H4, H5 and H6 were tested using the linear regression for IWB and 4 humor climate dimensions. This regression shows the linear relationship between variables and can be applied only in case all variables are unified to a normal distribution. The “stepwise” function was applied as it automatically omits those variables that are not significantly correlated to the independent variable (IWB). Running the curve estimation function again, we found out which model (if not a linear) explains the relations the best. Finally, as for individual differences, regression with interactions was applied by using SPSS function General Linear Models-Univariate. It demonstrated the effect of individual characteristics in the IWB and humorous climate relations and showed whether the influence of climate different among groups or not.



3. Results

The analysis of collected data has demonstrated several important points. First and foremost, Cronbach's alpha coefficient for IWB scale equals 0,93, for humorous climate scale - 0,89.

Both values are high, which indicates that items included to translated scales describe IWB and humorous climate appropriately, therefore, these instruments are reliable. As for descriptive statistics, on average workers assess their innovative behavior on 3,5 out of 5 while the mean for humorous climate perception is 4,17 out of 7.

The highest average scores among all humorous climate dimensions appeared in positive humor (5,44 out of 7) and supervisory support (5,39 out of 7), negative humor, however, was evaluated on 2,28 out of 7 which is considered as the lowest score.

The full table with descriptive statistics on IWB and humorous climate is presented in the Appendix 2.

Then, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test showed that humorous climate variable does have a normal distribution, while all other 5 variables (IWB, positive humor, negative humor, outgroup humor and supervisor support) do not. Nevertheless, their distribution is close to normal with some insignificant shift letting us work with such variables further (Harkiolakis, 2017) and, firstly, apply the Pearson correlation analysis.

Table 1 presents the results of this analysis.

Table 1 Pearson correlations

	IWB	Positive_Humor	Negative_Humor	Outgroup_Humor	Supervisor_Support	Humor_Climate
IWB	1
Positive_Humor	,605**	1
Negative_Humor	,212*	,293**	1
Outgroup_Humor	,303**	,510**	,677**	1
Supervisor_Support	0,02	-,203*	-,574**	-,348**	1
Humor_Climate	,528**	,746**	,613**	,850**	-0,041	1
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

As expected, innovative behavior significantly positively correlates with the humorous work climate, which is established in the work team. The coefficient 0,528 is quite high and statistically significant at the 1% level, which gives a high confidence of the figure and predicts that variables vary together. Linear positive relations between these two variables means that the more humorous the climate is the more likely people would demonstrate IWB.

Also, among all four dimensions of humorous climate, positive humor correlates with IWB the most. The coefficient equals 0,605 at the 1% level of confidence, which can be considered as high positive correlation, meaning that positive humorous expressions during the working process contributes to employees being more innovative at work. Outgroup humor is also positively related to IWB at the 5% level but to the lesser extent as we see quite low value (0,303). Still, such positive significant correlations support the H2 about these dimensions being related to IWB.

Negative humor, however, unexpectedly correlates significantly with IWB in a positive way although the coefficient (0,212) is low and demonstrates weak agreement between variables. It can be interpreted as the more expressions of negative humor at the workplace, the more innovative employees' behavior. On the other side, supervisor support is not related to IWB at all. These findings let us reject the H3.

All things considered, it is possible to suggest that humorous climate may be associated with demonstration of IWB, while there is no sufficient differences among its four dimensions. Thus, it makes sense to consider humorous climate as a single construct.

Since there is significant correlation between IWB and humorous climate, a linear regression model with these two variables was built. The results for this model are presented below in Table 2.

Table 2 Linear Regression Model Summary

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std.Error of Estimate
1	,528*	,279	,272	,78192
* Predictors: (Constant), Humor_Climate

The model is statistically significant with F value equals 39,507 (see Table 3), which assures the high validation of our model, so it is possible to say that humorous climate definitely influences innovative behavior in a linear direction.

Table 3 ANOVA*

Model	Sum of Squares	dr	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	24,155	1	24,155	39,507	,000**
	Residual	62,363	102	,611
	Total	86,518	103
* Dependent Variable: IWB
** Predictors: (Constant), Humor_Climate

Moreover, it is obvious that beta coefficients both for humorous climate (0,633) and Constant (0,861) are statistically significant as p-value <0,001 (see Table 4). Positive values means that the change of climate to a more “humorous” way increases employee IWB. Still, R-square for this model equals 0,28 meaning that humorous climate explains 28% of variance in IWB. This value is comparatively low, which means that there are some other predictors that may influence IWB. Nevertheless, the particular influence of independent variable on the dependent one is obvious, which confirms H1.



Table 4 Coefficients for the regression model 1

Model	Unstandartized Coefficients	Standartized Coefficients	t	Sig.
	B	Std.Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	,861	,427		2,017	,046
	Humor_Climate	,633	,101	,528	6,285	,000
* Dependent Variable: IWB

Looking for improvement of R-square value, the curve estimation was done in order to see what other approximation lines might explain the direction of interrelations between IWB and humorous climate. It turned out that sigmoid model, a special case of the logistic function, can predict the change much better. The model is ln(IWB)=1/Humor Climate. The general linear model estimation showed that the R-square for such model is equal 0,344, which is a bit higher than 0,28 for the pure linear model. F value is also much higher than for the simple linear model being equal 53,507. Coefficient for the 1/Humor Climate function equals -3,767 and is statistically significant as well as the Constant 2,145. The interpretation here would be as IWB still increases with the climate being more humorous, but the rate of increase slows down to the upper limit 2,145. Overall, the presented model provides better percent of the explained variance due to the natural logarithm of IWB. Distribution of IWB is just close to normal, hence, the procedure of taking a logarithm normalizes the distribution, which further contributes to more precise model (see Figure 1).

