Why So Serious? Has Having a Sense of Humour Become a Professional Disadvantage?

 Why So Serious? Having a Sense of Humour Becomes a Professional Disadvantage?

We all love a good laugh. But do we trust the person who makes us laugh?

Everyone loves a funny colleague. 

The one who cracks a joke during a painfully long meeting. The one who lightens the mood when deadlines are looming. The one who can turn an otherwise miserable Monday into something slightly more bearable.

We love having such people around.

But here's my question.

Do we see these people becoming CEOs, CXOs, directors, or even the most respected leaders in an organisation?

Of course, some do. But somewhere, consciously or unconsciously, we seem to have attached a few additional characteristics to people with a sense of humour.

Funny? Probably not serious enough.

Always joking? Maybe a little careless.

Light-hearted? Perhaps irresponsible.

Makes everyone laugh? A bit childish, isn't it?

And suddenly, the person who brings joy into the workplace becomes the person we hesitate to entrust with greater responsibility.

The Unwritten Rule: Serious People Make Better Leaders

Think about the typical image of a CEO.

A well-dressed individual, sitting behind a large desk, discussing numbers, productivity. Someone who probably doesn't appreciate a joke when quarterly results are disappointing.

Now imagine that same CEO cracking jokes, laughing loudly with employees, occasionally making fun of their own mistakes, or saying, "Don't worry, we'll figure it out."

Does that make the CEO approachable? Or appear less authoritative?

We seem to have confused seriousness with competence. And somewhere along the way, we have decided that the more important your position, the less frequently you should laugh.

But why?

Apparently, in our collective imagination, a person who is always cheerful must be missing a few essential leadership qualities.

Unless, of course, they make very clever jokes.

Because even humour seems to require qualifications these days.

When a Comedian Became President

Consider Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine.

Before politics, he was a comedian, actor and television producer. Interestingly, he also graduated with a degree in law.

And yet, when he entered politics, much of the attention was on his background as a comedian.

Imagine someone with a conventional academic background becoming president. An engineer, lawyer, economist or scientist.

Sounds believable, doesn't it?

Now imagine a comedian becoming president.

Suddenly, people have questions.

But what if that comedian also happens to be highly educated?

An engineer who is genuinely hilarious?

Or a scientist making silly jokes? (Doofenshmirtz alert)

We struggle to imagine that a person can be both intelligent and funny, both responsible and playful?

Zelenskyy's story is particularly interesting because his leadership has been tested under circumstances far more serious than most leaders will ever encounter.

Whatever one's political opinions, his career challenges the idea that a background in comedy automatically disqualifies someone from serious responsibility.

Perhaps humour and seriousness are not opposites after all.

Perhaps the ability to recognise absurdity is itself a form of intelligence.

Even Humour Has Become Serious Business

There was a time when humour was simple.

Someone slipped on a banana peel. We laughed.

Someone made a silly face. We laughed.

Someone called another person fat, short, bald or clumsy. People laughed.

Today, thankfully, we are increasingly questioning who is actually enjoying the joke.

Humour has evolved.

Watch a stand-up special on Netflix, and you may encounter content warnings about strong language, crude humour, offensive material or sensitive themes.

Comedy itself now comes with disclaimers.

And perhaps for good reason.

The infamous 2022 Oscars incident, when Will Smith slapped Chris Rock following a joke about Jada Pinkett Smith, demonstrated just how quickly humour can cross into deeply personal territory.

Of course, physical violence isn't an acceptable response to a joke. But the incident also reignited a conversation about the line between making people laugh and making someone the object of humiliation.

The truth is, we still laugh at other people.

We just increasingly recognise that someone's insecurity, illness or vulnerability need not become our entertainment.

That's progress.

But have we also become so cautious that we are losing the ability to laugh at ourselves?

Are we becoming more sensitive, more thoughtful, or simply more serious?

Not Everyone Wants to Become a Stand-Up Comedian

And here's another thing.

When someone is funny, people often say, "You should try stand-up comedy!"

Why?! Had I received a penny for the amount of time people that have told me that, I'd be poorer.

Just because someone makes colleagues laugh doesn't mean they want to quit their job and perform under a spotlight !

Being naturally funny and being a professional comedian are entirely different things.

Stand-up requires timing and plenty of practice.

Not everyone who tells a good joke can perform a 60-minute comedy special.

Why must humour be treated as either a professional distraction or an entirely separate career?

The Boss Who Parties With Employees

We've all heard about organisations that pride themselves on flat hierarchies, open-door policies and friendly workplace cultures. "Oh, we are like a family here at ___ <insert current workplace>__"

Bosses even go out drinking, dancing or partying with their employees.

Wonderful, isn't it?

But...

Are the employees genuinely enjoying the party, or are they secretly waiting for the boss to leave so the real party can begin?

