Humor and laughter in workplace negotiations and leadership

Laughter Advantage Literature Adelsward and Oberg’s (1998) article appears in the peer-reviewed Humor: International Journal of Humor Research. The article focuses on the role that humor and laughter play in negotiation. It provides a detailed analysis of the function of laughter in negotiations while integrating other previous studies. However, it does not provide quantitative research that could be duplicated or repeated to verify results. Nonetheless, the analysis provided is astute, relevant to my proposal, and critical in its thinking. The author’s interpretations of how laughter is used in negotiations appear to be correct: laughter is often used in negotiations as a way to diffuse tension and create a more positive atmosphere. Humor can be a useful tool in breaking the ice, build rapport, and help parties see things from a different perspective. Laughter can also signal that the negotiation is progressing in a positive direction. However, laughter can also be used as a tactic to gain an advantage or to avoid difficult topics. For example, laughter can be used to deflect a question or to signal that an offer is not serious. As such, the author asserts that laughter should be used carefully in negotiations. I agree wholeheartedly with this interpretation. The article is easy to follow as it is organized according to topics using sub-headings to guide the reader, with sections like “Previous Research on Laughter” clearly pointing out what the next section will describe. The article contains useful information on the benefits of laughter in negotiations that will facilitate inquiry into my research proposal. 
The article by Avey et al. (2010) appears in the peer-reviewed Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. It builds on research conducted in previous studies by other scholars, who ask questions such as, “Can psychologists take what they have learned about the science and practice of treating mental illness and use it to create a practice of making people lastingly happier?” (p. 17). Avey et al. (2010) focus on analyzing how positive psychological capital can help employees to be happier at work. The article does describe and integrate numerous previous studies and does incorporate new statistical data, which was collected via the survey method using participating employees from the workplace. The authors credibly explained their approach sufficiently well that the research could be duplicated to verify results if desired. Overall, I agree with the authors’ findings and interpretations of the data, as they are consistent with what other researchers have found and what my own personal experience has proven. The article is easy to follow and well-organized and will contribute well to my proposal’s research.
Avolio et al. (1999) published their article in the peer-reviewed Academy of Management Journal, and posed the research question of whether there was any link between humor, leadership style, and performance. The authors integrated previously published literature into their work to show why there was a solid basis and need for their research so as to close the gap on the question raised. The authors collected new data using two performance measures from a sample of employees, and procedures were explained with enough detail that the methodology could be duplicated for verification purposes. The interpretations of the authors were that humor does moderate leadership styles with respect to the performance of both individuals and whole units. I agree with this interpretation as it fits the data and is supported both by the findings of the authors and by what other scholars have found. This article will certainly be supportive of my research proposal as it provides quantitative value in showing that humor does help leaders enhance performance.
The article by Baron (1984) appears in the peer-reviewed Journal of Applied Psychology and does apply a research question regarding whether amusement, sympathy, or gratitude can mediate conflict in a workplace setting. The article examines other studies that have explored the topic of interpersonal work-related conflict resolution in the past and adds to their findings by conducting a study that specifically focuses on the three interventions described above. The main findings are that amusement, sympathy, and gratitude are important emotions that can help reduce conflict in the workplace. When employees feel amusement, they tend to feel more positive and cooperative. Sympathy allows employees to see the situation from another person's perspective and understand their feelings. Gratitude makes people feel appreciated and valued. All of these emotions can help create a more positive work environment and reduce conflict. This data was collected via a controlled experiment involving workplace participants and the experiment could be duplicated again thanks to the specifics regarding methodology provided by the author. I agree with the author’s conclusions, which follow logically from the findings. The article is well organized with headings and sub-headings, is easy to follow, and will add significantly to my research proposal.
Belanger et al. (1998) published their article in the peer-reviewed Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, asking the research question of whether humor played any role in problem solving. They built their case for why it might based on prior research, and collected data using a simple controlled experiment involving participants’ attempts to solve tasks in which humor was denied and then applied to see its effect. The authors explained the experimental process sufficiently way so that it could be duplicated, and the authors’ conclusions followed on the data—but I do not necessarily agree with the authors’ interpretation; first, because the experiment is narrow and does not necessarily speak for all the ways humor might be used to problem solve; and, second, because the sample is relatively small and does not facilitate generalizeability in my opinion. Therefore, while the article is organized and easy to follow, I do not foresee it having much influence in my proposal other than as an example of what some researchers have found regarding the discounting of humor’s role in problem solving. In other words, it may serve briefly as a study worth mentioning in the literature review, but if it is used to help build the need for my research it will be used by showing how it provides a too narrow and restrictive view on humor’s uses.