The sigmoid model is considered as general linear model, which suggests that IWB and humorous climate still have linear relations but may demonstrate slower increase as the climate becomes more humorous.



Figure 1 Sigmoid model for humorous climate and IWB relations

Having analyzed correlation coefficients for four humorous climate dimensions, it becomes clear that some of them are still significantly correlated to IWB. We ran the multiple linear regression analysis with those three independent variables: positive humor, negative humor and supervisor support. F value is 22,870 and statistically significant even at the 0,01 level. The model has also demonstrated that these dimensions altogether explain 40,7% of variance in IWB, which is higher than for humorous climate itself. It indicates that these three particular dimensions can predict IWB more precisely. Table 5 shows the significance for model coefficients. Beta coefficient for positive humor (0,386) and supervisor support (0,159) are significant while the negative humor coefficient (0,13) matters only at the 0.1 level of confidence. Therefore, we could not fully rely on the negative humor aspect and associate it with employee IWB.

Taking into account medium correlation between IWB and positive humor and statistically insignificant value for IWB and supervisor support, the model can be adjusted. By excluding all dimensions except for positive humor, the result is even more precise. F value is 85,089 making the model significant; R-square for this model is 0,455 which is almost twice higher than in the first model where IWB was tested against humorous climate. It allows to state that only positive humor aspect contributes to IWB at a much higher level, rather than aggregated humorous climate construct, which includes other three dimensions.

Table 5 Coefficients for regression model 2

Model	Unstandartized Coefficients	Standartized Coefficients	t	Sig.
	B	Std. Error	Beta
2	(Constant)	,245	,518		,472	,638
	Positive_Humor	,386	,052	,603	7,483	,000
	Negative_Humor	,130	,072	,174	1,809	,073
	Supervisor_Support	,159	,061	,243	2,583	,011
* Dependent Variable: IWB

As for the individual differences, the usage of interaction effects in general linear modeling provided some essential results. First, Kruskal-Wallis test showed that IWB is not demonstrated differently by males and females as well as by employees of different education, job tenure, and position. Similar results we got with regards to humorous climate except for the position. The test revealed that managerial or non-managerial position matters in terms of humorous climate perception as the null hypothesis about similar distribution between managers and non-managers was rejected due to insignificant p-value. Therefore, the difference exists.

However, to ensure that results are correct we have decided to examine the interaction effect of humorous climate and all four individual characteristics. So, at first, all four models including interactions between humorous climate and gender, education, job tenure, and position are statistically significant, letting us take them into account and further analyze (see Table 6).



Table 6 Tests of between-subjects effects

Source	Type III Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Adjusted Model	34,887*	10	3,489	6,284	,000
Constant Term	2,448	1	2,448	4,410	,038
Humor_Climate	15,128	1	15,128	27,249	,000
position*Humor_Climate	4,112	2	2,056	3,703	,028
job_tenure*Humor_Climate	3,344	4	,836	1,506	,207
gender*Humor_Climate	,192	1	,192	,346	,558
education*Humor_Climate	,788	2	,394	,709	,495
Error	51,631	93	,555
Total	1362,074	104
Adjusted Total	86,518	103
* R Square = ,403 (Adjusted R Square = ,339)

After building a common model with all four interactions included, it turned out that variables for all interactions except for position are insignificant, which supports the outcome of Kruskal-Wallis test. It means that gender, educational level and job tenure does not contribute to the relationship between IWB and humorous climate. Therefore, the model with the only interaction between climate and position was created (see Appendix 3). R-square is 0,358, which is a bit higher that initial model, hence the interaction effect also explains a part of variance in IWB. We observe significant differences among employees of different job position, concluding that humorous climate influences IWB and this influence will differ among managers with and without subordinates as well as non-managers. An important point here is that single humorous climate variable is still significant, which supports the existence of influence although interaction effect was added. These findings partly support H4-H6 only concerning such control variable as position. As for other three variables, our assumptions were not proved at all.



4. Conclusion

4.1 Discussion of main results

Results have demonstrated that humorous work climate influences employee IWB in the banking industry. Being a multidimensional phenomenon, climate reflects the atmosphere in working teams. In this study, approximately 30% of employees IWB might be explained by the existing humorous climate. Nowadays, banks are seeking for the opportunities to advance their technologies to be more competitive (Achimba et al., 2014), thus humor could be a good aid to stimulate employee IWB and foster success in such competition.

Most bank workers are said to be serious, pragmatic, scrupulous workaholics who are working whether with finance or with big data and computer programs (Achimba et al., 2014). In this sense, high level of humorous climate in their workplaces seems to be unexpected. Nevertheless, some research suggest the opposite. Iqbal & Hassan (2018) has reported the importance of humor use for salesperson in banks to establish better customer relationships. On the other side, our result showed that back-office bank workers also use humor in the workplace. This probably can be explained by the necessity to overcome stress and nervousness, which is done by humor as a one particular method. This also shows that the stereotypes that many people have about bank employees are wrong.

