Abstract
Organizational humour research is accelerating; however, scholars seem to disagree on how to conceptualize and operationalize interpersonal humour. A widely used approach draws from personality psychology and conceptualizes humour as a typology of four styles. This “humour styles” approach possesses conceptual shortcomings and introduces important questions about construct validity. Specifically, the humour styles tend to conflate inferred motives and outcomes within the definition of each style, raising concerns about circularity and tautology. Moreover, its typological foundation – originally developed for an intrapersonal context – becomes less tenable when applied interpersonally. To support the progression of humour scholarship, we begin by clarifying the core construct of humour, which serves as the basis for a broader conceptual critique of the humour styles approach. This critique is then illustrated through a multi‐study research program (N = 1086; six samples). We conclude by proposing the MOHM model (Model of Organizational Humour Motives) as a conceptually grounded alternative to guide future research on interpersonal humour. This research contributes to humour scholarship by clarifying the core humour concept, critiquing a popular approach (which is reducing construct clarity), and offering a forward‐looking framework to inspire more precise and impactful research on humour in organizational settings.