participants link
a joke or phrase to an important point. The joke or phrase can make the
instructional message memorable.

Example
In a management training course, my instructor asked the class how to greet new
employees. After we gave our answers, he answered the question by saying "KISS".
After our laughter and disagreement with his answer, he explained that KISS referred
to "Keep it simple, stupid". His major point was that employers should not overwhelm
new employees with much information. The employer should stick with basic information
such as "Who is the boss?", "Who will you work with?", and "Where will you eat?"
The KISS example has stuck with me ever since that lecture.

(4) Supportive humour should be used. Ethnic, sexist, racist, and derogatory
humour should be avoided. Negative humour is that which belittles or offends
a student. Salameh[16] and Smeltzer and Leap[18] explain that negative humour
can hurt the student's learning and opinions of the trainer. Table I showed that
trainers viewed negative, confrontational humour as the least popular.

Example
A student came into my class wearing a big Western hat. I commented that he was practising
to be a cowboy. Though I felt that this was an innocent joke, he did not wear that hat
during my sessions again. He may have been offended by the comment. I now do not
try to make jokes that have the possibility of hurting a person's esteem.

(5) Listen to what type of humour your students like. Table I shows that there
are many types of humour available to the trainer. To become more humorous,
trainers should practise the humour and see if students react favourably.
Reactions can come from instantaneous student responses, comments after
class, or teaching evaluations. Remember, though, that the primary purpose
of the trainer is to train and not be a stand-up comedian.
Journal of Trainers should also remember that lectures and discussions (as shown in
Management Table II) are golden opportunities to share humour. Trainers can take advantage
Development of the interaction with the students in the humour.
10,1
Example
40 I am a diehard punster. At two-hour seminars in companies, occasional puns are fine.
However, in the university classroom, I discovered that puns during a long semester get
old. The students' blank stares told me that I was not communicating either the humour
or the training topic. After failing at puns, I tried some short stories in front of my students.
The short stories came after I looked at my lecture notes. Apparently students became
absorbed in stories they could relate to (e.g. the latest weather).

(6) Practise humour. Practice can improve a trainer's ability to use humour in
presentations. Practice can enhance the trainer's ability to develop impromptu
humour and respond to trainee reactions to trainer presentations[19].

Example
Occasionally, the room lights go out (don't ask me why) when I lecture. When the event
occurs, I usually say, "I hope my lecture doesn't leave you in the dark". However, I could
have said many other statements. To practise humour, I came up with three other
statements: "Let's shed more light on this topic", "The boss didn't want to hear this
lecture", "Since everybody was sleeping anyway, I decided to turn the lights off".

I recommend that you try to think of 50 other humorous responses to the

lightless situation. The more you practise, the better you will become at thinking
of humorous responses to many parts of your training presentations.

Summary of Implications
Humour in universities and corporations has some common threads, as shown
in the survey reported in this article. But trainers must still respond to the
needs and backgrounds of trainees in each setting. To increase the humour
in both settings, trainers should provide understandable, non-coercive humour.
Trainers should listen to trainees' needs. They should practise this humour
to hone their skills.

References
1. Civikly, J.M., "Humor and Enjoyment of College Teaching", New Directions for Teaching
and Learning, Vol. 20, 1986, pp. 61-70.
2. Perry, R.P. and Dickens, W.J., "Perceived Control and Instruction in the College
Classroom: Some Implications for Student Achievement", Research in Higher Education,
Vol. 27, 1987, pp. 291-310.
 3. Perry, R.P., "Educational Seduction: Some Implications for Teaching Evaluation and
Improvement", Center for Improving Teaching and Evaluation, Vancouver, BC, Report
Number 7, 1981.
4. Vance, C.M., "A Comparative Study of the Use of Humor in the Design of Instruction",
Instructional Science, Vol. 16, 1987, pp. 79-100.
5. Jewett, J.W., "Putting the Heart before the Course — Humor in Physics Teaching", The
Physics Teacher, Vol. 26, 1988, pp. 182-3.
6. Bianchi, A., "Are you Kidding?", America West Airlines Magazine, Vol. 3, 1988, pp. 115-8.
7. Krohe, J., "Take my Boss — Please", Across the Board, Vol. 24, 1987, pp. 31-5.
8. Madden, T.J. and Weinberger, M.G., "Humor in Advertising: A Practitioner View", Journal
of Advertising Research, Vol. 24, 1984, pp. 23-9.
9. Nolan, N., "Success Can Be a Laughing Matter", Data Management, Vol. 24, 1986, pp.
28-9.
10. Fiderio, J., "Humor, Interactivity Enhances, CBT Training", Computerworld, Vol. 20, 1986,
pp. 60-1.
11. Boskin, J., Humor and Social Change in Twentieth-Century America, National Endowment
for the Humanities Learning Library Program, Boston Public Library, Boston.
12. Fadiman, C., "Humor as a Weapon", American Humor: An Interdisciplinary Newsletter,
Vol.1, 1974, pp. 20-2.
13. Seltzer, M.M., "liming: The Significant Common Variable in Both Humor and Aging",
in Nahemou, L., McCluskey-Fawcett, K. and McGhee, P.E., Humor and Aging, Academic
Press, New York, 1986.
14. Kaupins, G.E., "What's so Funny about Training?", Training and Development Journal,
Vol. 43, 1989, pp. 27-30.
15. McGhee, P.E. and Goldstein, J.J., Handbook of Humor Research, Springer-Verlag, New
York, Vols. I and II, 1983.
16. Salameh, W.A., "Humor in Psychotherapy: Past Outlooks, Present Status, and Future
Frontiers", in McGhee, P.E. and Goldstein, J.J., Handbook of Humor Research, Springer-
Verlag, New York, Vol. II, 1983.
17. "Employee Training in America", Training and Development Journal, Vol. 40, 1986, pp. 34-7.
18. Smeltzer, L.R. and Leap, T.L., "An Analysis of Individual Reactions to Potentially Offensive
Jokes in Work Settings", Human Relations, Vol. 41, 1988, pp. 295-304.
19. Kaupins, G.E., "How to Use Humor in your Presentations", Performance and Instruction,
Vol. 27, 1988, pp. 11-12.