Politeness and leadership discourse in New Zealand and Hong Kong: A cross-cultural case study of workplace talk

STEPHANIE SCHNURR and ANGELA CHAN

Abstract Norms of what are considered appropriate and polite ways of communicating are situated in the cultural context in which interactions occur. This crucial role of culture is particularly apparent in a workplace setting: norms regarding appropriate ways of integrating the competing discourses of power and politeness at work are strongly influenced by wider cultural expectations. Drawing on naturally-occurring data recorded in business meetings in New Zealand and Hong Kong, and using Locher and Watts (2005) framework for analyzing relational work, this paper explores how leaders from two white-collar organizations achieve their various workplace objectives while simultaneously adhering to culture-specific politeness norms and expectations. The analysis focuses on just one of the discursive strategies which these leaders employ when performing relational work: humour. This strategy constitutes a versatile and multi-functional tool which assists leaders in achieving their various leadership objectives. It is particularly useful for building rapport with subordinates and mitigating the impact of negatively affective speech acts. The analysis explores how the leaders use of humour is consistent with culturally specific politeness norms negotiated in the leaders community of practice; and how by drawing on it the leaders also meet cultural expectations concerning the enactment of effective leadership. Keywords: leadership discourse, humour, culture, politeness 1. Introduction1 Behaviours that are considered as polite or politic vary depending on the context in which they appear. Locher (2004: 90) notes, for example, that [p]oliteness cannot be investigated without looking in detail at the context, the speakers, the situation and the evoked norms. In other
Journal of Politeness Research 5 (2009), 131 157 DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2009.009 1612-5681/09/005 0131 Walter de Gruyter

132

Stephanie Schnurr and Angela Chan

words, notions of what counts as polite and politic are always contingent on the situational and discourse context in which the utterance occurs (Eelen 2001; Mills 2003; Watts 2003). One particularly salient contextual factor that has an impact on the enactment of politeness is culture. Politeness is clearly situated in the wider cultural context in which it is expressed: in particular, norms of what are considered to be appropriate and polite ways of interacting with each other are embedded in the cultural context in which interactions occur. Conversely, cultures are characterized at least in part by their distinctive notions of what constitute polite or politic behaviours: cultural expectations influence interactive norms, and by regularly drawing on these particular norms, members at the same time enact, reinforce and shape culture-specific notions of politeness. Numerous studies have explored issues of politeness across diverse cultures. They have identified distinctive culture-specific ways in which members in different cultures enact the notion of politeness in their interactions, and in particular, how their appropriate and politic discursive behaviour reflects and reinforces culture-specific norms of politeness (e. g., Blum-Kulka 1987, 1992; Ide 1989; Gu 1990; Ide et al. 1992; Fukushima 2000; Koutsantoni 2004; Ruzickova 2007). In particular, remarkable differences have been identified in the ways in which politeness is enacted and perceived in Eastern as compared to Western cultures (e. g., Matsumoto 1988; Chen 1993; Yu 2003; Haugh 2004). This crucial role of culture with regards to what is considered appropriate or politic behaviour is particularly salient in a workplace context, where members constantly negotiate the competing discourses of power and politeness (Holmes and Stubbe 2003). Workplaces typically develop their own distinctive and preferred ways of expressing politeness, and members of different workplaces tend to differ substantially in the ways in which they do politeness. Norms concerning what counts as unmarked and appropriate behaviour are negotiated among the members of workplaces or working groups who form distinct communities of practice (we have explored these aspects in great detail elsewhere; see Schnurr et al. 2007, 2008). Ways of doing politeness at work, however, are not only influenced by the working groups or communities of practice (henceforth CofPs [Wenger 1998]) within which organizational members communicate, but are also consistent with culture-specific norms. And ways of doing politeness actively contribute to the construction of different kinds of CofPs as well as to the reinforcement of culturally influenced notions of politeness. This paper explores how people in leadership positions from two white-collar organizations in different cultures, one in New Zealand and one in Hong Kong, achieve their various workplace objectives while

