1
Power, Politeness and the Workplace Context
Power, politeness and context
This book explores the complex and fascinating relationship between power and politeness in the workplace. Our focus is workplace discourse and we examine how people âdoâ power and politeness throughout the day in their talk at work. A good starting point for our exploration is the following brief excerpt taken from a meeting of a project team in a multinational organisation (Example 1.1).
Example 1.1
Context: Regular weekly meeting of project team in white-collar, commercial organisation.1
1 | HAR: | lookâs like thereâs been actually a request for screendumps |
2 | | I know it was outside of the scope |
3 | | but people will be pretty worried about it |
4 | CLA: | no screendumps |
5 | MATT: | we- |
6 | CLA: | no screendumps |
7 | PEG: | [sarcastically] thank you Clara |
8 | CLA: | /no screendumps\ |
9 | MATT: | /we know\we know you didnât want them and we um er/weâve\ |
10 | CLA: | /that does not\ meet the criteria |
| | [several reasons provided why screendumps should be allowed] |
11 | CLA: | thanks for looking at that though |
12 | SAN: | so thatâs a clear well maybe no |
13 | CLA: | itâs a no |
14 | SAN: | itâs a no a royal no |
15 | CLA: | did people feel disempowered by that decision |
16 | PEG: | [sarcastically] no |
This excerpt, taken from the middle of the teamâs meeting, provides a useful means of introducing some of the main themes of this book. First, it is very difficult to understand without substantial glossing. Second, it illustrates a very blunt and explicit exercise of power and authority, and an apparent disregard of the norms of conventional politeness. Third, it demonstrates the kinds of things people achieve with words at work: giving instructions, disagreeing with and challenging each other, avoiding miscommunication, amusing their colleagues, maintaining good collegial relations, and so on. We will briefly discuss these points in this chapter, but they will also recur regularly throughout the book.
In the meeting from which Example 1.1 is taken, a project team is discussing how best to provide instructions to other members of their organisation about a specialised computer process. The group has been meeting for several weeks and has developed very good rapport and a sparky style of interaction. Example 1.1 revolves around a request to allow people to print off material from the computer screen (i.e. to âscreendumpâ). Clara is the overall manager of the section from which most of this project team has been selected; Sandy is the project manager. With this background it is easier to understand the referential content of the excerpt: Clara is giving a very clear directive that under no circumstances will people be allowed to print material from their screens.
A great deal of workplace talk is firmly embedded in its social and organisational context in this way. Co-workers typically take a great deal for granted; they share common assumptions, a common reference system, and use the same jargon or system of verbal shortcuts. They often share extensive background knowledge and experiences and may have similar values and attitudes towards work and the objectives of their organisation. Together these constitute a common workplace culture. Indeed, many workplace groups, such as those interacting in Example 1.1, could be described as âcommunities of practiceâ â groups who regularly engage with each other in the service of a joint enterprise, and who share a repertoire of resources which enables them to communicate in a kind of verbal shorthand which is often difficult for outsiders to penetrate (Wenger 1998). The community of practice is a concept which illuminates a number of aspects of workplace interaction.
Example 1.1 is also a very clear instance of âdoing powerâ at work. Clara is the most senior person at the meeting and her uncompromising, explicit and repeated directive no screendumps (lines 4, 6, 8) reflects her status in the organisational hierarchy. No one else in this meeting, not even Sandy, the project manager, could acceptably express themselves in such an uncompromisingly direct manner, except perhaps with humorous intent (see Chapter 6). Clara is here doing power very explicitly and baldly, apparently disregarding conventionally polite ways of disagreeing with her colleagues.
On the other hand, the teamâs well-established rapport and its in-group solidarity mechanisms enable them to âmanageâ Claraâs peremptory veto in a way that preserves good working relations. Peggyâs sarcastic thank you Clara (line 7) provides an initial tension-breaker. Members of the team then provide reasons for allowing screendumps, and Clara responds (line 11) with a more conventionally polite dismissal of their suggestions thanks for looking at that though. Sandyâs internally contradictory suggestion that Clara may be wavering so thatâs a clear well maybe no (line 12) is deliberately humorous, but it leads Clara to restate her position quite explicitly itâs a no (line 13). Again Sandy defuses the tension with a humorous hyperbolic comment itâs a no a royal no (line 14), echoing a reference to an earlier episode in which Claraâs status had been satirised as queen. Finally, Clara too contributes to the defusing of the tension with a tongue-in-cheek comment which draws explicit attention to feelings which people usually conceal in a business context did people feel disempowered by that decision (line 15). The teamâs firmly established good relationships thus enable them to ride out Claraâs âbald-on-recordâ directives, without irreparable damage to the âface needsâ of team members.2
This short excerpt illustrates nicely the ongoing negotiations between power and politeness which are typical of interactions in many workplaces. Effective management of workplace relationships takes account of the face needs of colleagues, as well as the objectives of the organisation and the individuals involved. Before describing the database used in the analyses of workplace interaction in this book, we will briefly discuss the concepts of power, politeness and context which underpin the analyses, and in the process introduce the theoretical frameworks we have found useful.
Power
There are many ways of defining power. From a sociological or psychological perspective, power is treated as a relative concept which includes both the ability to control others and the ability to accomplish oneâs goals. This is manifest in the degree to which one person or group can impose their plans and evaluations at the expense of others.3 A more anthropological and social constructionist perspective extends this potential influence to embrace definitions of social reality (Gal 1995). Language is clearly a crucial means of enacting power, and equally a very important component in the construction of social reality. A social constructionist approach analyses every interaction as involving people enacting, reproducing and sometimes resisting institutional power relationships in their use of discourse by means of a range of coercive and collaborative strategies (e.g. Crawford 1995; Davies 1991; Dwyer 1993; Fairclough 1989; Ianello 1992).
Power in the workplace may be manifested in a number of ways. In Example 1.1, Claraâs authoritative position enabled her to define the rules which others were obliged to follow. But the linguistic manifestation of power need not be so blatant. In Example 1.2, a government organisation is discussing an issue which is a current hot topic in many New Zealand workplaces, namely the extent to which employeesâ access to the internet should be monitored and, in particular, the organisationâs responsibilities and liability in cases where employees gain access to pornography through their workplace internet connections.
Example 1.2
Context: Regular meeting of senior management team in white collar organisation.
1 | SAL: | itâs all too woolly I think in regards values violations |
2 | | Iâm more likely to come down on someone strongly and thumpingly |
3 | | for a personal values violation than a minor rules valuation |
4 | GEO: | what I said in the beginning was it all depends where you sit |
5 | | in other words whether you think thatâs a values violation /and = |
6 | SAL: | /well I guess that depends on what they are\ |
7 | GEO: | = thatâs I mean\ as I said you know |
8 | SAL: | but if itâs the bestiality issue |
9 | ROB: | oh yeah |
10 | SAL: | something which is at the edge of the law thereâs the legal side |
11 | ROB: | bestiality is not at the edge of the law itâs absolutely black and white |
12 | | illegal |
The excerpt illustrates Sally and Georgia exploring the issue of what the legislation means and how it should or could be interpreted (lines 1â7). Sally then introduces a specific issue, the bestiality issue (line 8) at which point Robin enters the ...