Content uploaded by Ergün Recepoğlu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ergün Recepoğlu on Jan 20, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Educational Research and Reviews Vol. 6(17), pp. 928-934, 5 November, 2011
Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/ERR
DOI: 10.5897/ERR11.178
ISSN 1990-3839 © 2011 Academic Journals
Full Length Research Paper
Examining teachers' motivation level according to
school principals' humor styles
Ergün Recepoğlu1, Ali Çağatay Kilinç2 and Osman Çepni3*
1Faculty of Education, Kastamonu University, Kastamonu, Turkey.
2Faculty of Education, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
3Geography Department, Faculty of Literature, Karabük University Karabuk, Turkey.
Accepted 15 September, 2011.
The purpose of this research is to examine the motivation level of teachers according to school
principals' humor styles. The humor styles survey and job motivation scale were used to gather data
from 305 randomly selected teachers employed in primary schools in Karabük. Results indicated that
141 of the teachers claimed school principal had producer style of humor, 76 of them said that the
principal had appreciator style of humor and 18 of them reported that school principal had reproducer
style of humor; on the other hand, 70 teachers said that school principal had a nonhumorous
nonhumorous style. In addition to this, it was detected that the motivation level of the teachers who
work with nonhumorous principals were lower than those working with principals who had producer,
appreciator or reproducer humor styles.
Key words: Humor, job motivation, school principal, teacher.
INTRODUCTION
The learner must attain as a high degree as possible of
linguistic competence (that is, it must develop skill in
manipulating the language, to the point where s/he can
use it spontaneously and flexibly in order to express his
intended message). Humor is an important element of
our daily life. Humor can emerge in any place where the
human beings exist. The human beings can be separated
from other living beings not only by their thoughts but
also by their laughs. Laughing, endowed as a royalty to
human beings, is a power that relaxes the person
mentally, socializes him/her as it only emerges in social
life, connects the people and corrects the mistakes by
indicating them in social life (Usta, 2005). Eroğlu (2008)
defines the humor as the art of looking at life with a smile
and he says that life includes numerous mysteries that
facilitate life. The positive contribution of humor to our
lives cannot be ignored and a healthy sense of humor,
especially when the person can laugh at him/herself, is a
symbol of the good and completely healthy personality
(Kush, 1997). With observations, visits, works, reading,
writing, teaching activities and heavy workloads in
*Corresponding author. E-mail: cepni78@hotmail.com.
schools, school principals have hundreds of interactions
in a typical day. However, very few of them share humor
(Barth, 1990). Barth (1990), by pointing out that the most
deficient thing in the profession of school management is
humor, says that schools are entertaining places which
include a lot of funny elements in them and school
principals should use their senses of humor better. On
the other hand, Hurren (2006) claims that education is
traditionally perceived as a very strict and disciplined
activity and that schools have been transformed into quite
strict places by discipline, exam results, purposes and
talents and mastery they have. Besides, teachers and
students often say that learning and school are not
enjoyable (Hurren, 2006). This situation points out that
schools have been cleared of sense of humor or humor
has been underestimated in schools.
Motivation is a vital element of organizational behavior
as a factor which directs and reveals the human
behaviors in an organization (Örücü and Kambur, 2008).
Motivation can be defined as the power that directs the
behavior to target or enacts the behavior according to a
purpose (Öztürk and Dündar, 2003). Job motivation is
regarded as a process that empowers, feeds and directs
the behavior in an organization (Leonard et al., 1999).
The sources of motivation that people have in
workplace might be different. Intrinsic motivation is an
incentive that is shaped by person’s interest for a duty or
a job he/she is going to do, his/her curiosity or the
satisfaction he/she wants to have. Person’s relish and
desire for the work he/she is going to do is an important
component of intrinsic motivation (Joo and Lim, 2009). If
a person firstly cares the satisfaction, which he/she has
while indicating a certain behavior or he was in a certain
activity, we can mention about intrinsic motivation there.
In intrinsic motivation, the job itself is a power because
the person has fun from the work he/she carries out
(Cooman et al., 2007; Lin, 2007; Littlejohn, 2008; Millette
and Gagne, 2008; Osterloh et al., 2001). In other words,
it is known that a person with intrinsic motivation defines
his or her job funny and interesting (Gagne et al., 2010).