Considering each climate dimension separately, the analysis showed, however, that positive humor aspect contributes to IWB the most just as Madrid et al. (2013) predicted. No wonder, jokes and other positive expressions provoke employees' creative thinking, which further becomes the catalyst for producing some novel ideas. Mostly positive atmosphere created at the workplace mitigates stress (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012); hence, employees start feeling themselves more relaxed and ready to suggest some extraordinary ideas that are welcomed with much greater enthusiasm (Cann et al., 2014; Gujral & Bhardwaj, 2016). Moreover, the presence of humor indicates good relationship among colleagues that is essential for a new ideas support (Kamp, 2016).

Our analysis also points to the significance of supervisor support for employee IWB. Managers who do not restrict the usage of humor in the workplace create friendly environment, increase trustworthiness from their subordinates, and further foster IWB. In banking, it might be even more essential as there is higher level of authority (Achimba et al., 2014), so the support of managers is valued even more.

Next, the study found that the positive relations between negative humor and innovative behavior exists (see Table 5). These tendency can be partly explained by the following: the humorous climate in the organization is not limited to jokes or funny stories; some other expressions, even with negative undertone, can be used by workers. People perceive a variety of humor expressions differently (Cann & Matson, 2014), meaning that even sarcasm or scolding may be treated positively by team members. Sometimes teasing also serves as a motivation for others to improve their behavior for deserving better reputation or proving themselves (Cann et al., 2009). As described in a work by Cruthirds et al. (2013), negative humor may result in positive outcome, and our study presents the evidence for that.

Overall, positive humor is not the only dimension influencing IWB positively, because negative humor and supervisor support have the same effect, according to our analysis. It happens because people perceive affiliative or mild-aggressive humor subjectively, which sometimes leads to positive attitude towards not only jokes, but also sarcasm, belittling or scolding. Therefore, considering each dimension separately can make no sense. This phenomenon explains the need to pay attention to the climate in general because the multidimensional nature of climate predicts IWB more clearly. The analysis showed that humorous climate, as a unified concept, impacts IWB. In this sense, humorous climate can be a useful managerial instrument to impact employees' behavior and motivate them to be more innovative. This finding supports the results of Slatten et al. (2011) who found that humorous climate influences IWB of frontline service employees. Some other research proved that positive humor affects the behavior as well (Blanchart et al., 2014; Lang & Lee, 2010) which shows the need to use it as a milestone of daily communication among workers.

As for individual differences, it was unexpected to see that only position matters in relations between IWB and humorous climate. Our study suggests that males and females perceive the climate similarly and there is no tendency that men and women demonstrate IWB differently although previous studies (e.g. Martin et al., 2003; Kim & Koo, 2015) proved the opposite. It might be connected with the industry observed, thus suggesting that in large banks men and women are equal regarding these variables. Similarly, education and job tenure did not matter in relations between humorous climate and the IWB that also contradicts with the work of Lui et al. (2016). Consequently, an approach towards creating and maintaining the humorous climate in banks could be the same for employees of various social backgrounds.

On the other side, the position turned to be significant similar to findings of Blanchart et al. (2014). The analysis illustrated that managers and non-managers experience humorous climate differently, which significantly influences their IWB. This distinction may be explained by the specifics of communication in the workplace. Non-managers are free in their expressions, while managers with subordinates should be more accurate with what they say. The reason is that some words may ruin their reputation or status, lead to disrespect, and lessen the influence in a team (Schein, 2003). It urges managers to use humor more accurately than their subordinates, establishing humor environment that perceived differently by everybody in a working team.

Our study also showed that managers exhibit more IWB than non-managers. Managers may be more innovative not only because of more responsibilities they have but also the need to set an example for others (Mintzberg, 1990). This may affect the desire of subordinates to demonstrate IWB. Previous research also emphasized the role of leadership on employee innovative behavior (such as Feng et al., 2016; Jong & Hartog, 2007), therefore, this issue proved by our analysis as well.

4.2 Contribution to research

Besides our research makes a theoretical contribution to humor study. First, the study was first to test the Humorous Climate Questionnaire developed by Cann et al. (2014). Results show high reliability of this instrument regarding the evaluation of existing humorous environment in teams. It fully describes the tendency of humor use in the workplace as well as employees' perception of the climate, which reflects both positive and negative forms of humor. Moreover, the data gained by the questionnaire is suitable for the statistical analysis meaning that it is relevant for quantitative study.

Second, this paper provides a new theoretical knowledge about the influence of humorous climate on employee IWB. As described earlier, previous research (e.g. Lang & Lee, 2010; Pundt, 2015) observed mostly positive forms of humor in relation to different social aspects including innovative behavior and creativity. Yet, our study concentrates on the humorous climate as a multidimensional construct, and showed its impact on people's desire to be innovative at work. Only Slatten et al. (2011) observed climate with regard to IWB but in a service industry, while our research demonstrates significant results for banking. Additionally, Slatten et al. (2011) used only two items describing humorous climate comparing to 16 items used in our research in the Cann et al. (2014) instrument; therefore, our results should be more reliable. Lastly, there is no research on humor and IWB done on the Russian market. Therefore, we contributed in theoretical understanding of the humor use in Russian companies and employee IWB tendency.