Politeness and leadership discourse in New Zealand and Hong Kong

133

simultaneously adhering to culture-specific politeness norms. And by drawing on these norms they also meet cultural expectations of what constitutes effective leadership. 2. Leadership across cultures People in leadership positions, perhaps more so than other organizational members, face a range of more or less specific expectations about what behaviours are considered effective and appropriate aspects of leadership performance in the context in which they operate. Elsewhere we have defined leadership performance as a communicative activity which includes both transactional and relational behaviours: doing leadership involves advancing the organizations goals while also maintaining harmony within the team (see, for example, Holmes et al. 2003; Schnurr 2009). Transactional behaviours focus on the task to be achieved, the problem to be solved, or the purpose of the meeting (Dwyer 1993: 572), while relationally oriented behaviours concentrate on creating a positive working atmosphere, ensuring that team members get along and can work together productively. Both activities are equally important for the performance of leadership (Gardner 1990). However, the ways in which these aspects of leadership are enacted by drawing on distinctive discursive strategies, as well as the relative emphasis put on these leadership behaviours in a particular context, vary across cultures. In other words, culture seems to be one of the most prominent factors that has an impact on defining the array of preferred and acceptable leader behaviours (Cullen 1999: 527; see also Guirdham 2005). Often, different expectations about appropriate ways of doing leadership are linked to culture-specific values, and are explained by drawing on frameworks of cultural dimensions (e. g., Hall 1976; Hofstede 1980). One of the most frequently used frameworks in this context is Hofstedes work. 3. Hofstedes approach(es) to culture In a large-scale study using evaluating survey questionnaires, Hofstede (1980) examined the values of IBM staff in branches across 64 different countries, and identified four dimensions along which he measured and characterized his participants (national) cultures: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, and masculinityfemininity. A few years later, Hofstede together with another scholar developed a fifth dimension, the Confucian work dynamism dimension (i. e., long-term vs. short-term orientation), which is closely related to

134

Stephanie Schnurr and Angela Chan

Confucianism, one of the most influential philosophical teachings in the Chinese culture (Hofstede and Bond 1988). In comparison with 63 other nations, New Zealand was rated as above average in individualism and masculinity, moderate on uncertainty avoidance, and relatively low in power distance (Hofstede 1980) and in Confucian work dynamism (Hofstede and Bond 1988). Hong Kong, on the other hand, was characterized by high power distance, low uncertainty avoidance, moderate individualism, as well as above average in masculinity (Hofstede 1980) and in Confucian work dynamism (Hofstede and Bond 1988). These ratings along Hofstedes dimensions also have an impact on notions of leadership performance (see, for example, Evans et al. 1995). A particularly crucial dimension in this context is the power distance dimension, which describes the extent to which less powerful individuals accept and respect the unequal distribution of power (Hofstede 1980). Applied to a workplace context, this dimension indicates the extent to which superiors and subordinates may influence each others behaviour (Hofstede 1980: 99). In high power distance cultures such as Hong Kong, superiors are typically seen as a benevolent autocrat or good father. The more senior person is expected to be faithful and caring while the more junior is expected to be loyal and obedient (Redding 1990; Westwood 1992; Selmer and de Leon 2003). In cultures with low power distance such as New Zealand, by contrast, leaders are often viewed as a resourceful democrat (Hofstede 1995: 151). Not surprisingly, then, preferred leadership styles also vary across cultures, and the extent to which cultures are rated along the power distance dimension has a crucial impact on expectations about what is considered appropriate and effective leadership performance. Chee and West (2004: 71), for instance, note that [i]n cultures with high power distance, subordinates expect to be led and do not question authority. And Cullen (1999: 531) argues that subordinates in these cultures expect autocratic leadership. In cultures with low power distance, on the other hand, subordinates prefer more consultative leadership styles: they expected to be consulted before a decision was made that affected their work (Hofstede 2001: 103, referring to a study conducted by Smith et al. 1994). However, Hofstedes approach has been criticized, particularly regarding its restricted methodology and the alleged universal applicability of the four dimensions (e. g., McSweeney 2002; see also Sondergaard 1994). Some researchers have cautioned that things may be more complex than suggested in these studies and that [t]aking solely cultural factors into consideration in analyzing intercultural interactions runs the risk of making stereotypical statements and presenting rigid views about intercultural communication (Cheng 2003: 10). Nevertheless, Hofstedes di-