Because the boss may have left the office, but not the hierarchy.

Employees truly cannot relax around someone who controls their appraisals, promotions and deadlines!

And if a boss becomes too friendly, do people begin to take them less seriously?

Somehow, we expect leaders to be approachable but not too approachable, friendly but not too friendly, humorous but not silly, strict but not intimidating.

Quite a job description.

Research offers an interesting contradiction.

Harvard Business Review has discussed how humour in leadership can improve morale, relieve tension and strengthen collaboration. Research has also found that highly rated executives often use humour more frequently than their average-performing counterparts.

So perhaps the question isn't whether leaders should be funny.

Perhaps it's whether they can use humour without undermining trust, dignity or responsibility.

Rules, Rules and More Rules

And thinking about workplace expectations brings me to something bigger.

Rules.

From the moment we are born, life becomes a series of instructions.

At home: Don't shout. Don't run. Sit properly. Behave yourself.

At school: Don't talk. Don't laugh. Don't question too much. Follow the timetable.

At college and At work and at what not !

And somewhere between childhood and adulthood, we become experts at following rules.

Some rules are essential, of course.

They protect us, create fairness, maintain order and prevent harm.

But sometimes, I wonder whether we have become so obsessed with following rules that we have forgotten why they were created in the first place.

Was discipline meant to help us live better?

Or have we started living merely to demonstrate discipline? 

To please our parents, bosses, spouse and neighbours?

And this is where my thoughts take an unexpected turn.

Was Jesus a Rule Breaker?

He encountered a society in which religious authorities placed great emphasis on laws, traditions and observances.

But Jesus repeatedly challenged interpretations of those rules when they stood in the way of compassion.

Take the Sabbath.

It was a sacred day of rest.

Yet when Jesus healed people on the Sabbath, some religious leaders objected.

His response, in essence, was simple.

Shouldn't we do good, even on a day of rest?

What is the purpose of a rule if following it prevents someone from receiving help?

Jesus wasn't advocating laziness or abandoning responsibility.

He was challenging the idea that obedience to a rule shouldn't matter more than human well-being.

And that thought feels surprisingly relevant today.

We have rules about almost everything. But what happens when enforcing those rules becomes more important than understanding the human being expected to follow them?

What happens when compassion becomes an exception rather than the foundation?

Ten Commandments to just Two Great Commandments

When asked about the greatest commandment, he spoke of: 1. loving God wholeheartedly and 2. loving one's neighbour as oneself.

A reminder that love must sit at the centre of everything.

Imagine applying that principle to our organisations.

What if leaders approached their teams with empathy rather than suspicion? Employees treated one another with kindness instead of constant competition and if forgiveness was seen not as weakness but as strength.

Not suggesting that we abolish deadlines or allow everyone to ignore their responsibilities.

But perhaps we could stop treating every deviation from a rule as a character flaw.

Sometimes, people need correction. Sometimes, they need support. And sometimes, they simply need a little grace.

What If the Pharisees Had Forgiven Jesus?

What if the religious authorities who opposed Jesus had responded differently, instead of treating him as a threat, they had listened whether they like it or not.

Would Jesus have remained a remarkable teacher with thousands of followers, spreading his message of compassion, forgiveness and love?

Or would his story still have led to the cross?

It's a thought experiment about the human response to someone who challenges established rules.

How often do we reject a person simply because they refuse to behave the way we expect?

Was Jesus Being Funny?

We often imagine Jesus as Calm. Compassionate. Wise. Solemn.

He spoke about people noticing a tiny speck in someone else's eye while ignoring a huge plank in their own.

Imagine that scene literally. Hillarious, right?

He also used the extraordinary image of a camel passing through the eye of a needle.

These were serious teachings, certainly. But the exaggerated imagery would have been difficult to forget.

We cannot know exactly how his audiences reacted. 😀

Laugh a Little More, Be Silly

The more I think about it, the more I wonder whether our problem isn't that we have too many rules. It's that we have forgotten to leave room for humanity within those rules.

We want responsible employees, but we also want creativity.

We want respected leaders, but we also want them to be approachable.

We cannot have it both ways without making some room for personality.

Constant seriousness is not proof of professionalism. Nor is laughter proof of carelessness.

And perhaps a genuinely healthy workplace is one where people can work hard, meet their commitments, respect one another and still enjoy being human.

Because life is already full of deadlines.

From homework submissions to project deliveries, from performance reviews to monthly bills, there's always something demanding our attention.

Must we make every moment of it solemn too?

I would love to see more leaders who can laugh at themselves.

More people who can disagree without becoming enemies.

More forgiveness when someone makes an honest mistake.

After all, being serious about your responsibilities and being serious about yourself are two very different things.