Finally, since today innovation is the driver of economic development of any state, it is essential to study employee IWB and the instruments that help to foster it. We proved that humor theoretically can be such motivation tool to consider as it directly relates to exhibition of IWB, thus for theoretical field these findings are essential to use in business and investigate theoretically further. Interestingly, opposite to some other studies (e.g. Martin et al., 2003; Kim & Koo, 2015) our results have also demonstrated that individual characteristics such as gender, education and tenure do not matter in humor climate perception and its relations to IWB. It allows other scientists neglect these features in future studies and concentrate on the position, which is proved to be significant.

4.3 Implications for practice

There are some practical implications for managers. Managers should pay attention to the atmosphere in a team, trying to create humorous working environment. They may act as role models (Mintzberg, 1990) telling jokes or exciting stories in order to motivate employees also use positive humor in the workplace. Being a respectful leader, a manager is willing to influence others in such a way that employees will follow leader's behavior (Yam et al., 2018). Once the humorous climate is established, it would be much easier to generate novel ideas and suggest them to both the manager and colleagues. A relaxed atmosphere allows people think creatively, communicate freely, and just enjoy working so that they would be ready to put efforts in company's development (Robert & Yan, 2007). The major goal is to make the work as the place where a person goes for joy and self-actualization (Armstrong, 2012), not for money only. Humor in this case is a good instrument to retain.

Additional crucial aspect for manager is not restricting the use of humor among workers; otherwise, they would be more concentrated on the right words to say in a team rather than doing their job. It also might limit employees' thinking abilities not letting them fully realize their creative potential (Lussier et al., 2017). Consequently, the IWB might be exhibited to a lower extent. To avoid it, supervisors should be loyal to humor expressed in the workplace.

In communicating with subordinates, it is essential for managers to stick to some particular communication strategy (Armstrong, 2012) that should include the usage of jokes. Effective communication leads to the positive organizational outcome (e.g. increase in productivity, loyalty or high engagement) (James et al., 2008) and IWB can be considered as a one of those outcomes. As described previously, if being respectful, leaders may influence people's behavior, but here there is a focus on relationships between manager and subordinate. Humor reduces tension between people (Heintz & Ruch, 2019) so that employees are not afraid of a manager, they perceive him or her not as an autocratic leader but a reliable ally. It helps to build more trusting relationship, which contributes to all stages of IWB, and then results in innovation production.

HRM practitioners could use several tools to promote humorous climate in the organization. First, they could adjust company's values by adding, for instance, such aspects as “being humorous”. Organizational values are the foundation of how all employees think and act in the workplace, representing major components of corporate culture (Schein, 2004). Introducing new value connected to fun and humor should guide employees across the company units in their daily activities, which further results in establishing a particular climate suitable for generating ideas and putting them into action. Innovation climate as a part of organizational culture formed by employee IWB (Volkova, 2016) is desirable in banks and other companies that are focused on producing innovations. Humorous climate, however, influences organizational culture (Robert & Yan, 2007), thus employees should exist in a culture, which is characterized by the free humor use to push forward innovations. Some companies such as Southwest Airlines or Zappos have already succeed in establishing such environment (Robert & Yan, 2007; Zappos, 2013).

Given that humor can potentially be a characteristic of a corporate culture, HR managers might adjust their recruiting policies in accordance with this created culture. For instance, if in the department everyone has good sense of humor, which is usually used in communication by its members, HR manager should seek for a candidate with some specific social characteristics to fit the existing atmosphere. He/she might hire a worker with sense of humor who is ready to express it in the workplace to ensure that this employee will get accustomed. Additionally, HR manager can even develop an instrument to test ones' sense of humor in order to understand which humor style the candidate mostly uses. During the interview it can be applied to evaluate to what extent his/her way of communication would influence others and, in particular, foster IWB. Another characteristic to consider might be the desire to be innovative that can be tested by some particular tasks during the hiring process.

Along with recruitment, T&D process may be changed as well. Some organizations use a successful practice of hiring special humor coaches who teach to use humor appropriately in business (Humor Consultants, 2019). In Russia nowadays there is no specialists working with humor particularly (Isopekul', 2014). HR departments could also provide lectures and seminars on the role of humor in professional work emphasizing positive organizational outcomes which humor brings. Moreover, during those seminars coachers could explain business situations where humor use is relevant (e.g., presentations, business meetings etc.) and what kind of jokes are appropriate to use in the workplace. They may even explain how to turn negative expressions in favor of a speaker. Knowing that humor may even foster IWB, HR managers should not be afraid of spending money and resources on organizing seminars on humor. It will be advantageous not only for creating a humorous climate in the organization, but also for business as a whole. Leadership development programs could also include humor. For example, they could inform future leaders of the company how to use humor to motivate, how to respond to humor in teams, and how to manage negative humor.