Extrinsic motivation refers to meeting the needs indirectly
by money or such things. Organizations need people to
realize their purposes and they use monetary motivators
to make them internalize the organizational purposes
(Osterloh et al., 2001). Therefore, extrinsic motivation is
caused by prize and punishment on contrary to the
intrinsic motivation (Goodridge, 2006; Littlejohn, 2008).
Consequently, the active use of humor by the school
principals might increase the motivation of teachers.
Moreover, it may affect the productivity and job
satisfaction of teachers positively by developing the
relationships between teachers and school principals. In
this point of view it might be concluded that school
principals’ styles of humor play an important role in
increasing the motivation of teachers.
The number of the studies that reveals the value and
importance of the humor in education management and
leadership is scarce. The studies on this subject have
started with Philbrick (1989). Philbrick grounded his study
about teaching leaders on Babad’s research in which he
conceptualized the humor in four different styles and he
developed the humor styles scale. Four styles of humor
in the scale are; (1) Appreciator, (2) Producer, (3)
Reproducer, (4) Nonhumorous styles.
Appreciator style implies that people are ready to laugh
and like others’ jokes, and rarely make jokes. Producer
style refers to producing humor. People who have
producer style of humor are funny and they make jokes
or make up funny stories. Reproducer humor style refers
to retelling others’ funny jokes and stories or making their
jokes again. People of this style reproduce funny and
enjoyable situations. Nonhumorous style means that
people seldom laugh and they rarely make jokes. In
addition to this, they almost never laugh at others’ jokes
(Babad, 1974). In Turkey humor is mostly considered in
the areas of literature, comics, and satire. Although the
studies on humor have been seen in the area of
educational sciences in recent years, there has been
limited number of studies about school principals’ styles
of humor. One of them is conducted by Özdemir and
Recepoğlu (2010) entitled as "organizational health and
humor", and the other one is Sepetçi (2010) study that
Recepoglu et al. 929
defines school principals’ styles of humor.
The findings of this research will contribute to an
understanding of the factors enabling effectiveness in
each level of education management by examining the
motivation level of teachers according to school
principals' humor styles. On the other hand this research
might contribute to the selection and evaluation of the
school principals, organizing in service training to help
school principals reveal their humor potential and
enriching the higher education programs about education
management and leadership.
The purpose of this research is to examine the
motivation level of teachers according to school
principals’ humor styles. Therefore, following questions
below were tried to be answered for this purpose: (1)
What are the humor styles of the school principals?, (2)
What are the motivation level of the teachers?, (3) Do the
perceptions of teachers on the dimensions of motivation -
team harmony, integration with the job, commitment to
institution and personal development - differ significantly
according to school principals’ humor styles?
METHODS
Model
This is a descriptive research in the survey model which tries to
detect the current situation. According to Karasar (1999) scanning
models are research approaches which aim to define a past or
present situation.
Participants
A total of 305 teachers employed in primary schools in Karabük in
2009 to 2010 academic year participated in the study. Random
sampling method was used for participant choosing. The study
sample included 142 (46. 6%) classroom teachers and 163 (53.
4%) branch teachers. Out of these teachers, 131 teachers (43%)
are male and 174 teachers (57%) are female. 88 (28.9%) teachers
are between the ages of 22 to 30, 112 (36.7%) are between 31 to
40, 79 (25.9%) are between 41 to 50 and 26 (8.5%) are above 51
years old. Teachers who have seniority between 1 to 5 years are 66
(21.6%), who have seniority between 6 to 10 years are 51 (16.7%),
who have seniority between 11 to 20 years are 120 (39.3%) and
who have seniority above 21 years are 68 (22,3%). Among the
teachers who participated in the study, 248 of them have bachelor’s
degree (81.3%), 42 (13.7%) of them have pre-bachelors degree, 13
(4.1%) of them have master’s degree and only 3 (0.9%) of them
have PhD.
