054-6400043
Humor Development online
תשלום מקדמה לשריון תאריך לסדנה
קורס מנחי יוגה צחוק
פיתוח הומור למרצים ומנחים
כרטיסי ברכה
מארזי שוקולד
תשלום באשראי
מגנטים - דיאטת הצחוק
סדנת הומור למנחי יוגה צחוק
4 מגנטים "דיאטת הצחוק"
תשלום באשראי

 

יש הנותנים בשמחה, והשמחה היא שכרם
ועל כך תבורכי. נתינה מסוג זה מחממת
את הלב, ואנו מחזקים את ידך על כך.

 

WE KNOW IT WILL BE A GOOD DAY


 
"WE KNOW IT WILL BE A GOOD DAY"... SCHOOL PRINCIPALS' USE OF HUMOR IN MANAGEMENT. 
Presentation at ISHS 2009 conference
Abstract Text: This paper presents the preliminary findings of my doctoral thesis. Semi structured interviews were conducted with 35 Israeli education workers - 15
veteran principals, 10 new principals, and 10 teachers. The purpose of this study was to discover if principals used humor as part of their daily interactions with their staff, what form these uses took, how it influenced the principal and teachers and what benefits or harm came from using humor.
Qualitative analysis was used to draw themes from the interviews. Findings show that while most principals have positive attitudes towards the use of humor most are not consciously aware of using it in their everyday interactions, although they feel it does exist. Those principals who use humor report positive results such as improving school atmosphere, better relations with their staff, diffusing conflict situations and the release of personal tension. One interesting finding is that principal's use of humor is influenced by their career stage, with veteran principals using more humor than novice principals. 
Research program

Background
            Various researchers indicate humor is the seventh sense necessary for effective school leadership (Adelsward & Oberg,1989 ; Avolio, Howell & Sosik, 1999; Consalvo,;1998 Decker, 1987 ; Decker & Rotondo, 2001; Holmes & Marra, 2006; Morreall, 1991; Malone, 1980 ;Meyer, 2000;).
            Results of a study examining elementary school principals' use of humor in their daily interactions with teachers found that humor seemed to enhance principals' messages to teachers and was used primarily to create and improve school climate, to communicate principals' understanding of teaching demands, to break down the rigidity of bureaucratic structures, and to convey sanctions and other necessary unpleasantries (Pierson and Bredeson 1993). Principals who share humor in the workplace have teachers with higher job satisfaction than those principals who share very little or no humor in the workplace (Hurren, 2006). However using humor as a management tool to detect and effect emotions in the staff room (Francis, 1994) is an ability that few principals seem to posses and is seldom sought out while choosing educational administrators. 
      This study endeavors to bring to light what influences these select principals who use humor successfully in their schools, how the use of humor affects their experiences and those of their staff and patterns of humor use in school management culture in Israel.  

Methods
      Semi structured interviews were conducted with 35 Israeli education workers – 15 veteran principals, 10 new principals, and 10 teachers. A qualitative narrative analysis was used to uncover the themes and subcategories emerging from the text. The primary texts (interview transcripts) are thus produced where reliability of method (of sampling, interviewing and analysis) and the generalizability of analyses follow through from the validity of data. The resulting texts were then coded according to the four-step analytic process recommended by Marshal and Rossman (1995, p.111): (1) comparing units of meaning across categories for inductive category coding; (2) refining categories; (3) "delimiting the theory" by exploring relationships and patterns across categories; and (4) integrating data to write theory.
      In the next stage of the research observations will be carried out in several schools. These case studies of principals who use humor in their work will provide on site examples of how humor is incorporated into the daily interactions of school life.  

Contribution of the study to humor theory
      This thesis is a groundbreaking study on the occurrence of humor in work relations in the Israeli school system. Although several studies have related to the uses of humor in teaching in Israeli schools (Ziv, 1981, 1985, 1995) there are to our knowledge no studies focusing on the occurrence of humor in educational administration and the work relations between principal and staff or indeed on any aspect of humor at work in Israel.
      Previous studies have noted the paucity of research regarding the importance of cultural constructs on use of humor. This study contributes new perspectives on use of humor in a culturally diverse workplace in Israeli society. Israel is an immigrant society and most school staffs are composed from a variety of cultural backgrounds.
      As a majority of Israeli education workers are now female, this study will relate to the influence of gender when using humor as an interactional technique by male and female principals working with a predominantly female staff.
      This study will also give considerable attention to the interaction between humor and culture – on three levels – as an aspect of the management culture created by a particular school principal, as an aspect of the work culture established by the wider school system and as an aspect of Israeli Jewish culture in modern day Israel.
 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Presentation breakdown
 
Humor as a leadership tool for Israeli school principals.
Debbie Iancu-Haddad, Department of education, Ben-Gurion University, Israel. 
 