In summary, humorous climate is a phenomenon that can be used as a powerful managerial instrument to motivate people to be innovative at work. To achieve it, managers should create funny working environment in teams as well as communicate with their subordinates in a more humorous manner. They also should not limit others in their expressions. On the other side, HR managers have to adapt new recruitment policies and develop T&D strategies to ensure that employees use humor (both negative and positive) appropriately. All these steps will contribute to creating a particular humorous climate in the organization, which could foster IWB. Furthermore, the analysis did not show a significant differences of humorous climate perception by employees of different gender, educational level and job tenure, thus there is no need to seek for individual approach while communicating with colleagues.

4.4 Limitations

The research has reported the findings on pure impact of humorous climate on employee IWB with regard of employees' individual characteristics. Nevertheless, it is still unclear what other factors can predict IWB. Since there are only approximately 30% of the desire to demonstrate IWB is explained by the humorous climate, we still accept there are 70% left, which may include other organizational or individual factors discussed further. Hence, we do not claim humorous climate to be the only feature.

Second, the study did not account for the managerial perspective of employee IWB, meaning that there was only self-evaluation of respondents on their desire to demonstrate IWB. It limits our results to the situation when IWB is assessed subjectively. Employees may think they are innovative, but, in practice, the situation can be different. Introduction of objective assessment by supervisors on their subordinates being innovative can somehow affect the results we have.

Another crucial aspect is the size of the sample that cannot be considered large enough and fully representative. The headcount of a whole branch is much higher than the sample due to the specifics of chosen convenience sampling technique, thus not all workers were covered by the survey. Moreover, as we did not have an access to everyone in observed bank, the probability of being included in the sample is not equal for each employee. This somehow makes the results a bit biased, given that humorous climate and IWB is experienced and demonstrated individually. We assume that if the sample consisted of other employees who did not participate in our study, the results might vary and differ from what we got. Workers from different departments with various educational and professional background create their own humorous climate in teams making it harder to estimate precisely humorous atmosphere in the whole organization. Consequently, conclusions about their IWB may be made only on the unit level, not the organizational one.

Lastly, since banking industry is observed, it is impossible to generalize our results on the whole Russian business. Yet, it is applicable only for North-West region large banks that are innovation-oriented. Additionally, although the study is conducted in a one company, still we suppose it is applicable to other large banks as well because most large banks are operating in a similar manner (Achimba et al., 2014). Significantly, we accept that findings are applicable only for Russian banks and we could not be sure that in other countries the tendency of IWB and humorous climate perception will be the same.

4.5 Future research

As our study has established the pure impact of humorous climate on employee IWB, further research are welcomed to investigate this topic deeper. Above all, it is recommended to add some other factors such as leadership or innovation climate as independent variables in the regression model. Previous studies have already investigated the effect of leadership styles (Jong & Hartog, 2007; Pundt, 2015) and innovation climate (Volkova, 2016), but separately, and the positive impact of these factors on IWB was proved. Thus, further research may unite these findings and create one common multiple regression model to determine whether these new features together with humorous climate will contribute to IWB or not and how. By doing this, we suspect that the percentage of explained variance will be higher.

Moreover, such aspect of leadership as the leader-member exchange (LMX) can also be examined. Kim & Koo (2016) proved that LMX helps to achieve the increase in employee IWB in service industry. On the other side, according to Slatten et al. (2011), humorous climate has the same effect on IWB in frontline service employees. Therefore, we suggest investigating its joint impact on employee IWB in banks of any state as it probably can show some significant distinctions. It will provide additional knowledge for managers on how to establish relationships with subordinates that will definitely provoke employee IWB.

To eliminate the limitation of subjectively perceived IWB in our study, further research may improve the instrument for collecting data by adding, for instance, six-item scale developed by Scott and Bruce (1994) on how managers assess the IWB of their subordinates. For this purpose, one needs to get answers from both workers and supervisors from a one team to ensure that IWB of the same workers is evaluated. It will give an insight not only in desire, but in the actual picture of how employees exhibit IWB.

As for control variables, our findings contradict a few scientific studies. Lui & Peng (2016) found out the positive effect of position tenure on IWB, while our results showed no differences. Martin et al. (2003) showed that gender and education matter in the use of humor, which is essential regarding to IWB, but our study could not state that. Job position, on the other side, was proved to be significant similarly to the work of Kim & Koo (2017). Still, for the future research, we insist on extending the list to draw a full picture of individual characteristics' effect on IWB. The larger sample can provide an opportunity to make a distinction between different departments in large companies. We suppose it will show a significant change in humorous climate perception between employees of different departments just as ... have demonstrated. Moreover, demonstration of IWB can also vary.

Another characteristic to be added is age. Unfortunately, our study fails to provide age diversity as the vast majority of respondents (63,5%) are 30-45, thus it was impossible to make valid conclusions. However, future research is encouraged to fill this gap because age can be a good predictor of humor climate perception (Madrid et al., 2013) and then may significantly influence IWB.

Future research can also control company's characteristics such as size, industry or location if the sample is extended. These features also matter in establishing any kind of relations between variables in studies of business (Menicucci, 2017), thus to ensure the clarity of results all possible unique company's characteristics should be added. It will provide a base for comparing results among organizations and making more precise conclusions.