Politeness and leadership discourse in New Zealand and Hong Kong

135

mensions provide useful guidelines along which cultures may be assessed and compared (Williamson 2002), and they constitute a popular framework for explaining differences observed inter-culturally and cross-culturally. Thus, although these differences clearly represent generalized patterns that are unlikely to apply to every organization in either New Zealand or Hong Kong, they nevertheless provide useful general pictures of both cultures which serve as a starting point for our analysis. In our cross-cultural case study we aim to explore ways in which two leaders in a low and a high power distance culture (New Zealand and Hong Kong, respectively) interact with their subordinates and discuss the extent to which this is consistent with culture-specific politeness norms. We also examine how through their discursive behaviour these individuals reflect, reinforce, negotiate and at times resist certain aspects of cultural expectations about doing leadership appropriately. 4. Framework of politeness In order to explore the ways in which two leaders achieve their various workplace objectives by adhering to culture-specific norms of effective leadership performance, we draw on the framework of relational work developed by Watts (1992, 2003) and expanded by Locher and Watts (2005). Since Brown and Levinsons seminal work on politeness theory, research on politeness has moved on considerably, and recent models regard politeness as a matter of subjective judgments about social appropriateness. This idea has been developed in some detail by Watts (2003) and Locher (2004) (see also Locher and Watts 2005) in their comprehensive framework of relational work. They describe a continuum of relational work ranging from over-polite (i. e., negatively marked, non-politic) to polite (i. e., positively marked, politic) and non-polite (i. e., unmarked, politic) to impolite (i. e., negatively marked, non-politic) behaviour. They argue that most behaviours are unmarked and hence constitute politic and non-polite behaviour which goes unnoticed in everyday interactions (unlike positively marked and polite behaviour). Our focus in this paper is on politic or unmarked behaviour displayed by the leaders and their subordinates. In particular, we aim to explore how the leaders discursive behaviour reflects culturally specific politeness norms negotiated in their respective CofPs; and how by drawing on them the leaders also meet cultural expectations concerning the enactment of effective leadership. In order to achieve this aim, we focus on humour, just one component of the linguistic repertoire available to leaders to construct their professional identities and portray themselves as effective leaders in ways that

136

Stephanie Schnurr and Angela Chan

are considered appropriate or politic in the context of their CofP and their culture. Due to the diverse functions that humour may perform, it constitutes a valuable means for achieving transactional and relational aspects of leadership performance, sometimes even simultaneously. 5. Humour Although [h]umor and work are frequently thought of as mutually exclusive activities (Duncan et al. 1990: 255), humour may actually perform a myriad of positive functions in a workplace context. Most of these functions concur with crucial leadership objectives and may particularly facilitate the performance of relational tasks (see Schnurr 2009). In this context, humour may, for instance, motivate and support subordinates and thus enhance their job satisfaction which may in turn improve their performance (Coser 1960; Barsoux 1993). It is often used to create team spirit and to emphasize a sense of belonging (Duncan and Feisal 1989; Barsoux 1993). It may also help to minimize status differences between leaders and subordinates (Yukl 1989; Beck 1999), which in turn may have positive effects on subordinates motivation and performance. However, these generally positive functions of humour for leadership performance may be subject to cross-cultural variation. In particular, since the use of humour is influenced by socio-cultural factors, and because it is closely linked with cultural perceptions (Apte 1985: 16; see also Berger 1976), it appears to be a useful tool for providing insights into the ways in which cultural norms and expectations of politic behaviour are enacted in a workplace context. 6. Data and methodology In order to analyze the ways in which the leaders discursive performance, in particular their use of humour, reflects and responds to culturespecific norms of relational work, the analysis draws on more than 30 hours of naturalistic data collected in two organizations in New Zealand and Hong Kong. The New Zealand data was collected by both authors and forms part of Victoria Universitys Language in the Workplace Project data base which currently comprises more than 1500 interactions from over 22 organizations. The Hong Kong data was collected by the second author2. Both leaders were described as effective by the people they work with. The data consists of informal one-to-one interactions as well as larger, more formal meetings. This discourse data is supplemented by interviews with the leaders and the people they work with, as well as by participant observation, consultation of organizational documents, and a survey