Research questions.
1. How is humor expressed in interactions between principal and staff?
- How is humor used?
- By whom is humor used?
- In which situations is humor used?
2. What functions does humor fulfill in the work of principals?
3. What are the antecedents of humor use by the principal?
4. What are the consequences of humor use?
Contribution of the study.
l  Ground breaking study on humor in work relations in the Israeli school system.
l  Highlighting aspects of culture and context in the day to day use of humor.
l  Examining changes in humor use throughout an individuals career.
l  Examining motivation and personal benefits.
 
 Research methods.
l  Humor was defined as any expression that led to laughter or amusement reported by a participant.
l  Semi structured interviews were conducted with 35 Israeli education workers – 15 veteran principals, 10 new principals, and 10 teachers.
l  Qualitative analysis & Grounded theory were used to uncover  themes and subcategories emerging from the text.
 
-         Humor and leadership
l  Humor has been found to enhance principals' messages to teachers.
l  create and improve school climate,
l  communicate principals' understanding of teaching demands,
l  break down the rigidity of bureaucratic structures,
l  convey sanctions and other necessary unpleasantries (Pierson and Bredeson 1993).
l  Principals who share humor in the workplace have teachers with higher job satisfaction (Hurren, 2006).
 
-         Findings: factors affecting use of humor.
l  Tenure and seniority – veteran principals described how as their confidence in their managerial skills grew, so did their use of humor.
l  Principals who had held previous leadership positions (assistant principal) felt more confident using humor in their first years of principalship.
l  Personality and disposition. Reverting to comfort zone.
l  Perceptions of humor.
 
l  Negative:
-         I'm not the class clown.
-         I need to maintain my distance.
-         They need to take me seriously.
l  Positive:
-         Humor lets me reduce my stress.
-         Humor helps me get along / get my way.
-         Humor is being myself.
 
-         Findings: humor and culture.
Three levels of culture at work
1.  Management culture created by a particular school principal.
2. Work culture established by the wider school system
3. Humor as an aspect of Israeli Jewish culture in modern day Israel.
 
Humor as an aspect of Israeli Ministry of Education culture.
l  Most teachers have tenure and cannot be fired, principals have few resources and can rarely reward a teacer financially.
l  Principals are usually teachers who have advanced through the system, often from inside the school they manage – having to negotiate the move from being "one of the gang" to becoming a superior.
l  During the past two decades principals have become more academized, requiring a graduate degree, while principal age drops. 
 
A two way street: Humor as interaction between principal and teachers.
l  Enabling humor in the workplace enables teachers to communicate messages to the principal in a non- threatening way.
l  Findings of teacher interviews and survey found that teacher perceptions of whether their principal was funny were influenced by their relationship with the principal, the closer circle  reporting more humor.
A principal described how her staff joked about her at the end of year party, describing how they could tell her mood by the way she wrote messages on the board in the staff room: 
... “when she (the principal) writes a notice that ends in exclamation marks... then watch out, get out of her way today. But when she writes the message and even puts on a smiley face, we know it's going to be a good day". I laughed so much... but I also listened to what they were telling me. My mood was affecting my staff. They didn't confront me, but the message got through.  
 
Humor as an aspect of Israeli culture.
l  Informal work relations are common in Israeli culture. Lack of distance and few behaviors displaying formal hierarchy (informal dress codes, first name basis).
l  Culturally diverse workplace - Israel is an immigrant society (russian, ethiopian, mizrachi and ashkenazi).
l  Gender - The majority of Israeli teachers are  female. Male and female principals work with a predominantly female staff.
 
