Humour is part of every workplace. It is one of the ways people bond, release tension, and make the weight of tasks feel lighter. Most leaders would say that laughter is a healthy sign; it shows people are comfortable, relaxed, and connected. Yet humour has another face. It can exclude, it can demean, it can silence. What is dismissed as “banter” in one moment can leave a lasting mark in another.

This is where the responsibility of leadership comes in. When humour makes colleagues uncomfortable, the easy response is to step back, hope it passes, and avoid conflict. A more active response is to reach for policy and procedure, reminding people of the rules, quoting the staff handbook, and threatening a grievance process. Both avoidance and compliance are common moves. But neither gets at the deeper issue: the kind of culture the team is creating with every word spoken.

This piece begins with a professional HR perspective, the structures of law and good practice that no leader can ignore. It then moves into a different kind of conversation, one that asks us to reframe the situation and see humour not as an individual misstep but as a cultural signal. Finally, it closes with reflective questions for leaders who want to move beyond compliance into stewardship.

A professional HR perspective

Every country has its own employment laws and practices, and I write from a UK base. The principles here are widely relevant, as impact matters more than intent, and leaders are accountable for the environment they create. However, the legal details will differ depending on where you work. If you encounter a specific case, your first step should always be to consult with your HR colleagues and, if necessary, seek the advice of legal advisors.

From a UK standpoint, the Equality Act 2010 is clear. Harassment is defined as unwanted conduct that has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment. That word “effect” matters. It means that saying, “I didn’t mean anything by it”, is not a defence. The test is not only what the speaker intended but what the listener experienced.

Tribunals have reinforced this again and again. In Evans v Xactly Corporation Ltd, the tribunal decided that a deeply offensive remark did not constitute harassment because, in that specific team, the claimant was himself a willing participant in harsh banter and did not feel degraded. In Fricker v Gartner UK Ltd, the opposite was true: being repeatedly called “good girl” and criticised for appearance was found to be harassment, regardless of whether the manager thought it was harmless. The lesson is simple: context matters, but ultimately, it is impact that carries the weight.

Beyond the law, professional practice, captured in the work of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), emphasises the responsibilities leaders carry. Early intervention is encouraged, not waiting for behaviour to escalate. Policies should be explicit that “banter” is no excuse for exclusionary or demeaning humour. Training, awareness, and role-modelling are essential. And if behaviour persists, organisations are expected to escalate through clear, fair disciplinary processes, in line with the ACAS Code.

Yet if we stop here, all we have done is draw the boundaries: what is unacceptable, what must be acted upon, and what the minimum standard is. Boundaries are essential; they protect people and clarify expectations, but they are not the same as culture. Culture is what is created in the everyday words and silences of a team. And that is where leaders are most tested.

Using feedback to address inappropriate humour

When humour crosses the line at work, leaders often feel caught between silence and formal discipline. Yet there is another path: feedback. Done well, feedback is not about scolding; it is about creating awareness of impact and inviting ownership for change.

A helpful approach is the AID Feedback Model, which structures the conversation around three elements:

Action

 • Statement: “In today’s meeting you made a joke about accents.”

 • Question: “What do you recall saying in that moment?”

Impact

 • Statement: “I noticed some colleagues looked uncomfortable, and it risked making them feel excluded.”

 • Question: “How do you think that comment landed with others?”

Desired Change

 • Statement: “I’d like us to use humour in ways that lift people up, not single them out. Can you adjust how you bring humour into the team?”

 • Question: “What kind of atmosphere do you want your humour to create in this team?”

This blended approach means the leader can be clear about the behaviour and its consequences, while also inviting reflection and ownership from the individual. The aim is not compliance for its own sake but stewardship of the culture the team is building.

Reframing the situation

When a team member makes inappropriate jokes that leave others uncomfortable, the conventional response is to reach for policy, procedure, and compliance. While necessary, these tools often treat the issue as one of “bad behaviour to be corrected” rather than a deeper reflection on the culture being created. Reframing the situation means moving beyond policing towards co-creating a respectful environment.

1. From banter to belonging: What looks like “harmless banter” is never neutral. Every word spoken either strengthens or weakens the sense of belonging in a group. When humour is exclusionary, it communicates that some people are insiders and others are outsiders. The real issue is not the joke itself but what the joke says about who is valued. Reframing means asking: Does this language build community, or does it fracture it?