Instruments
Humor styles survey (HSS)
The conceptualization of the humor styles in four different
categories was developed by Babad (1974) and the scale which
first uses Babad humor styles categories had first been used by
Philbrick (1989). The scale was translated into Turkish by Özdemir
and Recepoğlu (2010). Kent (1993), Koonce (1997), Mertz (2000),
Özdemir and Recepoğlu (2010), Puderbaugh (2006), Rahmani
(1994), Spurgeon (1998) and Williams (1994) used this scale in
their studies. Babad (1974) presented that socio-metric instruments
930 Educ. Res. Rev.
were better and more reliable evaluation instruments than
traditional humor tests and that humor tests didn’t analyze the
natural behavior. On the other hand Babad (1974), Koppel and
Sechrest (1970) pointed out that standard humor tests lack in
validity and reliability in the evaluation of humor. Babad (1974)
believes that true and valid evaluation of humor can only be
possible with natural observations, self reports, and socio-metric
methods in a social environment. Babad’s socio-metric survey is a
useful instrument. This survey enables the easy access to the
followers and data collecting. Moreover, this survey provides
analysis of the natural humor behavior with a socio-metric method
although it cannot be observed directly. In his study in New England
Society University Babad (1974) carried out a validity and reliability
study which includes a large sample group (1816 participants). All
the participants were asked to write the name of a person who was
suitable for any of the four humor styles (appreciator, producer,
reproducer and nonhumorous styles) in the university. Names of
987 students were written opposite one of these styles at least for
just one time. 81 students out of those 987 students were invited to
the research and 77 of them accepted to participate. Each student
was given humor evaluation test, active humor test and creativity
test. Students filled in personality survey as well. Then four
categories of humor were delivered to the students and they were
asked to choose the most suitable category for them. Their humor
styles indicated obvious difference and the participants said that 77
students indicated four basic humor styles features. These selected
students defined themselves in a humor style which their friends
percept them to be. In other words humor styles of selected
students indicate similarity with their friends’ evaluations. As a
result, Babad (1974) confirmed the validity and reliability of the
study about four humor styles.
Rahmani (1994) conducted a study among the workers in
California University to examine whether the humor style is related
to the management efficacy or not. Rahmani (1994) used a socio-
metric survey based on Babad’s categories of four humor styles. 55
dormitory principals, 47 student affairs manager and 416 workers
included in the sample of the study. Tests were applied to
understand if there was a difference between the humor styles
percepted by the principals and the workers. The results
demonstrated that significant difference was not found between the
perceptions of the principals and the workers about principal’s
humor style. Both principals and the workers almost agree on the
humor style of the principal. As a result Rahmani (!994) proved the
validity and reliability of the survey.
Job motivation scale
This scale was developed by Aksoy (2006). A likert scale of five
was used for each item to detect the frequency of indicating the
behavior. The scale items were answered on a rating scale from 1
"I’m not pleased at all" to 5 "I am really pleased". Yılmaz (2009)
applied a factor analysis to Aksoy’s scale in his thesis study entitled
as "The effect of organizational culture on teachers’ job motivation
in educational organizations". Results of factor analysis indicated
that the scale items were distributed across six factors, however it
was also seen that one subscale was consisted of two items and
one was consisted of one item. Hence items included in these
subscales were taken out of the scale and it was re-analyzed. In the
second factor analysis it had been seen that one dimension had still
included only one item and it had been taken out of the scale and
the factor analysis was conducted again. As a result of the repeated
analyses after taking out items off the list it was seen that scale
includes four dimensions and 14 items namely; team harmony (7,
12, 13, 14), integration with job (2, 5, 6, 8), commitment to job (1, 4,
9,), and personal development (3, 10, 11). Factor loadings are
ranging from 0.49 to 0.78 in the dimension of team harmony, from
0.54 to 0.78 in the dimension of integration with the job, from 0.59
to 0.81 in the dimension of commitment to job, and from .43 to .73
in the dimension of personal development. On the other hand,
internal consistency coefficient of the scale was calculated as 0.82
in the reliability study carried out by Yılmaz (2009). In this study, the
general internal consistency coefficient of the job motivation scale
was found 0.87. The results of factor analysis conducted by Yılmaz
(2009) reveal that Kaiser Meyer-Olkin Sample measure was found
0.781. Considering these results Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity value
was significant and it was found 470.77. This result indicates that
there is a relationship among the items of the scale.
Data analysis
The statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) 16 program
pack that is used in data analyses in social sciences was used for
statistical analysis of the data collected by the surveys filled in
correctly and fully according to the explanations in the frame of the
general aims of the study. The frequency, percentage, arithmetical
mean and standard deviation of the answers were calculated.
Independent t-Test and One-Way ANOVA were performed to
analyze the data.