Politeness and leadership discourse in New Zealand and Hong Kong

137

questionnaire to assess the workplace cultures of the two organizations (based on Hofstede 1997 and Hagner 2000, ms). Employing such a multi-method approach involving diverse sources of data provides depth to the linguistic analysis of the leaders discursive performance. It also provides valuable background information and additional knowledge which substantially contributes to the reliability of the interpretation of the linguistic data (for the various advantages of a multi-methods approach in a cross-cultural comparison see Gudykunst 2000). 7. Analysis We have chosen six representative examples to illustrate some of the ways in which Donald, the owner and CEO of a small New Zealand IT company (pseudonymed A&B Resolutionz), and Liu, the owner and CEO of a small Hong Kong colour production company (pseudonymed Rainbow), achieve their transactional and relational leadership aims while adhering to norms of relational work specific to their respective cultures and negotiated in their CofPs. In particular, we look at the ways in which Donald and Liu use humour to build rapport and to mitigate negatively affective speech acts, while at the same time responding to cultural expectations concerning the enactment of effective leadership. Although humour is frequently used to perform relational and transactional aspects simultaneously, we have divided our examples into two categories, looking first at humorous instances that predominantly perform relational functions (i. e., building rapport with subordinates), and secondly we examine examples where more transactional behaviours (i. e., the communication of criticisms relating to the failure of performing certain activities) are foregrounded. 7.1. Building rapport with subordinates Example (1) is from the beginning stages of a meeting. Will, Eric, Lucy and Ann are project managers, while Donald is the CEO, and Tessa is a member of the Board and Donalds wife. Before the meeting starts, Donald is about to sit down when Tessa reminds him to choose his place carefully to ensure he is captured on our video cameras. Example (1) 1 2 3 4 Tess: Don: Ann: it might be making a great movie of your BACK there Donald good [laughs] [laughs]

138

Stephanie Schnurr and Angela Chan

5 Eric: I was gonna //sit there\ 6 Ann: /oh that one will\\ have his tummy 7 Don: [laughs loudly] [some humour omitted since unintelligible] 8 Don: would you like me to hang it out 9 a bit //more [laughs]\ 10 Lucy: /[laughs]\\ no actually 11 Don: the meeting will get through 12 quicker Im sure //[laughs]\ 13 Lucy: /[laughs]\\ This example of humour is embedded in small talk which occurs just before the meeting starts. It illustrates how Donald is teased by his subordinates. In line 1 Tessa humorously reminds him to choose a good position so that our video cameras will capture him. This humour is then picked up by Ann who teasingly reminds Donald to choose a seat wisely because his current one will have his tummy (line 6). Donalds reaction to this teasing humour is clearly positive: he not only replies by laughing loudly (line 7), but he also plays along and produces more humour (lines 8 9 and 11 12). This extended instance of conjoint humour in which most of those present participate constitutes an effective way of building rapport among members of A&B Resolutionz. What is particularly interesting about this example, however, is the evidence it provides that Donald does not mind being teased by his subordinates and being the butt of their humour. Instead, he skilfully plays along with their teasing. This kind of behaviour is typical for this particular working group or CofP. Meetings of this team are characterized by a high frequency of humour, most of which is constructed conjointly (see also Schnurr 2009), and there is abundant evidence that it is acceptable for interlocutors to target their humour, in particular their teasing, towards Donald, the most senior person in the group. In this CofP, then, directing humour at superiors (including making fun or teasing around relatively personal topics) constitutes normative and politic discursive behaviour, as the reactions of Donald and his subordinates indicate. By using and responding to humour in ways described above, Donald minimizes status differences among interlocutors, and downplaying his status and power he also portrays himself as one of them rather than as their superior. Although minimizing status differences may not be perceived as stereotypical leadership behaviour, it nevertheless has several positive effects, such as emphasizing collaboration and fostering egalitarian relationships (Yukl 1989; Beck 1999). This behaviour is also typical for Donalds leadership performance (see Schnurr 2009) and it