2. From intention to impact: The person making the joke may not intend harm, but the impact on others is what matters. Humour that diminishes, even if it was “only a joke”, undermines trust and safety. Reframing here means shifting the conversation from “What did you mean?” to “What was the effect?”

3. From compliance to stewardship: Leaders are not simply enforcers of rules; they are stewards of the culture. Stewardship is about taking responsibility for the Wellbeing of the whole, not just keeping order. In this frame, allowing inappropriate humour without challenge is a failure of stewardship. The manager’s role is to protect the container of trust in which people can show up fully and authentically. Reframing means viewing the moment not as “discipline to be applied” but as “an opportunity to act as a steward of the community.”

4. From punishment to invitation: Instead of reacting only with warnings or sanctions, there is the possibility of inviting the individual into accountability. This is not about excusing behaviour, but about engaging them as a co-owner of the culture: “When you use that kind of humour, here’s how it affects others. Is that the community you want to help create?” This kind of reframing transforms the encounter into a learning moment. Accountability becomes less about external control and more about internal choice.

5. From an isolated incident to a cultural conversation: An inappropriate joke is not just an isolated slip; it is a signal of the broader cultural patterns the team is sustaining. The deeper question becomes: “What conversation are we in that allows this kind of humour to seem acceptable?” Reframing is about holding up a mirror, not just to the individual, but to the collective.

The essence of reframing: When we see the situation through this lens, we stop asking, “How do I get this person to stop telling inappropriate jokes?” and start asking, “What kind of workplace do we want to belong to, and how can each of us take ownership of building it?” The issue is no longer just a matter of policy enforcement but of community stewardship.

Leader reflections

Addressing inappropriate humour is not only about managing others; it begins with self-reflection. Leaders shape culture as much by what they tolerate as by what they say. Reflection is the process by which we shift from reacting to events to taking ownership of the environment we are creating.

Here are five questions to sit with:

 1. What language do I allow, excuse, or even use myself that might unintentionally exclude others?

 2. When I hear something that diminishes dignity, do I act as an enforcer of rules or as a steward of community?

 3. In my team today, who feels like an insider and who might feel like an outsider? How do I know?

 4. What conversations do we sustain that make inappropriate humour seem acceptable or leave it unchallenged?

 5. If culture is created word by word, what invitation am I extending through my own words and silences?

These questions are not about blame but about choice. They serve as a way of holding up a mirror to our own role in creating a sense of belonging or exclusion.

Closing thought

Every workplace is built through conversation. Jokes are part of that conversation, and they carry weight. They can build connection or destroy it. They can affirm dignity or undermine it. They can create belonging or fracture it.

The professional HR perspective gives us the minimum standard: laws to follow, policies to uphold, processes to enact. Reframing takes us further: it asks us to see ourselves as stewards of culture. And reflection makes it personal: it reminds us that every leader has a choice, every day, about what kind of community they are helping to create.

Thanks to Ioana Bora, a fellow European coach, friend and professional colleague, for suggesting this question in a recent conversation.

Recommended resources

1) Employment studies – Long and in-depth resource on the topic. HERE.

2) NHS one-pager – Simple but full of information. HERE.

3) National bullying helpline – A range of resources. HERE.

4) The AID feedback model – A simple TELL or ASK structure. HERE

4) The feedback hub – A set of resources on giving and receiving feedback. HERE.

References

Bowater v Northwest London Hospitals NHS Trust [2011] EWCA Civ 63. Court of Appeal. Available at: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/63.html (Accessed: 27 August 2025).

Evans v Xactly Corporation Ltd [2018] UKEAT/0128/18/LA. Employment Appeal Tribunal. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/mr-d-p-evans-v-xactly-corporation-ltd-ukeatpa-0128-18-la (Accessed: 27 August 2025).

 Fricker v Gartner UK Ltd [2022] Employment Tribunal Case Nos. 3303546/2019 & 3326025/2019. Employment Tribunal. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/ms-f-fricker-v-gartner-uk-ltd-3303546-slash-2019-and-3326025-slash-2019 (Accessed: 27 August 2025).

Great Britain. (1974) Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, c.37. London: The Stationery Office. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/37 (Accessed: 27 August 2025).

Great Britain. (2010) Equality Act 2010, c.15. London: The Stationery Office. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26 (Accessed: 27 August 2025).

This blog article is in no way intended to be legal advice!