FINDINGS AND COMMENTS
Humor styles of school principals
The division of the humor styles of school principals participated in
the study was given in Table 1. As can be seen from Table 2, 141
(28.2%) of school principals have producer style, 76 (24.9%) of
principals have appreciator style, 18 (5.9%) of principals have
reproducer style and 23 (7.5%) of principals have a nonhumorous
style. These results mean that most of the school principals have
producer humor style. In addition, reproducer humor style was
detected as the least possessed humor style of the principals.
Teachers’ motivation level
The division of the teachers’ perceptions about their motivation
level was given in Table 2. Table 2 demonstrates that teachers
have the highest motivation in “commitment to j ob dimension
(
Χ
=3.98) and the lowest level of motivation in the dimension of
integration with the job (
Χ
= 3.47).
When the standard deviation scores are analyzed, it is seen that
the most homogeneous evaluation is in the dimension of
commitment to job (S = 0.61) and the most heterogeneous
evaluation is in the dimension of team harmony (S = 0.75).
Teachers' perceptions on "team harmony" according to school
principals’ humor styles
The results of the ANOVA carried out for examining the difference
of teachers’ perceptions on team harmony dimension of motivation
compared to the school principals’ humor styles were given in Table
3.
As can be seen from Table 3 there seems no difference in
teachers’ perceptions about team harmony dimension compared to
the school principal’s humor style [F(3, 301) = 1.35, p > .05]. In
other words, teachers’ perceptions about team harmony do not
differ according to the humor styles of school principals.
Teachers' perceptions on "integration w ith job" according to
school principals’ humor styles
The results of the ANOVA carried out for detecting the difference of
Recepoglu et al. 931
Table 1. Humor styles of the school principals.
Humor style f %
Producer 141 46.2
Appreciator 76 24.9
Reproducer 18 5.9
Nonhumorous 70 23
Table 2. The analysis of the motivation level of the teachers employed in primary schools.
Motivation N
Χ
S
Team harmony 305 3.57 0.75
Integration with the job 305 3.47 0.73
Commitment to job 305 3.98 0.61
Personal development 305 3.68 0.72
Table 3. One-way ANOVA results for comparing team harmony dimension of teachers’ motivation with school principals’
humor styles.
Motivation Humor style N
Χ
ss sd F p
Team harmony
Producer 141 3.61 0.58
Appreciator 76 3.62 0.70 3
Reproducer 18 3.54 0.90 301 1.35 0.25
Nonhumorous 70 3.41 1.00
teachers’ motivation compared to school principals’ humor styles
were given in Table 4.
Table 4 shows that teachers’ perceptions about integration with
the job dimension of motivation do not present significant difference
according to the humor styles of school principals [F(3, 301) = 0.02,
p > 0.05]. In other words, there is no differentiating effect of school
principals’ humor styles on teachers’ perceptions about integration
with the job.
Teachers' perceptions on "commitment to job" according to
humor school principals’ humor styles
The results of the ANOVA carried out for detecting the difference of
teachers’ perceptions about commitment to job dimension of
teachers’ motivation compared to school principals’ humor styles
were given in Table 5.
As can be seen from Table 5, teachers’ perceptions about
commitment to job dimension of motivation present significant
difference according to the school principals’ humor styles [F(3,
301) = 4.90, p < 0.05]. In other words, teachers' perceptions on
commitment to job subscale differ significantly according to school
principals’ humor styles. In addition to this, results of LSD test
illustrated that a significant difference was detected in two groups:
the first group is "teachers working with principals with
nonhumorous style (
Χ
= 3.78) and those working with principals
with producer humor style (
Χ
= 4.08); and the second group is
"teachers working with principals with nonhumorous style (
Χ
=
3.78) and those working with principals with appreciator style (
Χ
=
4.01). Besides this, the highest motivation score on commitment to
job dimension belongs to teachers who work with principals with
producer humor style. At this point the significant difference
between motivation level of teachers who work with school
principals with nonhumorous style and the motivation level of those
who work with principals with appreciator, and producer styles
points out that the school principals’ humor styles have an
important effect on defining teachers’ motivation level.
Teachers' perceptions on "personal development" according
to school principals’ humor styles
The results of the ANOVA carried out for detecting the difference of
teachers’ perceptions about personal development dimension of
teachers’ motivation compared to school principals’ humor styles
were given in Table 6.