Politeness and leadership discourse in New Zealand and Hong Kong

139

reflects characteristics of leadership behaviours that are considered to be normative and appropriate in a New Zealand context. We discuss this issue below after looking at another example from A&B Resolutionz. Example (2) occurred during a job interview with Michael, a potential new employee, who is about to join Anns team at A&B Resolutionz. Donald, who usually wears shorts and no shoes around the office, is dressed relatively formal wearing a suit and tie (as well as shoes). Example (2) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Don: things are looking like this year will probably be our best year ever um but it does come on the back of you know fairly tight fairly lean times were just now theres four main shareholders um so its you know its however deep our pockets are and you can see the quality of my suit //[laughs]\ /[laughs]\\ hes got shoes on so he must be having //a good day\ /[laughs]\\ oh yes we try and run a relaxed atmosphere [laughs]

Mic: Ann: Don:

The ways in which Donald and his subordinate Ann use humour in this extract once more construct Donald as an approachable leader, who does not seem to put much emphasis on maintaining or reinforcing status differences. He presents himself (and is constituted by his subordinates and colleagues) as one of them. The humorous sequence is initiated by Donalds self-denigrating humour playing down the companys success instead of displaying his power and status being the CEO of a successful IT company. With his comment you can see the quality of my suit (line 11), he portrays himself as an equal or perhaps even of lower status than those present. And self-denigrating humour is an excellent means to achieve this (ErvinTripp and Lampert 1992: 114). Laughing at themselves, the leaders open up the way to a more honest dialogue, and their willingness to admit their own weaknesses and failures makes them seem more human

140

Stephanie Schnurr and Angela Chan

and approachable (Barsoux 1993: 112; see also Morreall 1997). Hence, minimizing status differences by employing self-denigrating humour constitutes a valuable means for performing relationally oriented aspects of leadership. This effect is further enhanced by Anns response to Donalds humour: she plays along by teasingly making fun of her boss often rather casual appearance: hes got shoes on so he must be having a good day (line 14 15). Her comment is particularly amusing since she doesnt address Donald directly but talks about him using the third person singular pronoun he as if he werent present. Donald thus gets excluded from the on-going discourse and takes on the role of a ratified overhearer who is partly distanced from the action (Kang 1998) while Ann creates an ingroup with Michael. Anns comment and the fact that she uses teasing humour to her boss further minimize status differences, and Donalds subsequent laughter as well as his supporting utterance oh yes we try and run a relaxed atmosphere (line 16 17) suggest that he does not mind being the butt of the humour. Instead, he takes up Anns comment and skilfully transforms it into a positive remark about the relaxed atmosphere of the workplace. This is further emphasized by Donalds use of the inclusive pronoun we (line 16) when referring to the organization. The ways in which Donald is portrayed in examples (1) and (2) provide evidence of important aspects of the notion of effective leadership in a New Zealand context. In particular, the emphasis he (and his team members) put on downplaying status differences appears to be characteristic for the discourse of New Zealand leaders (see Schnurr 2009). It has been observed, especially in New Zealand, that people in leadership positions often have a tendency to downplay their authority, effectiveness and achievements (Olsson 1996: 366). This behaviour may be explained by the tall poppy syndrome which is deeply embedded in New Zealand culture and which describes the cutting down of conspicuously successful persons (Moore 1997: 1393; cited in Peeters 2004: 4) to prevent any individual from standing out (Acheson, 2002). Hence, in order not to be perceived as a tall poppy the leaders may downplay their own expertise, and portray themselves as equals to their subordinates. However, we do not want to claim that all leaders in New Zealand conform to these cultural expectations in the same way or to the same extent. In fact, our earlier analyses of leadership performance (involving 6 leaders) in a range of workplaces (see Schnurr 2009) indicate that although each of these leaders puts some emphasis on downplaying status differences, they differed with regards to their choice of strategy to achieve this aim. And although all leaders who took part in the study