Complex and uncertain political reality: Humor under fire.
l  A principal described how she used humor to control her staff under extreme circumstances when they were forced to run to a bomb shelter during the missile attacks on the south:
l  "One teacher was lagging behind so to speed her up I called out to her; three, two, one – Boom, You're dead. What would you like us to write on your tombstone?'. 
 
Initial conclusions:
l  Principals use humor to soften the tone of authority in a complex situation.
l  In ambivalent situations there is a thin line between superior and fellow human being.
l  Shared meaning and relation to context are the most important ways for a principal to generate effective managerial humor. 
l  Uses of humor are viewed through the lense of ongoing interpersonal relationships and provide an insight into the relationship.
 
     Problems and future research:
l  Participants had trouble recalling examples of humorous behavior in an interview situation, even though they believed these examples existed.
l  The next stage of this study will include field study observing the use of humor in everyday managerial situations, in order to uncover actual behavior patterns and themes in the uses of humor.
 
 “Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school - Albert Einstein,
www.debbie.iancu.com, debbie.iancu@gmail.com
 
 References included in phd proposal
1.אבוליו , ב. (1999), הטווח המלא של המנהיגות – בדרך להעלאת רמת האפקטיביות של היחיד, הקבוצה והארגון. בתוך: גונן, י', וזכאי, א':מנהיגות ופיתוח מנהיגות -  מהלכה למעשה. תל-אביב: משרד הביטחון – ההוצאה לאור.
2.בהרב, א. (1984). השפעת השימוש בהומור על ידי המורה על הערכתה בעיני התלמידים. עבודת MA. אונ' תל-אביב, החוג לחינוך.
3.בן ארי, א. (1984). תרומתו של ההומור להצלחה בהוראה (אצל סמינריסטים). עבודת MA. אונ' תל-אביב, החוג לחינוך.
4.גורנשטיין, א. (1981). הערכת המורה לפי כיווני ההומור בהם הוא משתמש. עבודת MA. אונ' תל-אביב, החוג לחינוך.
5.זיו, א. (1981). הפסיכולוגיה של ההומור. הוצאת יחדיו.
6.זיו, א. (1985). השפעת חוש ההומור של המורה: עמדות, אווירה והתפיסה על ידי תלמידיו. בתוך:שמעון זקס (עורך). הגות ומעשה בחינוך ובטיפול. עמ' 128-135. הוצאת פפירוס, תא.
7.זיו, א. (1995). מחקר ההומור בהוראה: סיכום רבע מאה. עמ', 517-523, בתוך: דוד חן (עורך). החינוך לקראת המאה ה-21. הוצאת רמות.
8.מודעי, א. (1998). הקשר בין התמודדות באמצעות הומור לשחיקה אצל מורים בביהס העל יסודי. עבודת MA. אונ' חיפה. החוג לחינוך.
9.צבר בן-יהושוע, נ. (1990). המחקר האיכותי בהוראה ובלמידה. הוצאת מסדה.
10.  Adelswärd, V. and Öberg, B. M. (1998). The Function of Laughter and Joking in Negotiating Activities. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research. 11(4). 411-430.
11.  Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic Theories of Humor. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
12.  Avolio, B.J., Howell, J.M. & Sosik, J.J.(1999). A funny thing happened on the way to the bottom line: Humor as a moderator of leadership style effects. Academy of Management Journal. 42 (2). 219-228.
13.  Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations, Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA.
14.  Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. and Jung, D.I., (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology72. 441–462.
15.  Barnett, K. & McCormick, J. (2003).Vision relationships and teacher motivation: A case study.Journal of Educational Administration. Armidale, 41(1). 55-74.
16.  Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research and managerial application (3rd ed.), The Free Press, New York
17.  Bass, B. M., (1998). Transformational leadership: industrial, military, and educational impact, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
18.  Beatty, B. R. (2000), The emotions of educational leadership: Breaking the silence, International Journal of Educational Leadership, 3(4).331-57.
19.  Beeman, W. O. (2000). Humor in: Duranti Allesandro Ed. Linguistic Lexicon for the millennium. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. 9(2).
20.  Berger, A. (1967). Anatomy of a Joke. Journal of Communication, 26.
21.  Bess, J.L. and Goldman, P. (2001). Leadership ambiguity in universities and K–12 schools and the limits of contemporary leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(4). 419-450
22.  Blase, J. (1993). The micropolitics of effective school-based leadership: teachers' perspectives.Educational Administration Quarterly29(2). 142–163.