The study by Bergeron et al. (2008) looks at whether financial advisors have a positive impact on clients’ attitudes and perspectives when they approach clients with pleasant behavior. The article appears in the peer-reviewed Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, and poses the research question of whether pleasant behavior (asking about a family member, covering a parking expense, etc.) can give the services provider a competitive advantage. The article does use prior literature to support its basis and covers prior literature in a review section in the article. New data was collected using an intervention, and comparing it with antecedents and consequences. The methodology is adequately described so as to allow for it to be repeated, and the article is easy to follow. I agree with the interpretations of the article, which are that pleasant behavior enhances clients’ trust, satisfaction, and purchase intentions. The article will be useful in my research because it supports the idea of positive behavior having a positive knock-on effect.
Brief and Motowidlo (1986) published their article in the peer-reviewed Academy of Management Review. Their article did not have a stated research question, and did not clearly have a section integrating previous studies but rather referenced studies throughout. The article is basically an explanation of prosocial organizational behavior as a construct and what behaviors facilitate or undermine organizational effectiveness. The authors do not collect new data but describe data already in existence and give an overview of the topic, noting that organizational behavior encompasses a wide range of topics, including communication, decision making, team dynamics, and organizational culture. Their point is that prosocial organizational behavior is behavior that is intended to be helpful or beneficial to others within the organization. Their interpretation of the subject is that this type of behavior can improve organizational effectiveness by promoting positive communication, teamwork, and cooperation. Additionally, they say that it can foster a more positive organizational culture by modeling desired behaviors for others to follow. I agree with their interpretation as, even though it may require some initial investment of time and effort, engaging in prosocial organizational behavior can ultimately lead to a more positive and productive workplace. I will likely include this article in my research to support the argument that humor is a prosocial behavior that can be good for the organization.
Carder’s (2019) article appears in the peer-reviewed Journal for Quality and Participation. It does not have a stated research question but is written as a type of personal reflection. The article does integrate prior studies but not at great length and no new data was collected. The author basically describes why joy in the workplace enhances performance and is a good thing: employees who experience joy at work are more likely to say that they felt engaged in their jobs and committed to their employer. They also tend to have higher job satisfaction and lower levels of stress. In addition, employees who use humor in the workplace are more likely to say that they feel creative and innovative. I agree with the assessment of the author as there are a number of reasons why joy and humor can be beneficial in the workplace. For one, joy can help to create a more positive work environment. When employees are happy, they are more likely to be productive and to collaborate effectively with others. In addition, joy and humor can help to reduce stress levels, which can lead to improved focus and concentration. Finally, joy and humor can simply make work more fun, which can Motivate employees to give their best effort. I plan to include this article in my research as it is clear from the author’s experience and supporting data that joy and humor can have a positive impact on the workplace.
Collinson’s (1988) article, appearing in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies, takes a different approach to humor in the workplace by focusing on shop-floor human and how it undermines creative humor and collectivity in the factory. The research question is whether shop floor humor is good for the factory, and the article does include a brief literature review of prior studies on the subject. It does not provide new data but rather gives an analysis of the existing data. I do not agree with the author’s interpretations of the data, although I do plan to include it in my research because it is a helpful perspective that suggests there can be a dark side to humor that leaders should be wary of. Overall, the article is well-written and easy enough to follow.
The article by Cooper (2005) was published in the peer-reviewed Academy of Management Review, and it has the stated research question of whether humor is an ingratiatory behavior in the workplace. It integrates previous studies into it and brings new research on humor in the workplace. The new data collected is not explained very thoroughly and likely could not be repeated but I do agree somewhat with the author’s interpretations, as humor does seem to be a way to ingratiate oneself with others, as the article illustrates. It is organized well enough and is sufficiently easy to follow. I think it will add to my research proposal by showing how humor has some utility in the workplace.