As can be seen in Table 6, teachers’ perceptions about personal
development dimension of motivation do not present significant
difference according to school principals’ humor styles F(3, 301) =
1.05, p > 0.05]. In other words, teachers’ perceptions about
personal development dimension of motivation do not differ
according to the school principals’ humor styles.
DISCUSSION
According to the schools principals' humor styles,
motivation level of the teachers was examined in this
study. When the primary school principals’ humor styles
932 Educ. Res. Rev.
Table 4. One-way ANOVA results for comparing integration with the job dimension of teachers’ motivation with school
principals’ humor styles.
Motivation Humor style N
Χ
ss sd F p
Integration with the job
Producer 141 3.47 0.64
Appreciator 76 3.48 0.77 3
Reproducer 18 3.43 0.83 301 0.02 0.99
Nonhumorous 70 3.47 0.82
Table 5. One-way (ANOVA) results for comparing commitment to job dimension of teachers’ motivation with school principals’ humor styles.
Motivation Humor style N
Χ
ss sd F p Meaning
Commitment to job
Producer 141 4.08 0.46 (Nonhumorous style)↔(producer)
Appreciator 76 4.01 0.64 (Nonhumorous style)↔(appreciator)
Reproducer 18 3.75 0.91 3 4.90 0.00
Nonhumorous 70 3.78 0.69 301
Table 6. One-way (ANOVA) results for comparing personal development dimension of teachers’ motivation with school
principals’ humor styles.
Mo
tivation Humor style N
Χ
ss sd F p
Personal development
Producer 141 3.74 0.59
Appreciator 76 3.67 0.77 3
Reproducer 18 3.64 0.99 301 1.05 0.36
Nonhumorous 70 3.56 0.79
were analyzed according to the perceptions of teachers,
141 teachers claimed that their principal had producer
humor style, 76 teachers claimed that their principal had
appreciator humor style, 18 teachers claimed that their
principal had reproducer humor style and 70 teachers
claimed that their principal had nonhumorous style. It is
easily understood that nearly half of the school principals
are able to produce humor. Also, Kent (1993), Koonce
(1997), Mertz (2000), Özdemir and Recepoğlu (2010),
Spurgeon (1998), Williams (1994) and found out that the
least percepted humor style was reproducer style in their
studies. Findings of their studies and our research
findings seem to be parallel in that view.
Another result of the research is that the motivation of
teachers is at a good level. This finding and Polat (2010)
findings are parallel. When subscales are analyzed, it is
seen that teachers give the highest scores to the
dimension of integration with the job and that they give
the lowest score to the dimension of commitment to job.
In other words, teachers are pleased with their
institutions, principals, and colleagues already. The fact
that teachers have been in the institutions for so long and
that consequently they developed positive perceptions
about school and workers of the school can be presented
as a reason for that. As founded by Kocabaş (2009)
being in good relationship with their colleagues motivates
the teachers. Besides this, Kyriacou and Harriman (1993)
put forward that being appointed to another school or
changing the schools might create stress in teachers. In
this case it can be thought that teachers who think that
working in a different school with different principals and
different teacher might create stress probably developed
commitment to job to avoid that situation. On the other
hand teachers’ motivation level about respectfulness,
payments, being appreciated and the benefit they get
from the institution in the society were found relatively
lower. This finding can be seen in the way that teachers
do not have positive perceptions about their
respectfulness in the society, the payments, level of
being appreciated, and benefits they get from the
institution. Kocabaş (2009) presented in his study that
being at a respectful position in the society was one of
the items that motivate teachers. It can be said that the
idea that teachers’ being at a respectful place in the
society can affect their motivation level positively.
Findings of the present study also reveal that motivation
level of teachers’ changes significantly according to the
humor styles of school principals and that motivation level
of teachers working with principals with nonhumorous
style is lower than the motivation level of those working
with principals with reproducer, appreciator, and producer
styles. On the other hand the motivation level of teachers
who work with principals with producer styles is the
highest, however the motivation level of teachers who
work with the principals with nonhumorous style is the
lowest. These findings are consistent with the findings of
Crawford (1994), Dienstbier (1994), Lippitt (1982) and
Murdock ve Ganim (1995). Crawford (1994), Dienstbier
(1994), Lippitt (1982) and Murdock ve Ganim (1995)
confirmed that leaders’ use of humor increases the
motivation level of the followers.