23.  Blase, J. & Roberts, J. (1994). The micropolitics of teacher work involvement: Effective principals' impacts on teachers, Alberta Journal of Educational Research 40 (1994). 67–94.
24.  Blase, J. and Blase, J. (1999). Principals' instructional leadership and teacher development: teachers' perspectives, Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3),  349-378.
25.  Blase, J. and Blase, J. (2001), Empowering Teachers, 2nd ed., Corwin, Thousand Oaks, CA.
26.  Blase, J. and Blase, J. (2003), Breaking the Silence: Overcoming the Problem of Principal Mistreatment of Teachers, Corwin, Thousand Oaks, CA.
27.  Blase, J. and Kirby, P.C. (2000), Bringing Out the Best in Teachers: What Effective Principals Do, 2nd ed., Corwin, Thousand Oaks, CA.
28.  Blumberg, A. and Greenfield, W., (1986). The effective principal: perspectives on school leadership(2nd ed.), Allyn & Bacon, Boston.
29.  Bryman, A. (2004). Qualitative research on leadership: A critical but appreciative review. The Leadership Quarterly 15(6), 729-769.
30.  Burford, C. (1987). Humor of Principals and its Impact on Teachers and the School. The Journal of Educational Administration  25 (1).  29-54.
31.  Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership, Harper & Row, New York.
32.  Cashman, J., Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1976). Organizational understructure and leadership: A longitudinal investigation of the managerial role-making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15.
33.  Collinson, D. L. (1988). ‘Engineering humour’: Masculinity, joking and conflict in shop-floor relations. Organization Studies 9(2), 181-199.
34.  Conger, J. A. and Kanungo, R., (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review 12(4), 637–647.
35.  Conger, J. A., (1989). The charismatic leader: beyond the mystique of exceptional leadership. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
36.  Conger, J. A. (1998). Qualitative research as the cornerstone methodology for understanding leadership. The Leadership Quarterly. 9(1), 107-121
37.  Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: an insider's perspective on these developing streams of research. Leadership Quarterly 10(2), 145–180.
38.  Consalvo, C. )1989(. Humor in Management: no laughing matter. Humor 2(3). 285-297
39.  Corbin, J. and Anselm S. (1990). Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria,. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.
40.  Coser, R. L. (1959). Some social functions of laughter. Human Relations. 12: 171-181.
41.  Coser, R. L. (1960). Laughter among Colleagues: A Study of the Functions of Humor among the Staff of a Mental Hospital, Psychiatry 23, 81-95.
42.  Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice 39, 124-130.
43.  Dana, N. F. & Pitts, J. H. (1993) The use of metaphor and reflective coaching in the exploration of principal thinking: A case study of principal change.  Educational Administration Quarterly 29, 323–338.
44.  Datnow, A. & Castellano, M.E. (2001). Managing and guiding school reform: Leadership in success for all schools, Educational Administration Quarterly 37,  219–249
45.  Decker, W. H. (1987). Managerial Humor and Subordinate Satisfaction. Social Behavior and Personality 15, 225-232.
46.  Decker, W. H & Rotondo, D. M. (2001). Relationships among gender, type of humor, and perceived leader effectiveness.  Journal of Managerial Issues. 13(4), 450-466
47.  Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48.  Duncan, W. J. and Feisal, J. P. (1989). No laughing matter: Patterns of Humor in the workplace.Organizational Dynamics. 17(4), 18-30.
49.  Duncan, W. J., Smeltzer, L. R. & Leap, T. L. (1990). Humor and work: Applications of joking behavior to management. Journal of Management 16(2), 255-78.
50.  Dwyer, T. (1991). Humor, power and change in organizations. Human Relations. 44(1), 1-19.
51.  Evans, R. (1996). The Human Side of School Change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
52.  Fine, G.A. (1977). Humor in situ: The role of Humor in small group culture. 315-318. In A.J. Chapman and H.C. Foot (eds.): It’s a Funny Thing, Humor, New York: Pergamon.
53.  Francis, L. E. (1994). Laughter, the Best Mediation: Humor as Emotion Management in Interaction. Symbolic Interaction, 17(2), 147-163