Politeness and leadership discourse in New Zealand and Hong Kong

141

employed humour, they differed in their choice of type and style of humour: one of the leaders, for instance, did not use a single instance of self-denigrating humour, but similar to Donald he was frequently the butt of his subordinates teasing and even jocular abuse. Another leader frequently drew on self-denigrating humour in order to down-play her status and power, but she was hardly ever the butt of her subordinates humour. These differences indicate that different CofPs develop different norms of what counts as appropriate and politic behaviour, and that behaviour that is considered appropriate and politic in one CofP may not necessarily be interpreted in the same way in a different CofP, even within the same cultural context. These observations together with Donalds behaviour in examples (1) and (2) illustrate that there is no one-to-one relationship between cultural expectations about effective or appropriate leadership performance and the leaders actual behaviour. Instead, our analyses indicate that these culture-specific expectations and norms are responded to differently in each CofP. By drawing on specific styles of interaction and norms of relational work (as negotiated among members of the leaders CofPs), leaders do leadership in ways that are considered appropriate and effective in their immediate working environment (i. e., their respective CofPs) while also taking account of cultural expectations concerning the enactment of effective leadership3. In other words, Donalds responses and use of humour in examples (1) and (2) can be viewed as an effective way of meeting New Zealand specific cultural expectations about leadership performance (namely, the importance of minimizing and downplaying status differences) by drawing on linguistic strategies that are considered as appropriate and politic for achieving this in his particular working group or CofP. However, since the notion of effective leadership as well as behaviours typically associated with it, vary across cultures (Clyne 1994; Thomas 2001), leaders in other countries may use different strategies for doing leadership in their CofPs. A rather different way of creating rapport is displayed by Lui, the CEO of Rainbow, a Hong Kong company. Example (3) was recorded just before Liu and some of his subordinates (Anthony, Daniel, and Richard) were to attend an exhibition in Shanghai. The extract occurred towards the end of the meeting, where Liu informs them about his plan for the schedule of the trip. Example (3)4 1 2 3 Liu: Ant: so we may take an early flight on Wednesday mm

142 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Stephanie Schnurr and Angela Chan Liu: yeah well fly very early in the morning by the time we are there they will have just started just finished the speech then it would be perfect //[laugh]\ /[laughs]: but itll be really early: Mr Liu\\ //[laughs]\ /yes \\ the earliest flight should be eight oclock eight oclock when we get there it should be eleven erm ten something but when you arrive the convention centre itll already be the time for lunch [laughs] yes thats good it doesnt matter we may have lunch with our clients theyll officially start at eleven oclock they will have just cut the ribbon at ten oclock there will be a speech which will take up half an hour those important people right it was the same in Beijing last year right they usually talk for a long time just like me no stopping yeah well let them talk it doesnt matter when we arrive the convention centre say elevenish mm

All: Ric: Dan: Liu:

Ric:

Liu:

Ant:

Although much could be said about this example we want to focus here on the ways in which Liu uses humour to build rapport with subordinates. The humour is embedded in transactional talk: Liu is informing his subordinates about his plans for the upcoming conference in Shanghai. In lines 6 9 and 29 34 he makes fun of those important people who typically attend this conference and who usually talk for a long time. He humorously explains to his subordinates that arriving a little

Politeness and leadership discourse in New Zealand and Hong Kong

143

later at the convention centre has the advantage of missing these peoples speeches (lines 6 9). By making fun of these absent others, Lui builds rapport with his subordinates by creating an in-group. This positive function is further enhanced by his use of the inclusive pronoun we in line 18: well let them talk. In employing these strategies, in particular the humour, Liu draws the circle around the participants of the meeting and makes them feel included (Morreall 1997: 240). However, in addition to making fun of these absent others, Liu also employs humour in what appears to be an attempt to downplay his status: They usually talk for a long time just like me (line 17). Moreover, Liu uses a colloquial Cantonese expression to further strengthen rapport or solidarity between interlocutors (he says gai doeng m dyun which literally means cannot be cut off by the beak of a hen, and which implies that his talk cannot easily be stopped). Like Donald in examples (1) and (2) then, one of the functions of Lius humour is to build rapport with his subordinates by creating an ingroup. However, unlike Donalds use of self-denigrating humour, Lius utterance seems tongue-in-cheek, and could perhaps be classified as pseudo-self-deprecation. Although Liu makes fun of his tendency to talk for a long time (line 17), his self-criticism is clearly ironic and he does not assume any of his subordinates to take him seriously. This interpretation is supported by our knowledge of the Hong Kong culture (in which it would be clearly inappropriate for subordinates to criticize their boss), as well as by participants responses. In comparison to the humour in the New Zealand data, Lius humour elicits rather different responses. His initial humorous comment about the fact that a late arrival will mean that they miss the speeches is responded to with lots of laughter (line10), while his use of self-denigrating humour (line 32) does not receive an audible response. The only reaction to Lius humorous utterance is Anthonys agreeing minimal response (line 38) which is probably an indication that he follows Lius overall argument rather than a response to Lius seemingly self-denigrating comment. Thus, rather than interpreting Lius behaviour as an attempt to downplay status differences, we would suggest he is building rapport with his subordinates by being friendly and by portraying himself as a human being rather than emphasizing his superior position. These distinctive ways in which Liu builds rapport are in accordance with the negotiated repertoire that characterizes this particularly close-knit CofP. In the data that we have collected of this working group at Rainbow, there is considerably less humour than in the meetings recorded at A&B Resolutionz, and Liu typically dominates the floor (a fact that he makes fun of here). Moreover, in this CofP subordinates do not generally audibly re-