Finally, similar studies can be done in any other industry (e.g. IT or FMCG) as for now, to our knowledge, only service industry has been observed with regard of IWB and humorous climate. It is highly recommended to use Humorous Climate Questionnaire developed by Cann et al. (2014) for further research because the reliability of this instrument was proved by our study.

To conclude, in the era of developing technologies, the process of innovation creation is essential for any organization. It urges companies to increase innovation activity of their employees in order not to lag behind. Provided results allow us to state that humorous climate is an effective managerial tool in fostering employees' IWB. The humorous climate concept differs from the humor itself due to its multidimensional nature and presence of several form of humor expressions, thus our study determines its significant effect on the intention to demonstrate IWB. Moreover, such employee's individual characteristics as gender, education and job tenure do not matter in relations between those two concepts, while the influence of humorous climate on IWB among workers of different position varies.



Reference list

1. Achimba, C., Ongonga, J.O., Nyarondia, S.M., & Amos, A.A. (2014). Innovation in banking Industry: Achieving customer satisfaction. Open Journal of Business and Management, 2(4), 261-274. doi:10.4236/ojbm.2014.24031

2. Analytical Center at the Government of Russian Federations (2014). Retrieved from http://ac.gov.ru/files/attachment/4843.pdf

3. Armstrong, M. (2012). Armstrong's handbook on human resource management practice. U.S.: Kogan Page, 800. ISBN-13: 978-0859894647

4. Associacia clusterov i technoparkov (AKIT) (2017). Tretii ezhegodnyi obsor “Technoparki Rossii - 2017” [Third annual review “Technoparks of Russia 2017”]. Мoscow, Russia: AKIT

5. Bacon-Shone, J. (2016). Introduction to quantitative research. Hong-Kong: Graduate School, 200. ISBN: 978-988-12813-0-2

6. Blanchart, A., Stewart, O., Cann, A., & Fallman, L. (2014). Making sense of humor at work. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 17(1), 49-70. doi:10.1037/mgr0000011

7. Camisуn, C. C. A., & Monfort-Mir, V. M. (2012). Measuring innovation in tourism from the schumpeterian and the dynamic-capabilities perspectives. Tourism Management, 33(4), 776-789. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.08.012

8. Cann, A., & Matson, C. (2014). Sense of humor and social desirability: Understanding how humor styles are perceived. Personality and Individual Differences, 66, 176-180. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.03.029

9. Cann, A., Watson, A., & Bridgewater, E. (2014). Assessing humor at work: The humor climate questionnaire. Humor - International Journal of Humor Research, 27(2), 307-323. doi:10.1515/humor-2014-0019

10. Cann, A., Zapata, C. L., &d Davis, H. B. (2009). Positive and negative styles of humor in communication: Evidence for the importance of considering both styles. Communication Quarterly, 57(4), 452-468. doi:10.1080/01463370903313398

11. Carmeli, A., Meitar, R., & Weisberg, J. (2006). Self-leadership skills and innovative behavior at work. International Journal of Manpower, 27(1), 75-90. doi:10.1108/01437720610652853

12. Channel 5 (2018). Retrieved from https://www.5-tv.ru/news/229191/ekspert-rasskazal-opopularizacii-tehnoparkov-vrossii/

13. Chiang, Y., Hsu, C., & Hung, K. (2014). Core self-evaluation and workplace creativity. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1405-1413. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.08.012

14. Cruthirds, K, Yong, W., & Romero, E. (2013). Insights into negative humor in organizations: Development of the Negative Humor Questionnaire. Journal of Business and Management, 19(3), 7-18.

15. Dedahanov, A. T., Rhee C., & Yoon J. (2017). Organizational structure and innovation performance: Is employee innovative behavior a missing link? Career Development International, 22(4), 334-350. doi: 10.1108/CDI-12-2016-0234

16. Ekvall, G. (1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 105-123.

17. Esaulova, I. A., Linkova, N. V., & Merkusheva, A. A. (2015). Innovatsionnie competencii kak osnova innovatsionnogo povedeniya sotrudnikov organizatsii [Innovation competencies as the foundation of employees' innovative behavior], Vestnik Universiteta, 5, 330-335.

18. Esaulova, I. (2014). Innovative Behavior in Terms of Competences. III International Scientific and Practical Conference «Foreign Direct Investment for Company`S Sustainability: Regional Aspects». Innovation Management аnd Company Sustainability, 1, 30-39.

19. Ettlie, J., Groves, K., Vance, K., & Hess, G. (2014). Cognitive style and innovation in organizations. European Journal of Innovation Management, 17(3), 311-326. doi: 10.1108/EJIM-11-2012-0101

20. Feng, C., Huang, X., & Zhang, L. (2016). A multilevel study of transformational leadership, dual organizational change and innovative behavior in groups. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 29(6), 855-877. doi:10.1108/JOCM-01-2016-0005

21. Forbes (2014). Southwest Airlines Motivates Its Employees With A Purpose Bigger Than A Paycheck. Retrieved Febriary, 7, 2019 from https://www.forbes.com/sites/carminegallo/2014/01/21/southwest-airlines-motivates-its-employees-with-a-purpose-bigger-than-a-paycheck/#546618345376

22. Global Innovation Index (2018). Retrieved from https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/gii-2018-report#

23. Gkorezis, P., Petridou, E., & Xanthiakos, P. (2014). Leader positive humor and organizational cynicism: LMX as a mediator. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 35, 305-315.