54.  Freud, S. 1960[1905]. Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. Trans, and ed. J. Strachey. New York: WW. Norton,
55.  Giles, H., Bourhis, N., Gadfield, G., Davies, G., & Davies, A. (1976). Cognitive aspects of humor in social interaction. 139-154. In T. Chapman & H. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory, research and applications. London: Wiley.
56.  Ginsberg, R. and Davies, T. (2001). The emotional side of leadership. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
57.  Glaser B.G, Strauss A.L. The discovery of grounded theory. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine, 1967.
58.  Goldman, P., Dunlap, D. M. and Conley, D. T., (1993). Facilitative power and non-standardized solutions to school site restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly. 29 (1), 69–92.
59.  Good, T. L. and Brophy, J. E. (1986), School effects, 570-602. In: Wittrock, M.C. (Ed.),Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd ed., Macmillan, New York.
60.  Goldstein, A. (1992). Stress in the superintendency: School leaders confront the daunting pressures of the job. The School Administrator, 49(9), 8-13.
61.  Graen, G. B. and T. Scandura (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In: B. Staw and L.L. Cumming, Editors, Research in organizational behavior.  9, 175–208. JAI Press,Greenwich, CT.
62.  Graen, G. B. & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.
63.  Gronn, P. (1996), From transactions to transformations: a new world order in the study of leadership, Educational Management and Administration, 24 (1), 7-30.
64.  Gronn, P. (2003). Chapter 7: The Emotions of leaders. 128-146. In: The new work of educational leaders: changing leadership practice in an era of school reform. London: P. Chapman Pub.   
65.  Hallinger, P. and Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness: a review of empirical research, 1980-1985, Educational Administration Quarterly, 32 No. 1,  5-44.
66.  Hanson, E. Mark, (1996). Chapter 6: Describing & Assessing organizational culture in schools. 175-191. in: Educational Administration and Organizational Behavior. Fifth Edition. Boston[Mass.]: Allyn and Bacon. 
67.  Hatch, M. J. (1997). Irony and the Social Construction of Contradiction in the Humor of a Management Team. Organization Science. 8(3), 275-288.
68.  Hargreaves, A. (2000). Mixed emotions: teachers' perceptions of their interactions with students.Teacher and Teacher Education, 16, 811-826.
69.  Hart, A., (1994). Creating teacher leadership roles. Educational Administration Quarterly. 30(4), 472–497.
70.  Heck, R. H., Larsen, T. J. and Marcoulides, G. A. (1990), Instructional leadership and school achievement: validation of a causal model, Educational Administration Quarterly, 26 (2), 94-125.
71.  Heck, R. H. and Marcoulides, G. A. (1993), Principal leadership behaviors and school achievement, NASSP Bulletin, 77 (553), 20-8.
72.  Holmes, J. (2000). Politeness, power & provocation: How humor functions in the workplace.Discourse studies, 2(2), 159-185.
73.  Holmes, J. & Marra, M. (2006). Humor and leadership style. Humor 19(2), 119-138.
74.  Joyce, B. and Showers, B. (1995). Student Achievement through Staff Development, 2nd ed.,Longman, New York, NY.
75.  Kelly, J., & Barsade, S. (2001). Moods and emotions in small groups and work teams.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 99-130.
76.  Klein, K. J. and House, R. J., (1998). Charismatic leadership and levels of analysis. 3–21. In: Dansereau, F. and Yammarino, F.J., Eds. Leadership: the multiple-level approaches, contemporary and alternative, JAI Press, Stamford.
77.  Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Doherty, M. L. (1989). Integration of climate and leadership: Examination of a neglected issue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74.
78.  LaFave, L. and Mennell, R. (1976). Does ethnic humor serve prejudice?. Journal of Communication, 26, 116-123.
79.  Lightfoot, S. L., (1983). The good high school: portraits of character and culture. Basic Books, New York.
80.  Linstead, S. (1985). Jokers wild: the importance of Humor in the maintenance of organizational culture. Sociological Review 33/4 (November): 741-767.
81.  Little, J.W. (1996). The emotional contours and career trajectories of (disappointed) reform enthusiasts. Cambridge Journal of Education. 26, 345-349.