144

Stephanie Schnurr and Angela Chan

spond to what looks like self-denigrating humour of their boss as this may be perceived as agreeing and thus face-threatening to Liu, and members never use Liu as the butt of their humour when he is present. The next example occurred during another meeting, in which Benjamin receives a phone call from his father on his mobile phone. He answers the phone and talks to his father very briefly. Example (4) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ben: Liu: Ben: Liu: Ben: Liu: Ben: Liu: [puts down his mobile phone] yeah excuse me Benjamin dont be angry oh no now- w- we //we have had this meeting for too long\ ( ) my father\\ my father //urged\ me /yeah\\ asked me whether //I am going home for dinner\ /talking to your father\\ in such an impolite manner how //can it be\ /[laugh]\\ you can be impolite to your boss you cant be impolite to your father //do you know that\ its hard to be a father /[laugh]\\ do you understand m

All: Liu:

All: Liu: Ben:

This instance provides an example of Liu building rapport with his subordinates by acting like a parent who is not only concerned about his employees performance at work but who also feels (at least partly) responsible for their well-being and behaviour outside work, in particular the way they treat their parents. And in contrast to example (3), Lius use of humour in this example builds rapport with his subordinates by minimizing status differences. As a reaction to Benjamins allegedly impolite behaviour towards his father, Liu reprimands his subordinate and takes the side of Benjamins father. He explains that Benjamin shouldnt be angry at his father for

Politeness and leadership discourse in New Zealand and Hong Kong

145

calling him during the meeting5 and puts some blame on the group for having the meeting for too long (line 6). Then, in lines 12 14, Liu explicitly reprimands Benjamin for talking in such an impolite manner to his father. The responding laughter (line 15) may be interpreted as a signal of embarrassment on the part of Benjamin and as a welcome opportunity for all participants to take a break from the rather long and tedious discussion they were engaged in prior to the phone call. Lius further explanations cause even more laughter, in particular when he explains that it is acceptable to be impolite to ones boss (i. e., to him) but not to ones father (lines 16 17). In saying this, Liu makes explicit reference to the importance of the family, in particular to harmonious, respectful, and obedient family relationships, a domain that is of crucial importance in the Chinese culture (Redding 1990; Selmer and de Leon 2003). Interestingly, in his remark Liu also makes a clear, albeit tongue-in-cheek, distinction between the role of a father (who has to be honoured regardless) and the role of a boss. His suggestion that it is OK to be impolite to ones boss (in this case to him) elicits some more laughter from the other interlocutors who thereby signal that they understand that this is meant humorously (since it is obviously not appropriate for them to be impolite to their boss). By producing humour in this situation and in particular by making fun of himself in such a way, Liu builds rapport with his subordinates and downplays status differences. While reprimanding subordinates for their inappropriate behaviour towards their parents appears to be an acceptable leadership behaviour at Rainbow, it is highly unlikely that Donald would interfere with his subordinates private conversations in a similar way. If he behaved like this in the New Zealand workplace context it would certainly be perceived as non-politic and perhaps even impolite or rude. These differences in acceptable leader behaviours can (at least partly) be explained by different culture-specific expectations. In the Chinese culture, people are expected to understand their roles and follow the dictates of proper role behaviour (Bond and Hwang 1986: 216) (cf. the discussion of example (6) below). For example, individuals in lower positions, such as children and subordinates, are expected to be obedient and respectful to those in higher positions (i. e., their father and their boss, respectively), and those in socially higher positions have the right and the obligation to teach their subordinates how to behave properly. Lius response to Benjamin, then, constitutes politic behaviour in the context of this Hong Kong workplace, and it could even be argued that it may be regarded as a trait of Chinese leadership style (Silin 1976; cited in Redding 1990). However, in Western cultures where individualism is generally highly valued (Westwood 1992), such an interference in what would be regarded as personal matters would most likely be regarded as inappropriate.