Hurren (2006) expresses that education is seen as a
strict job and schools were transformed into boring
places. Capel (1991) claims that being a teache is a
stressful job. Going further from these points of views it
might be thought that school principals who produce
humor can raise the motivation level of the teachers who
do a stressful job.
Another result of the research is that teachers’
perceptions about team harmony, integration with the job,
and personal development dimensions of motivation do
not present a significant difference according to the
humor styles of the school principals, however the
perceptions about commitment to job dimension of
motivation differ significantly according to school
principals’ humor styles. The highest motivation point for
integration with the job dimension belongs to teachers
working with school principals with producer humor style.
At this point the significant difference between motivation
level of teachers who work with school principals with
nonhumorous style and the motivation level of those who
work with principals with reproducer, appreciator, and
producer styles points out that the school principals’
humor styles have an important effect on defining
teachers’ motivation level and that it strengthens the
thesis about humor as a really important leadership
feature. Clouse and Spurgeon (1995) claim that there are
clear evidences that support the use of humor for
fostering performance of the workers in the organizations.
Conclusion
When the humor styles and the use of humor are
analyzed, the finding in the studies points out that humor
is an important factor in leadership (Benham, 1993;
Douglas, 2008; Ellis, 1991; Hurren, 2001; Kent, 1993;
Koonce, 1997; Philbrick, 1989; Puderbaugh, 2006;
Rahmani, 1994; Recepoğlu and Özdemir, 2010; Williams,
1994; Vickers, 2004; Ziegler, 1982). This research that
was carried out in primary school put forward findings
about how effective the principals’ humor styles can be in
increasing teachers’ motivation. School principals can
develop themselves for using the humor more effectively
by creating awareness or they can get professional help.
Moreover the effective use of humor by school principals
Recepoglu et al. 933
can help establish a healthy school environment by
developing the relationships between teachers and the
principals. Humor can be evaluated as an important
ability not only for school principals but also for all the
positions that come to minds in education management
and teaching leadership. In that case it can be said that
coverage of the research can be enlarged.
REFERENCES
Aksoy H (2006). The effects of organizational climate on motivation.
Unpublished Master Thesis, Marmara University, İstanbul.
Babad EY (1974). A multi-method approach to the assessment of
humor: A critical look at humor tests. J. Pers., 42: 618–632.
Barth R (1990). Improving schools from within; teachers, parents, and
principals can make the difference. San Francisco: Josey-Bass Inc.
Publishers.
Benham K (1993). The relationship of leadership style, change and use
of humor in health care executives (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
9324822)
Capel SA (1991). A longitudinal study of burnout in teachers. Brit.
J. Educ. Psychol., 61: 36–45.
Clouse RW, Spurgeon KL (1995). Corporate analysis of humor.
Psychology-A J. Hum. Behav., 32: 3-4.
Cooman RD, Gieter SD, Pepermans R, Bois CD, Caers R, Jegers M
(2007). Graduate teacher motivation for choosing a job in education.
Int. J. Educ. Vocat. G., 7: 123–136.
Crawford CB (1994). Theory and implications regarding the utilization of
strategic humor by leaders. J. Leadersh. Stud., 1: 53-67.
Dienstbier NA (1985). The impact of humor on energy, tension task
choices and attributions: Exploring hypotheses from toughness
theory. Motiv. Emot., 19: 255-267.
Douglas DF (2008). Do leaders use more humor (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI
No. 3304476)
Ellis A (1991). The relationship between nursing educations principal’s
use of humor and their leadership effectiveness as perceived by
faculty (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9218005)
Eroğlu E (2008). Analysis of Muzaffer İzgü’s books f or kids in the sense
of humor items. Unpublished Master thesis, Abant İzzet Baysal
University, Bolu.
Gagne M, Forest J, Gilbert MH, Aube C, Morin E, Malorni A (2010). The
motivation at work scale: Validation evidence in two languages. Educ.
Psychol. Meas., 70(4): 628–646.
Goodridge D (2006). Relationships between transformational and
transactional leadership with the motivation of subordinates.
Unpublished Master Thesis, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada.
Hurren BL (2001). The effects of principals’ humor on teacher’s job
satisfaction (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3042753).
Hurren BL (2006). The effects of principals’ humor on teacher’s job
satisfaction. Educ. Stud., 32(4): 373–385.