82.  Leithwood, Kenneth A. (1992). The Move toward Transformational Leadership. Educational Leadership 49(5). (February 1992): 8-12.
83.  Leithwood, Kenneth & Jantzi, Doris (1990). Transformational Leadership: How Principals Can Help Reform School Cultures. School Effectiveness and School Improvement1(4).  249-280.
84.  Leithwood, K., Begley, P. and Cousins, B. (1990). The nature, causes and consequences of principals' practices: an agenda for future research, Journal of Educational Administration, 28(4).  5-31.
85.  Leithwood, K. (1994), Leadership for school restructuring, Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(4).  498-518.
86.  Leithwood, K., Thomlinson, D. and Genge, M. (1996), Transformational school leadership, in Leithwood, K., Chapman, J., Corson, D., Hallinger, P. and Hart, A. (Eds), International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht,  785-840.
87.  Leithwood, K. and Duke, D. L. (1999). A century's quest to understand school leadership. 25–44. In: Murphy, J. and Louis, K., Editors, 1999. Handbook of research in educational administration, Jossey- Bass, San Francisco.
88.  Leithwood, K., Harris, A. & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership & Management 28(1). 27-52.
89.  Lucas, S. E. (2001). Transformational leadership: Principals, leadership teams and school culture. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Missouri – Columbia.
90.  Malone, P. (1980). Humor: A double-edged tool for today’s managers?. Academy of ManagementReview1980(5), 357-360.
91.  Manz, C.C. and Sims Jr., H. P. (1991). Superleadership: beyond the myth of heroic leadership.Organizational Dynamics. 19(4), 18–35.
92.  Marshal, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing qualitative research (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.
93.  Martin, D. M.; Rich, C. O. & Gayle, B.M. (2004). Humor Works: Communication Style and Humor Functions in Manager Subordinate Relationships. The Southern Communication Journal. 69(3). 206-223. Memphis.
94.  Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., and Weir, K. (2003). Individual differences in the uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 37 (1), 43-75. 
95.  Meyer, J. C. (2000) Humor as a Double-Edged Sword: Four Functions of Humor in Communication. Communication Theory 10 (3). 310-331
96.  Morreall, J. (1991). Humor and work. Humor – international journal of Humor research. 4, 359-373.
97.  Murphy, J. and Louis, K.S. (1994b), Transformational change and the evolving role of the principal: early empirical evidence, 20-53. In Murphy, J. and Beck, L.G. (Eds), Reshaping the Principalship: Insights from Transformational Reform Efforts, Corwin, Thousand Oaks, CA.
98.  Nias, J. (1999). Primary teaching as a culture of care. In J Prosser (ed.). School Culture. London: Paul Chapman, 66-81. 
99.  Oplatka, I. (2003). School change and self-renewal: some reflections from life stories of women principals, Journal of Educational Change, 4 (1), 25-43.
100.          Oplatka, I.  )2007(. The School Principal in Late Career: An Explorative Inquiry into Career Issues and Experiences in the Pre-Retirement Working Years. Leadership and Policy in Schools,6(), 345 – 369.
101.    Oplatka, I. (2007). Managing emotions in teaching: Toward an understanding of emotion and caring as non-prescribed role elements. Teachers College Record, 109 (6), 1374-1400.
102.    Ott, J.S. (1989). The Organizational Culture Perspective. Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press.
103.    Paton, M.Q. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd ed., Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
104.    Pierson, P. R., and Bredeson, P. V. (1993). It's Not Just a Laughing Matter: School Principals' Use of Humor in Interpersonal Communications with Teachers. Journal of School Leadership3(5), 522-33.
105.    Rodrigues, S. B. and Collinson, D. L. (1995). 'Having fun'?: humor as resistance in Brazil.Organization Studies 16(5), 739-769.
106.    Romana, J. L., & Wahlstrom, K. (2000). Professional stress and well being of K-12 teachers in alternative educational settings: A leadership agenda. International Journal of Education, 3(2), 121-135.
107.    Rubenstein, C. (1980). Gallows Humor and Religious Fallout. Psychology Today. 14.
