91���Ѽ

Humor has long been seen as a “soft skill,” useful for easing awkward Zoom moments or sharing a laugh with colleagues. But CU Boulder researchers Tony Kong and Peter McGraw argue it’s far more than that.

Tony Kong

Kong, a professor of organizational leadership and information analytics at the Leeds School of Business, views humor as a strategic leadership tool that can build trust, strengthen teams and even elevate status if used wisely.��McGraw, a marketing and psychology professor and director of the Humor Research Lab, warns that most people overestimate their comedic skills, causing their jokes to backfire.

CU Boulder Today sat down with Kong and McGraw to discuss their differing takes on workplace humor, including whether to use it at all, how to make it work and when it risks turning you into the butt of the joke.

Can you each explain your views on workplace humor?

Kong: Humor has a lot of relational benefits. People bond easily when they laugh together, and it builds trust. Research shows it boosts creativity, helps people think more divergently and strengthens commitment. But a bad joke can hurt your credibility or status. It’s a double-edged sword, but the benefits outweigh the risks when used wisely.��

McGraw: I agree, and I’d add that humor helps people cope with challenges and unpleasant situations at work. Where we differ is in advocacy: I’m more cautious. Most people aren’t naturally skilled at humor. In our research, we developed the��: People laugh at things that are ‘wrong, yet OK’—they’re threatening, but safe. Remove either element, and humor fails—it’s boring if the ‘wrong’ is missing and upsetting if the ‘OK’ is missing. Workplaces can be sensitive, so humor requires skill.��

Kong: Context matters. To use humor effectively, you need to know your audience—what’s ‘wrong, yet OK’ varies across groups.��

Peter McGraw

McGraw: Motivation matters, too. Benign violation theory says the ‘benign’ part is your intention, and the ‘violation’ is context-specific. Minor violations are tolerated if the motivation is understood; serious violations risk offense.��

I like to frame it with two strategies: Seinfeld vs. Silverman. Comedian Sarah Silverman takes big violations but finds a benign aspect; if it fails, people get upset. Jerry Seinfeld takes minor violations and points them out cleverly; if it fails, no one is offended.

Kong: Humor requires skill. You need to know your audience and be aware of the intention you project. Unfortunately, most workplaces offer little training in this. Even the world’s funniest people weren’t naturally funny at 22—it takes decades to develop this skill.

McGraw: My concern is when people are told to be funny for all the benefits but don’t have the skill. That “funny guy” may not understand why others don’t get the joke. If it fails, the correct response is immediate apology: “I meant that as a joke; I’m sorry.” Not, “Relax, it’s just a joke.”

Kong: And frequent jokes from bosses can stress employees, who may fake laughter constantly, leading to emotional exhaustion.

McGraw: Exactly. That’s why humor should be judicious. Work and play aren’t opposites, but humor overuse makes someone a clown, not taken seriously.

Kong: My favorite humor points out experiences we all notice but rarely articulate — like Ali Wong. Ali is fearless, brilliant, and incisive in talking about relatable and important topics such as careers, motherhood, cultures and relationships. Insightful humor resonates more than just showing off intellect. And humor is culturally specific—the ‘violation’ differs across groups. That’s part of why I became fascinated with it.

How did you each get into studying humor?

McGraw: I came from behavioral economics, studying emotions like regret and embarrassment. Humor wasn’t on my radar until I gave a talk and my audience laughed unexpectedly. Curious, I started researching what makes things funny, and that led to benign violation theory.

Kong: I focus on humor as a resource—how it builds relationships, improves leadership, and enhances performance. So our research is complementary: Peter studies causes; I study consequences.

Can you give examples of humor that works at work—and when it’s best avoided?

McGraw: Humor works in close relationships, when joking about a common challenge or competitor, and when punching up instead of down—rather than the boss making the joke down to an employee, it’s nicer if the employee can make the joke up to the boss. And avoid joking about absent people; it becomes gossip.��

Kong: Humor is also useful to relieve stress. Joking about tasks, deadlines or shared experiences works; joking about individuals without rapport may not.��

McGraw: Emotional intelligence matters. Skilled people can leverage humor; less skilled people might focus on enjoying humor rather than performing it.��

Why is it valuable to have opposing views on humor research?

Kong: Humor is controversial. Debate clarifies when to use humor and the skills required.��

McGraw: Debate is part of science. Critique sharpens ideas and keeps you from lazy thinking. Disagreement raises the bar for clarity.

What should people know about humor in general?

McGraw: Understand what makes something funny to begin with. We laugh at things that are wrong but still OK. If you get that, it explains why jokes fail—because they’re either boring or just outrageous—why different people respond differently, and why it’s actually really hard to thread the needle.

Kong: Humor is social information—it signals something to others. How it lands depends on the context, the audience and who’s delivering it. That’s why perspective-taking is key: Put yourself in their shoes. Humor is risky, but when done for others’ benefit, it can be really powerful. And when a joke fails, the only recovery is a sincere apology.

McGraw: Or better yet, avoid telling bad jokes. Stop being unfunny, not stop being funny.