24. Government of Russia (2015). “About the innovations development in Russia” retrieved from http://m.government.ru/info/19839/#kompete

25. Government session (2016). Retrieved from http://government.ru/news/21920/

26. Gujra, H. K. & Bhardwaj, P. (2016). Humor and workplace wellbeing: Does humor enhance work place wellbeing? Global Journal of Management, 1(1), 53-67. ISSN 2348-8581

27. Harkiolakis, N. (2017). Quantitative research methods: From theory to practice. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 256. ISBN-13: 978-1543148138

28. Heintz, S., & Ruch, W. (2019). From four to nine styles: An update on individual differences in humor. Personality and Individual Differences, 141, 7(12). doi:10.1016/j.paid.2018.12.008

29. Humor Consultants Inc. (2019). Official site. Retrieved from http://humorconsultants.com/

30. Huo, Y., Lam, W., &Chen, Z. (2012). Am I the only one this supervisor is laughing at? Effects of aggressive humor on employee strain and addictive behaviors. Personnel Psychology, 65, 859-885. doi:10.1111/peps.12004

31. Isopekul', O.Y. (2014). Jumor v organizatsii [Humor in the organization]. Upravlenie corporativnoj culturoj, 4(24), 284-294.

32. Iqbal, Q. & Hassan, S.H. (2018). A dyadic analysis of salespersons and customers in banking sector: Humor usage, word of mouth and expectation of continuity. International Academic Journal of Business Management, 5(3), 109-120.

33. James, L.R., Choi, C.C., Ko, C.-H.E., McNeil, P.K., Minton, M.K., Wright, M.A. & Kim, K. (2008). Organizational and psychological climate: a review of theory and research. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(1), 5-32.

34. Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and organizational psychology, 73(3), 287-302.

35. Jong, J., & Hartog, D. (2007). How leaders influence employees' innovative behavior. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(1), 41-64.

36. Kamp, E. (2016). Innovative work behaviour: mapping out the knowledge sharing behind it. Utrecht University, 1-34.

37. Kim, M-S., & Koo, D-W. (2017). Linking LMX, engagement, innovative behavior, and job performance in hotel employees. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(12), 3044-3062. doi:10.1108/IJCHM-06-2016-0319

38. Kleysen, R., & Street, C. (2001). Toward a multi-dimensional measure of individual innovative behavior. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(3), 284-296,
doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000005660

39. Lang, J., & Lee, C. (2010). Workplace humor and organizational creativity. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(1), 46-60. doi:10.1080/09585190903466855

40. Lee, H. (2015). The impact of leader's humor on employees' creativity: The moderating role of trust in leader. Seoul Journal of Business, 21(1), 59-86. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10371/95353

41. Liu, Z., Ge, L., & Peng, W. (2016). How organizational tenure affects innovative behavior?: The role of culture difference and status determinants. Nankai Business Review International, 7(1), 99-126. doi:10.1108/NBRI-01-2016-0001

42. Lussier, B., Gregoire, Y., & Vachon, M-A. (2017). The role of humor usage on creativity, trust and performance in business relationships: An analysis of the salesperson-customer dyad. Industrial Marketing Management, 65, 168-181. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.03.012

43. Madrid, H.P., Patterson, M.G., Birdi, K.S., Leiva, P.I., & Kausel, E.E. (2013). The role of weekly high-activated positive mood, context, and personality in innovative work behavior: a multilevel and interactional model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(2), 234-256.

44. Martin, R.A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray, J., & 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), 48-75.

45. Menicucci, E. (2017). The influence of firm characteristics on profitability: Evidence from Italian hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(8), 2845-2868. doi:10.1108/IJCHM-04-2017-0219

46. Mesmer-Magnus, J., Glew, D., & Viswesvaran, C. (2012). A meta-analysis of positive humor in the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(2), 150-190. doi:10.1108/02683941211199554

47. Mesmer-Magnus, J., Guidice, R., Andrews, M., & Oechslin, R. (2018). The effects of supervisor humour on employee attitudes. Journal of Management Development, 37(9), 697-710. doi: 10.1108/JMD-01-2018-0034

48. Mineconomrazvitie (2012). “Innovative Russia - 2020”. Retrieved from http://economy.gov.ru/minec/activity/sections/innovations/doc20120210_04

49. Mintzberg, H. (1990). Mintzberg on management: Inside our strange world of organizations. U.S: Hungry Minds Inc,U.S, 384. ISBN13: 78-0029213711

50. Naranjo-Valencia J., Jimenez-Jimenez D., & Sanz-Valle R. (2017). Organizational Culture and radical innovation: Does innovative behavior mediate this relationship? Creativity and Innovation Management, 26, 407-417. doi: 10.1111/caim.12236

51. Niu, H-J. (2014). Is innovation behavior congenital? Enhancing job satisfaction as a moderator. Personnel Review, 43(2), 288-302. doi: 10.1108/PR-12-2012-0200

52. Nykiel, R. (2007). Handbook of marketing research methodologies for hospitality and tourism. New York: The Haworth Hospitality & Tourism Press, 258-264. ISBN-13: 978-0789034267

53. Omri, W, Becuwe, A., & Mathe, J-C. (2014). Ownership structure and innovative behavior: Testing the mediatory role of board composition. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 4(2), 220-239. doi: 10.1108/JAEE-07-2012-0033

54. Ottenbacher, M.C. (2007). Innovation management in the hospitality industry: Different strategies for achieving success. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 31(4), 431-454. doi: 10.1177/1096348007302352

55. Pundt, A. (2015). The relationship between humorous leadership and innovative behavior. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(8), 878-893. doi: 10.1108/ JMP-03-2013-0082

56. Purc, E. & Laguna, M. (2017). Factorial structure and measurement invariance of the innovative behavior questionnaire. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 0(0), 1-7. doi:10.1002/jocb.21

57. Robert, C. & Yan, W. (2007). The case for developing new research on humor and culture in organizations: toward a higher grade of manure. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 26, 205-267.

58. Romero, E.J., & Cruthirds, K.W. (2006). The use of humor in the workplace. Academy of Management Perspectives. 20(2), 58-69. doi:10.5465/amp.2006.20591005

59. Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. U.S.: John Wiley & Sons, 437. ISBN 0-7879-6845-5

60. Scott, S.G. and Bruce, R.A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580-607.

61. Shahova, N.V., & Petuhova, A.N. (2012). Vliyanie voznagrazhdenii na innovatsionnoe povedenie rabotnikov [The effect of rewards on employees innovative behavior]. Vestnik PNIPU, 16(41), 164-172.

62. Slеtten, T., Svensson, G., & Svжri, S. (2011). Empowering leadership and the influence of a humorous work climate on service employees' creativity and innovative behaviour in frontline service jobs. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 3(3), 267-284. doi: 10.1108/17566691111182834

63. Southwest Airlines (2010). Southwest Airlines Report 2010. Retrieved from www.southwestonereport.com/_pdfs/People.pdf

64. Tass (2018). Putin considers that Russia has to be a part of the world and develop innovations. Retrieved from https://tass.ru/ekonomika/5014937

65. Teijlingen, E.R., & Hundley, V. (2001). The importance of pilot studies. Social Research Update, 35, ISSN: 1360-7898

66. The International Society for Humor Studies (ISHS) (2019). Official site. Retrieved from http://www.humorstudies.org/

67. Ьnal, Z. M. (2014). Influence of leaders' humor styles on the employees' job related affective well-being. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, 4, 201-211. doi:10.6007/IJARAFMS/v4-i1/585

68. Volkova, M.S. (2016). Rol' innovatsionnoogo povedeniya subjektov organizatsii v formirovanii innovatsionnogo klimata [Role of innovative behavior of subjects of the organization in forming of innovative climate]. Psychological-sociological Journal Guadeamus, 15(2), 53-58. doi: 10.20310/1810-23IX-2016-15-2-53-58

69. Wisse, B., & Rietzsche,l E. (2014). Humor in leader-follower relations: humor styles, similarity and relationship quality. International Journal of Humor Research, 27(2), 249-269. doi:10.1515/humor-2014-0017

70. Wood, R., Beckmann, N., & Pavlakis, F. (2007). Humor in organizations: No laughing matter. In Janice Langan-Fox, Cary L. Cooper & Richard J. Klimoski (eds.), Research companion to the dysfunctional workplace: Management challenges and symptoms, 216-231. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing

71. Yam, K., Cristian, M., Wei, W., Liao, Z., & Nai, J. (2018). The mixed blessing of leader sense of humor: Examining costs and benefits. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 348-369. doi: 10.5465/amj.2015.1088

72. Zappos.com (2017). Our Common Core: Create Fun And A Little Weirdness. Retrieved from https://www.zappos.com/about/core-values-three



Appendix 1

Russian translation of the survey

Уважаемый респондент,

Большое спасибо, что согласились поучаствовать в опросе! Я, студентка 4 курса Высшей Школы Экономики в Санкт-Петербурге, провожу исследование, посвященное влиянию юмора на инновационное поведение сотрудников в организации. Инновационным поведением принято считать инициативное поведение человека, характеризующееся стремлением не только генерировать новые идеи, но и продвигать и реализовывать их, создавая в конечном итоге инновационный продукт. Интересно, что, используя такой инструмент, как юмор, можно добиться повышения инновационной активности сотрудников и увеличения количества создаваемых инноваций.

Чтобы оценить этот потенциал, я предлагаю Вам пройти небольшой опрос, состоящий из 30 вопросов: 5 вопросов демографического характера (пол, возраст и т.д.) и 25 высказываний, которые необходимо оценить по шкале от «абсолютно не согласен» до «абсолютно согласен». Прохождение опроса займет не более 5-7 минут. Опрос проводится анонимно. Полученные сведения будут описаны в моем исследовании исключительно в обобщенном виде.

Если Вы ознакомились с описанием и согласны принять участие в исследовании, поставьте, пожалуйста, галочку напротив высказывания ниже

Я ознакомился с условиями и готов принять участие в исследовании.

Блок 1. Общие вопросы

1. Укажите ваш пол

a. Мужской

...