108.    Sagor, R. D. (1992). Three Principals Who Make a Difference. Educational Leadership 49 (5). 13-18.
109.    Scribner, K. S., Cockrell, D. H., and Valentine, J. W. (1999). Creating professional communities in schools through organizational learning: An evaluation of a school improvement process, Educational Administration Quarterly 35, 130–160.
110.    Schnurr, S. (2008). Surviving in a Man's World with a Sense of Humor: An Analysis of Women Leaders' Use of Humor at Work. Leadership, 4(3), 299-319.
111.    Seldin, P. (1991). Reducing stress on campus. Planning of Higher Education, 9(4), 14-20.
112.    Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration: a sociological interpretation, Row, Peterson,Evanston, IL.
113.    Sergiovanni, T. J. (1990). Adding Value to Leadership Gets Extraordinary Results.Educational Leadership 47(8) 23-27.
114.    Shamir, B. (1995). Social Distance and Charisma: Theoretical notes and an exploratory Study.Leadership Quarterly, 6, 19-47.
115.    Sheppard, B. (1996), Exploring the transformational nature of instructional leadership. TheAlberta Journal of Educational Research, 42 (4),  325-44.
116.    Smeltzer, L.R. and Leap, T.L. (1988). An analysis of individual reactions to potentially offensive jokes in work settings. Human Relations. 41(4), 295-304.
117.    Smylie, M. and Brownlee-Conyers, J., (1992). Teacher participation in school decision-making: assessing willingness to participate. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 14 (1), 53–67.
118.    Somech, A. & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2002). Relative power and influence strategy: The effects of agent/target power on superior’s choices of influence strategies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 167-179.
119.    Spaulding, A. (1997). Life in schools—a qualitative study of teacher perspectives on the politics of principals: Ineffective leadership behaviors and their consequences upon teacher thinking and behavior, School Leadership and Management 17, 39–55.
120.    Steinberg, J. (1999), Federal funds for teachers reveal surprising hurdles, New York Times, November 14, p. 18.
121.    Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.
122.    Sykes, A. J. M. (1966). ‘Joking relationships in an industrial setting.’ American Anthropologist68 (1), 189-193.
123.    Talbot, L. & Lumden, B .(2000) On the association between humor and burnout. Humor 13(4), 419-428.
124.    Terrion, J. L. & Ashforth, B. E. (2002). From 'I' to 'we': The role of putdown humor and identity in the development of a temporary group. Human Relations. 55 (1), 55-70.
125.    Thomlinson, J. (1991). Cultural Imperialism. London: Pinter Publishers.
126.    Trice, H. M., Beyer, J. M. (1993). The Cultures of Work Organizations, Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
127.    Ullian, J .A. (1976). Joking at work. Journal of Communication. 13: 357-360.
128.    Vinton, K. E. (1989). Humor in the workplace: It’s more than telling jokes. Small Group Behavior. 20 (2), 151-166.
129.    Waldron, V. R. (1991). Achieving communication goals in superior-subordinate relationships: The multi-functionality of upward maintenance tactics. Communication Monographs, 58.
130.    Weber, M. (1947/1924). In: Trans. A. H. Henderson, T. Parsons, eds. The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations. Free Press, Glencoe, IL.
131.    Wooten, P. (1992). Does a Humor Workshop Affect Nurse Burnout?. Journal of Nursing Jocularity, 2(2), 46-47.
132.    Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organizations. 5th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
133.    Yukl, G., (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly (10)2, 285–306.
134.    Zillman, D. (1983). Disparagement humor. In P.E. McGhee and J.H. Goldstein (Eds.),Handbook of Humor Research. New York: Spring-Verlag, 145-162.
135.    Ziv, A. (1983). The influence of Humorous Atmosphere on divergent thinking. Contemporary Educational Psychology 8, 68-75.
136.    Ziv, A. (1988). Teaching and Learning with Humor: Experiment and Replication. Journal of Experimental Education 57(1), 5-15.


 
 
הרשמו לרשימת התפוצה
להרשמה אנא הקלידו את כתובת
הדוא"ל שברשותכם:
   שלח
צרו קשר:
 דבי ינקו חדד - צחוקולטיירית
0546400043
 debbie.iancu@gmail.com
עקבו אחריי:
פייסבוק
יוטיוב
 






 
לייבסיטי - בניית אתרים