Cooper’s (2008) article appears in the peer-reviewed Human Relations, and does not have a stated research question; nor does it have a section that clearly describes and integrates previous studies. It acts basically as a thematically-organized overview or explanation of theories of humor and how humor can be used in the workplace. The article is supported throughout by prior research studies and is easy to follow with plenty of sub-headings to show where it is going. I agree with the author’s interpretations of the data and believe this article will add positively to my research proposal.
Dansereau et al. (1984) published their book under Prentice Hall. It looks at how to use statistical paradigms, and is not very easy to follow at times. It is useful for those trying to understand how testing and variants might work to alter findings. As such, I am not sure it is going to be of much use in my research, as I am not going to focus too much on statistical evidence—at least not using complicated formulas like the ones described in this work.
The article by Daya (2014) is in the peer-reviewed Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion: An International Journal, and asks the research question: what are the key considerations that need to be managed in order to create more diverse drive transformation? The article does describe and integrate previous studies. New data was collected using qualitative and quantitative techniques. The procedures could be repeated to get similar results. I do agree with the author’s interpretations as there is good emphasis on practical implications as well as limitations of the research. Overall, it is well-organized and easy to read, and I will use it for my research.
Decker and Rotondo’s (1991) article appears in the peer-reviewed Journal of Managerial Issues, with the research question being whether there are relationships between workplace humor, manager gender, and leadership outcomes. The article does have a section describing and integrating previous studies, and the authors did collect new data: business school alumni provided information on the use of both positive and negative humor by their managers. The procedures were explained sufficiently that they could be repeated to get the same results, and overall I agree with the authors’ interpretations of the data. The article is easy to follow and well-organized, and it will add to my research.
The article by Duncan and Feisal (1989) appears in the peer-reviewed Organizational Dynamics. It does not have a stated research question, but rather explains how managers who understand the role of joking can improve employee cooperation and productivity. The data is obtained through observation, and I agree with the authors’ findings and interpretations. The article is very easy to follow, and will add to my research.
Fine’s (1988) article appears in the SAGE published book Inside Organizations, and focuses on what it means to have a functioning workplace where workers can let off steam. The article will support the aim of my research proposal by showing that everyone in the workplace can experience tension and conflict at certain points and there needs to be a way for people to relieve this tension in human ways—which is certainly where humor comes into play.
The article by Fleming (2005) appears in the peer-reviewed Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, and asks whether blurring the line between fun and work at work is really helpful. It examines data from survey previously published and concludes that managing fun at work can lead to cynicism among employees. I agree with this author’s interpretations of the data as it is logical and follows from what is indicated in the survey. It highlights the role that humor can play—rather than all-out “fun”—in the workplace, and thus will be of benefit to my research.
Forester’s (2004) article is published in the peer-reviewed Negotiation Journal and does not have a stated research question but rather serves as an essay on how humor and recognition can help in critical moments in negotiations. I agree with the author’s interpretations of data. There is no integrated literature review; instead, the author dives into the essay and supports some points along the way with reference to studies. There is no section on data collection, but the essay is easy to follow and will be useful in my research as a supportive source.
Frederickson’s (2001) article appears in the peer-reviewed American Psychologist, and focuses on how experiencing positive emotions is a fundamental human strength that contributes to a person’s ability to flourish. The author does not collect new data but looks at pre-existing empirical data and interprets it from the standpoint of broaden-and-build theory. I agree with the author’s interpretations, which are logical and contextualized as stated. This article will be useful in my research.
Georganta and Montgomery (2019) published their article in the peer-reviewed Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, and their research aim was to explore the concept of fun in the modern organization and understand the underlying elements necessary for creating environments that valorize and promote fun. The article did integrate and describe previous studies and did collect new data using semi-structured individual interviews with open-ended questions with 34 employed individuals. The authors adequately explained their method so that it could be duplicated. I agree with the authors’ interpretations of the data, which is logical and coherent. The article is easy to follow and I will use it for my research proposal.
George and Brief’s (1992) article is in the peer-reviewed Psychological Bulletin, and does not ask a research question but does focus on understanding organizational spontaneity in order to propose a set of dispositional and situational factors that contribute to its occurrence. It conducts a literature review only, so does not present any new data. However, the authors’ interpretations appear valid and logical and I would agree with them. The work will be helpful in supporting my research overall.
Greatbatch and Clark (2003) published their article in the peer-reviewed Human Relations, and focused on how management gurus use humor. The authors did not present a clear research question but did explain their purpose by integrating and describing prior literature and explaining their method. The data collected came from analysis of recorded management guru videos and the process was explained well enough to be duplicated. I agree with the authors’ interpretations and while the article could have been organized better with more sub-headings it was easy enough to follow overall. I plan to include it in my research.
The article by Hatch (1997) appears in the peer-reviewed Organization Science, and asks whether organizational members use humorous remarks to discursively construct and organize their cognitive and emotional experiences in and of their organizations. The article does describe and integrate previous studies into the text, and new data is collected via analysis using humor theory and direct observation of middle managers. The author explains her process so that I could repeat it and get similar results. I do agree with her interpretations and the article is easy to follow. I will add it to my research certainly.
The article by Hatzipapas et al. (2017) was published in the peer-reviewed SAHARA and aimed to explore and better understand the impact that laughter therapy has to positively combat stresses of working within the care workers’ environment. The article does review existing literature in its own section, and data was collected through a process of phenomenology with quantitative data coming from participant responses to questions. The collection process could be duplicated based on what is described in the article. The authors’ interpretations are logical and I agree with them based on the data reviewed, and overall the article was easy to follow and well-organized. I plan to include this in my research to support the idea that laughter helps deal with stress.
Holmes and Marra (2006) published their article in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Humor Research, and ask the question of how leaders use humor to develop their leadership styles in the workplace. The article does contain a section for describing and integrating previous studies and does collect new data, too. The data collected came from New Zealand workplaces where workplace interactions were observed. The data collection process could have been described a bit better so as to ensure verifiability, but I agree with the authors’ interpretations overall. The article was fairly easy to follow, and I plan to include it in my research.
Isen et al. (1985) published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and focused on the influence of affect on unusual word associations. The article did contain a section describing and integrating previous studies, and did collect new data through a pilot experiment, using forty students, test booklets, and a 7 point Likert scale for surveying. The study could be replicated if needed, and I somewhat agree with the authors’ interpretations, but the study was not the easiest to follow, and I doubt I will include it in my research as it only marginally touches on the role of humor in the workplace.
The article by Kahai et al. (2003) appeared in the peer-reviewed Leadership Quarterly, and asked whether leadership style affects group creativity. The article did contain a section wherein previous studies were integrated and described. New data was collected using thirty-nine student groups in a lab experiment in which leadership styles were monitored for effects. The study could be duplicated if desired as the authors explained processes well enough. I agree with the findings and interpretations, and the article could be followed even though it was not that easy to follow it at times. I will likely include it in my research for its contributions to how leadership styles affect groups.
Kets’ (1990) article appears in the peer-reviewed Human Relations, and examines how leaders’ arrogance impacts organizations. It contributes to the literature on the subject by presenting two case examples of a foolish leader. It supports its definition of a fool with some reference to existing literature but does not have a stand-alone section for describing previous studies. It does not add new data but I do agree with the author’s interpretations, and it was easy to read and organized. I may use it in my research for its contributions on negative leadership.
Kilbride’s (2009) article appears in Tribune Business Weekly, which is not peer-reviewed. It discusses how people can say thanks in different ways. The value of the article is that it highlights how interactions have nuance and how that nuance can be used to augment relationships and enhance interpersonal correspondence. It will be useful in my research as a reference point for showing how people’s interactions are important to understand and mastery is needed for best practices.
The article by Leap and Smeltzer (1984) appears in the peer-reviewed Harvard Business Review, and focuses on whether humor is always positive especially if it contains racist connotations. The main point of the article is that people need to be aware of how they use humor in the workplace because if it is controversial it may not be accepted by all with positivity. This article will be useful in my research in helping to show that humor has to be used in a meaningful and positive way in order to be truly effective.
The article by Luthans (2002) was published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Organizational Behavior and does not have a research question. It is an essay that refers throughout to existing literature in order to cover the topic it presents. It is well-organized thematically and easy to follow. It gives recommendations for theory-building in relation to positive organizational behavior concepts. I may use it in my research to support the idea of humor among leadership styles to support inclusion.
Lyttle’s (2007) article appears in the peer-reviewed Business Horizons and focuses humor theory and shows how a simple model can be used to analyze a humorous interaction. The article supports the research proposal of mine, and may be useful in supporting the idea that humor has a place in the work space environment when used appropriately. It was overall easy to read and follow and well-organized with reference to existing literature throughout.
Malone’s (1980) article was published in the peer-reviewed Academy of Management Review, and explored the ways in which humor can be used effectively and ineffectively by managers. It calls for more mindful use of humor in the workplace so as to avoid negative repercussions. I agree with the interpretations of data in the article and will use it for my research.
Martin’s (2004) article appears in the peer-reviewed Journal of Applied Communication Research and provides a contextual investigation of conversational humor explores links between organizational status, gender, and paradox to show how how women can use humor to negotiate managerial identities and to navigate organizational life.  I agree with the author’s interpretations and recommend the study for its utility, and will look to include in my research.
Martin’s (2007) book was published by Elsevier Academic Press and explores the psychology humor. It provides great context on how humor can be helpful for interactions and improving psychology. I will use this book to support my research for its deep insights on human psychology and the mediating role that humor can play in our lives.
The article by Martin and Lefcourt (1984) was published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. It reports on the development of the Situational Humor Response Questionnaire (SHRQ) and describes a reliability study with 497 undergraduates as well as numerous validity studies. The article is helpful for validating the SHRQ which may be useful in my research.
The article by Martin et al. (2003) appears in the peer-reviewed Journal of Research in Personality, and describes the differences in humor in interpersonal relationships. The article is helpful for my proposal because it gives substantial background on the nuances of humor among people of diversity, which supports my overall aim to show how humor can be used in the workplace to enhance an environment that fosters diversity, inclusion and equity.
Maxwell’s (2003) article was published in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Emergency Mental Health, and asked whether humor can be used as a coping mechanism. Specifically it looks at the appropriateness of gallows humor in the emergency medical field and shows how first responders use it to maintain their sanity and detachment in the face of deep, personal pain that they encounter. In this sense humor is a self-preservation tool. This study will be helpful in my research to further explore humor’s utility in diverse situations.
The book by Mindess (1971), published by Nash, views laughter and humor as a way of liberating the human from various situations and systems that might otherwise control and oppress the person in day to day life. Humor and laughter are described as critical to human development. I plan to reference this book in my research as it supports my overall aim of framing humor in a positive light.
Morreall’s (1991) article was published in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Humor Research and highlights the relationship between humor and work, and how the two fit together. This can be considered a seminal article on the subject and will be useful in my research. The author explains how humor in the workplace facilitates health, mental flexibility, and smooth social relations. It represents a movement away from traditional understandings of the workplace and thus is a pivotal piece of research that I will include in my own research as support.
The article by Mulkay et al. (1993) appears in the same peer-reviewed Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, and explores how humor is used for profit motives. The idea behind the interpretation of the data is that humor moves people to saying yes. I agree with the authors’ interpretations, and I will likely include this easy to follow article in my research to support my overall development of a framework.
Plester and Orams’ (2008) article was published in the same peer-reviewed Humor journal as well, and it explored the role that the clown/fool/joker plays in a company, using three companies as case examples. The article uses previous literature and integrates it, and explains its methodology well enough that the study could be duplicated. I found it easy to read and agreeable in its conclusions, and I plan to use it in my research, too.
The article by Pratt and Ashforth (2003) appears in the book Positive Organizational Scholarship, published by Berrett-Koehler and describes how meaningfulness can be fostered at work. The idea is that people should be resilient, able to foster good relationships with others, and have the opportunity to reconcile differences. It is a good source for supporting the concepts of diversity, inclusion and equity that I will be looking to bring into my research and therefore I will aim to include it in my work as well.
The article by Priest and Swain (2002) appears in the peer-reviewed Humor journal like several others here, and focuses on the implications that humor has for leadership effectiveness. The question asked is whether leaders can effectively use humor as part of their leadership style, and the data collected is explained for the purposes of repeating if necessary. I could follow the article and it was organized and contained a section on prior literature. I will include it in my research as it is sensible and I agree with the interpretations offered by the authors.
The article by Rafaeli and Sutton (1991) appears in the peer-reviewed Academy of Management Journal and focuses on using qualitative studies as a source for analysis in developing a model of how to using contrasting positive and negative emotions to bring about social influence. The article describes variations on a good cop/bad cop approach, but overall it is not really fitting with the aims of my research, so I do not think I will include it.
Roberts (2006) published in the peer-reviewed Academy of Management Review, and focuses on the way that research should focus more on positive states in order to highlight beneficial ways people can work within organizations. The article is more theoretical than data-intensive, and is not the easiest to follow. I will probably use it as a theoretical background source in my research.
The article by Rogerson-Revell (2007) is in the peer-reviewed Journal of Pragmatics, and asks how humor can be applied in business meetings. It shows that humor cuts both ways—it can have a positive and a negative effect depending how it’s used and how it is received. The data is collected and explained sufficiently well and the findings can be logically appreciated. I would use this study in my research to help show that humor has to be controlled and used wisely.
Romero and Cruthirds’ (2006) article is in the peer-reviewed Academy of Management Perspectives and focuses on humor in the workplace. It mainly explains how managers can use humor to reduce stress and enhance leadership, group cohesiveness, communication, creativity, and organizational culture. It references older literature throughout but does not collect any new data for analysis. Overall, I agree with the authors’ interpretation of existing literature and found the article easy to read and follow. I would include it in my research as it supports the idea that humor can effectively enhance a workplace culture.
Roy’s (1960) article appears in the peer-reviewed Human Organization, and focuses on how human interaction can support job satisfaction. It aligns with the overall aim of this research in that it links inclusion with satisfaction and well-being. I will refer to this source in my research.
Ruch et al. (1996) have their article in the peer-reviewed Humor journal and they examine the humorous temperament in their work. They look at the way different traits play a role in humor. The work is more theoretical in the humor field and may be used in my research to support the idea that humor can be employed by anyone. I will likely refer to this work briefly.
The article by Scogin and Pollio (1980) is in the peer-reviewed Human Relations and it asks how humor contributes to group processes. The main focus of the article is how targeting works, i.e., when a person is singled out as a target for humor. The main interpretation of the authors is that humor can best be understood within the context of the group and not from anything outside. Thus, even deprecating humor can be supportive if the group appreciates it. I agree with this interpretation and will use this easy to read study in my research.
Sosik’s (2006) book is published by Information Age and looks at the character strengths needed in leaders to sustain growth. Many sources are used to support the material in the book and it is not without data. The book is helpful in exploring and explaining different character attributes and why they are important to leaders. I will likely use this information in my research as it helps to give insight into leadership styles with goals of inclusion.
Staw et al. (1994) published their article in the peer-reviewed Organization Science, and asked how emotion plays a part in workplace relationships. They used archival data and previous literature, which they integrated into their work, to explain how their interpretation of the data shows that positive emotions help to mediate relationships. I agree with their interpretations, and the article is well written and organized making it easy to read. I will likely include it in my research as a good source on positive emotions.
The article by Terrion and Ashforth (2002) is published in the peer-reviewed Human Relations and concerns how putdown humor is used in temporary groups. There can be negative and positive ramifications of this type of humor, and I agree with the interpretations of the data provided. It is why I also agree that humor should be used carefully when cultivating inclusion. I will refer to this source in my research for this reason.
Tracy et al. (2006) published in the peer-reviewed Communication Monographs, and show how humor and joking supports self-identity creation in the workplace. The article is helpful in illustrating the main reasons for humor in the workplace as a human tool that facilitates group integration and self-discovery. I may refer to this source as well in my research. It was a well-written and well organized article that was easy to read.
Vinton’s (1989) article is published in the peer-reviewed Small Group Behavior and focuses on the role that humor plays in the workplace and how it is more than just telling jokes but is also about human connectivity and supporting group cohesion. The article is supported by much other literature and I agree with its conclusions. The article references other literature throughout and shows how the main points are supported by other scholars. I will use this source in my research to help show that humor is part of good leadership intrinsically.
Vuorela (2005) published the article in the peer-reviewed Negotiation Journal, and it looks at how humor facilitates cohesion in a multicultural workplace. This is a very helpful source for my research, as it highlights specifically how humor helps to bring diverse people together. The arguments are supported by good data and previous research, which is referenced in its own section. I agree with the author’s conclusions and found the article to be easy to read and overall well-organized. I will include it in my research.