Why is your boss not funny?

An economic theory of workplace humour

This is a free post from Our Long Walk, my blog about South Africa's economic past, present, and future. If you enjoy it and want to support more of my writing, please consider a paid subscription to the twice-weekly posts, which include my columns, guest essays, interviews, and summaries of the latest relevant research.

‘Koos arrives at the gates of heaven’, began a well-known Stellenbosch professor in a recent speech. ‘He is very happy that he’s allowed in, but after a while, he sees a large group of people waiting at a bus stop. Where are you all going?’ he asks, ‘You’re in heaven, aren’t you?’ One turns around and answers bluntly: ‘We’re waiting for the bus to take us back to Stellenbosch.’

Here and there a few professors chuckle, a feel-good joke that, if we’re honest, doesn’t really knock anyone’s socks off.

But what makes a good joke? Marketing gurus Peter McGraw and Caleb Warren explain that successful humour has two key features: it must test the boundaries of what’s acceptable, and at the same time, it must be harmless or, even better, well-meaning. McGraw and Warren call this the Benign Violation Theory. It’s a fine balance, they write, and one that becomes harder the more diverse the audience, because what’s acceptable differs based on people’s personal experiences, cultural backgrounds, and social norms.

The result is that a lot of humour ends up being quite bland, especially if you’re the boss. Here, a simple economic model might help, one that I borrow from a post on the Bet On It-blog. Let’s model the decision to tell a joke as follows:

Expected value = (Probability of a successful joke × value of a successful joke) – (Probability of causing offence × cost of causing offence)

If you share a joke with your friends, the expected value of a successful joke might be, say, R20. But if a friend feels offended by the joke, it might cost you R80. So, you’ll only risk telling the joke if you’re at least 80% sure it will be a success. But in the workplace, the costs rise significantly. A poorly judged joke could cost you a few thousand rand in social capital among your colleagues. In the extreme case, a bad joke could cost you your job, let’s say a loss of R500,000 or more. Suddenly, you’d need incredible odds – 50,000 to 1 – if you want to be funny.

This model, together with the Benign Violation Theory, also helps us make other predictions. The first is that the costs for those at the top of the corporate hierarchy are much higher than for juniors. This explains why your boss might seem less funny – not because they lack wit, but because the economic penalties for a misstep are significantly higher. Another interpretation: in search of the funniest jokes in your company? Hang out with the interns. Their risk calculations allow for a wider margin of error.

A second implication is that a workplace with people from diverse backgrounds will lead to less humour. Workplaces today are more diverse than ever – both in South Africa and elsewhere. While diversity enriches an organisation, it also broadens the spectrum of what might be considered offensive. A joke that one colleague finds funny might be interpreted differently by someone from a different sex, race, region, or age group. This heterogeneity increases the potential cost in our economic model, leaving less room for experimentation.

Moreover, social media has transformed the landscape of humour. A joke is no longer confined to the office; it can be broadcast to the world in an instant, which greatly expands the pool of people who might take offence. This raises the costs even further, stifling the likelihood of taking the risk in the first place.

So, is the suppression of humour in the workplace an inevitable outcome? There are, of course, many benefits to humour: laughter reduces stress, fosters creativity, and strengthens team cohesion. These are all valuable assets in any organisation. The challenge is to navigate the fine line between humour that unites and humour that divides.

Here, economists might also be able to help too. Behavioural economists teach us that our decisions are influenced by social norms and the behaviour of those around us. By subtly shaping these norms (through a ‘nudge’), organisations can establish a culture where humour is both safe and enriching.

Take Nando’s as an example. Their advertisements are known for their sharp (and sometimes bold) humour, often touching on social and political themes. They manage to engage a diverse audience by focusing on shared experiences, while also being sensitive to cultural differences. Consider their ‘Zulu imposter’ ad – the ‘imposter’ is a German. It’s easy, and socially acceptable in South Africa, to make fun of Germans, especially with their recognisable accent. The ad is funny, but would it have worked if it had been an Afrikaans man? It’s not that you can’t poke fun at Afrikaans people, of course, but it tends to work better when you’re laughing at yourself. Just look at how Lekkeslaap uses an Afrikaans stereotype to make a humourous point.

Advertisements naturally go through a lengthy approval process, and surely many (funny) ideas get turned down because they push the boundaries too much. But what about humour in the break room, where there aren’t such filters?

This is where the fascinating area of cultural evolution might help. Theories of cultural evolution suggest that good practices spread through mechanisms of variation, selection and transmission. Humour that proves beneficial – by boosting morale or improving customer engagement – is more likely to be adopted and perpetuated within the organisation. To expand the pool of (funny) ideas, though, organisations could increase the reward for humour or reduce the cost of using it. One example of this would be a system that rewards employees for contributing humorous ideas that positively impact the organisation’s goals, such as increased sales or improved team morale. Or, perhaps more extreme, create a ‘humour laboratory’ where employees can experiment with humour in products, services, or internal communication, with the aim of fostering innovation.

Leadership plays a pivotal role in this evolutionary process. When leaders model and encourage humour, they set a precedent that others are inclined to follow. This creates a positive feedback loop, embedding humour into the fabric of the organisation. Leaders, perhaps, need to recognise that fostering humour is not about being the funniest person in the room, but about creating an environment where humour can thrive naturally. By demonstrating openness to light-hearted moments, even in serious settings, they give employees permission to engage in humour without fear of negative consequences.

So maybe I shouldn’t be so critical of the Stellenbosch professor who cracked a joke. Academics take themselves very seriously; it can only be a good thing if we laugh at ourselves a bit more. But a bus service from heaven? Not if you’re stuck in Friday, 5 pm Stellenbosch traffic. At least up there, you’ve got all the time in the world.

This is an edited and translated version of my monthly column, Agterstories, on Litnet. Amid the decline of serious, balanced opinions globally and the reduction of Afrikaans in higher functions in South Africa, LitNet seeks to offer a space for those interested in current events and critical thinking. The images for this post were created using Midjourney v6.