Joo BK, Lim T (2009). The effects of organizational learning culture,
perceived job complexity, and proactive personality on organizational
commitment and intrinsic motivation. J. Leadersh. Org. Stud., 16(1):
48–60.
Karasar N (1999). Scientific research method. Ankara: Nobel.
Kent SH (1993). An investigation of the relationship between humor
style and effectiveness of elementary school principals as perceived
by teachers in Georgia. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9416267).
Koonce WJ (1997). The relationship between principals’ humor styles
and school climate in elementary schools (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI
No. 9731494).
934 Educ. Res. Rev.
Kocabaş İ (2009). The effects of sources of motivation teachers'
motivation level. Educ., 129(4): 724–733.
Koppel M, Sechrest L (1970). A multitrait-multimethod matrix analysis of
humor. Educ. Psychol. Meas., 30: 77-85.
Kush JC (1997). Relationship between humor appreciation and
counselor. Counseling Values, 42(1): 22–30.
Kyriacou C, Harriman P (1993). Teacher stress and school merger.
Sch. Organ., 13(3): 297–302.
Leonard NH, Beauvais LL, Scholl RW (1999). Work motivation: The
incorporation of self-concept-based processes. Hum. Relat., 52(8):
969–998.
Lin HF (2007). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee
knowledge sharing intentions. J. Info. Sci., 33(2): 135–149.
Lippitt GL (1982). Humor: A laugh a day keeps the incongruities at bay.
Training and Dev. J., 36: 98-100.
Littlejohn A (2008). The tip of the iceberg: Factors affecting learner
motivation. Regional Lang. Centre J., 39(2): 214–225.
Mertz DJC (2000). Teachers’ perceptions of principals’ humor style: Its
effect on teacher satisfaction and burnout (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database, (UMI
No. 9991715).
Millette V, Gagne M (2008). Designing volunteers’ tasks to maximize
motivation, satisfaction and performance: The impact of job
characteristics on volunteer engagement. Motiv. Emot., 32(1): 11–22.
Murdock MC, Ganim RM (1993). Creativity and humor: Integration and
incongruity. J. Creat. Behav., 27: 57-70.
Osterloh M, Frey BS, Frost J (2001). Managing motivation, organization
and governance. J. Manage. Gov., 5(3-4): 231–239.
Örücü E, Kambur A (2008). An empirical study about examining
organizational and managerial factors' effects on workers'
performance and productivity: A sample of service and industry
institution. Manage. Econ., 15(1): 85–97.
Özdemir S, Recepoğlu E (2010). Örgütsel sağlık ve mizah
[Organizational health and humor]. İçinde, V. Ulusal Eğitim Yönetimi
Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı, 01-02 Mayıs 2010, Antalya.
Öztürk Z, Dündar H (2003). Organizational motivation and factors
motivating public workers. Cumhuriyet Univ. J. Econ. Admin. Sci.
Fac., 4(2): 57–67.
Philbrick KT (1989). The use of humor and effective leadership styles
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses database, (UMI No. 9021898).
Polat S (2010). The relationship between teachers' perceptions on the
power sources of kindergarten principals and teachers' motivation.
Unpublished Master Thesis, Yeditepe University, İstanbul.
Puderbaugh A (2006). The relationship between supervisor’s humor
styles and subordinate job satisfaction. (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database, (UMI
No. 3208068).
Rahmani L (1994). Humor styles and managerial effectiveness.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of LaVerne.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 05A, 1161.
Sepetçi C (2010). The description of schools principals humor styles.
Unpublished Master Thesis, Gazi Osman Paşa University, Tokat.
Spurgeon K (1998). Humor versus burnout: An organizational analysis
of principals and teachers (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (UMI No. 9831984)
Usta Ç. (2005). Mizah dilinin gizemi [The mystery of the language of
humor]. Ankara: Akçağ.
Vickers PC (2004). The use of humor as a leadership tool by florida
public school principals (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3144895)
Williams R (1994). The perceived value of administrator humor to
school climate (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 9429737).
Yılmaz F (2009). The effect of organizational culture on job motivation in
educational organizations. Unpublished Master Thesis, Selçuk
University, Konya.
Ziegler VF (1982). A study of the relationship of principals’ self-report
humor scores and their leadership styles as perceived by teachers
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses Database (UMI No. 8227571).