146

Stephanie Schnurr and Angela Chan

These four examples have illustrated that both leaders employ humour to achieve their relational leadership objectives by building rapport with their subordinates. However, our analysis has also indicated that although Donald and Liu both use humour to reinforce solidarity and to minimize status differences, they draw on this socio-pragmatic device to different extents, and they use it in different ways. While Donald uses humour to portray himself as one of them, it appears that Liu leaves little doubt about the fact that he remains the one in charge. This is reflected, for instance, in Lius pseudo-self-deprecation (in example (3)) and his question do you understand (example (4), line 22) with which he checks that Benjamin has understood his message. This claim is further supported by the observation that in example (3) Liu does not include the other interlocutors in the decision-making process (e. g., by not taking Richards concerns into account [see lines 11 12, 18 21]6). It thus appears that while both leaders make use of humour to achieve similar means, they do so in different ways with the result that Donald minimizes status differences with his subordinates to a considerably greater extent than does Liu. These differences are also reflected in the responses the leaders humour receives. While members of Rainbow generally do not participate in their bosss humour, Donalds humour is typically responded to with numerous contributions that continue and ratify it. Moreover, while subordinates at Rainbow do not generally respond with laughter to Lius self-denigrating humour (because, we suggest, this may be perceived as inappropriate and non-politic considering the status differences between interlocutors, which is important to recognize in Hong Kong), Donalds self-denigrating humour is frequently responded to with laughter and the production of more humour (such as teasing) which is explicitly targeted at Donald. Such an interpretation of the leaders linguistic expressions of downplaying status differences and of portraying themselves in a distinctive way is further supported by evidence from our ethnographic observation: Donalds typically very informal and casual dressing style (i. e., shorts, T-shirt and no shoes) nicely reflects and reinforces the relaxed working atmosphere at A&B Resolutionz, while Lius rather formal dress (i. e., suit, tie and leather shoes) conforms with the relatively formal working climate at Rainbow in which the hierarchical relationship between employees is strictly maintained. These differences are particularly meaningful since Donald and Liu are relatively similar in role and position in their organizations: both are the CEOs, founders and owners of their company; and, while both of them spend most of their time interacting with the members of their teams, they also regularly see clients. However, while Liu is always dressed formally Donald only puts on a

Politeness and leadership discourse in New Zealand and Hong Kong

147

suit for special occasions. Moreover, at Rainbow employees are required to dress formally (with the exception of casual Saturday), and not wearing shoes would be completely inappropriate on any occasion. The distinctive ways in which Donald and Liu draw on humour to achieve their various workplace aims, can be interpreted as responding to culturally specific norms of appropriate and politic behaviour for people in leadership positions. In particular, Donalds repeated downplaying of his own power and status can be viewed as reflecting the relatively low power distance that characterizes New Zealand culture, and as a response to the tall poppy syndrome. Lius behaviour, on the other hand, in particular his attempts to minimize status differences, appears to contradict cultural expectations. Based on work by Hofstede and others (e. g., Selmer and de Leon 2003; Westwood 1992) who have described the Hong Kong culture as high in power distance, we would assume that Liu would not typically employ discursive strategies to downplay his status. Instead, based on this literature, we would expect him to overtly display his more powerful position within the company. And indeed, a more detailed analysis of Lius behaviour has indicated that although he appears to be downplaying status differences by making fun of himself, he clearly maintains a hierarchical distance between himself and his subordinates. