If You're a Funny Woman in the Workplace, the Joke's on You
Even if a woman is fabulously funny and making the work environment more enjoyable, research shows that it cuts against her.
February 28, 2019 at 03:00 PM
4 minute read
To all you aspiring Mrs. Maisels out there, I've got bad news: Don't try to be funny. Certainly not in the workplace. Because if you tell jokes or deploy humor in a business setting, you will lose credibility, jeopardize your career and fall flat on your face.
That sums up the study from researchers at the University of Arizona and the University of Colorado Boulder who analyzed reactions to the use of humor by male and female leaders. More than 200 participants watched videos of a manager making a sales pitch in which a male or female manager either used humor or played it straight.
The upshot: Funny men got a boost, while funny women got shafted.
Everyone loves humor, so why the difference? You guessed it: It all has to do with gender stereotypes. The study says that when men deploy humor, it enhances their aura of rationality and logic. But when women do so, they're perceived as disruptive, reinforcing the notion that women are less dedicated to work.
It does seem harder for women to pull off comedy, but here's what's frustrating: “Even when women successfully express humor, they experience a reduction in status perceptions, performance evaluations, and assessments of leadership capability,” according to the study.
That means even if a woman is fabulously funny and making the work environment more enjoyable, not only will she not be rewarded, she'll be regarded as a wack job.
The only safe way for a woman to conduct herself at work, it seems, is to play it straight and serious. Except you know what will happen next. She'll be called a humorless bitch.
Once again, women just can't win.
But I can't accept that women have to be sourpusses at work. That can't be healthy for anyone. So I asked Jonathan Evans, one of the study's authors, whether women can use a different form of humor, like a wry remark, without paying a penalty.
To my relief, Evans thought women employing dry humor might be more palatable, although he stresses this is anecdotal. “It is possible that more casual, impromptu humor in conversation is evaluated differently than the formal, prepared presentation format used for our study,” he explains. “We thought that dry humor is more easily incorporated into casual conversation than a presentation.”
Another possible exception to the rule that women can't be funny: Older women with a track record of accomplishments. Evans says that this group's use of humor might be more acceptable because these women have established themselves and are thus perceived as “more agentic,” or full of agency.
Frankly, I'm not sure these exceptions are making me feel better. Basically, it means women are allowed the privilege of being funny only if they're not too direct or if they've proven themselves. To me, the better course is for women not to give a damn. While it might be true that funny women don't get the respect that funny men do, so what? Do we need to add another “don't” to our list?
I wonder if this kind of information is helping women. Or is it just making women more self-conscious than we already are?
“That's a reaction I've heard from some people when I've told them about these results,” says Evans. “The most I can say is that our data suggests the existence of this undesired dynamic in this particular circumstance. “
Maybe so. But I'm not amused.
Contact Vivia Chen at [email protected]. On Twitter: @lawcareerist.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHSF's American Dream: What Will a U.S. Merger Mean For its Asia Practice?
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250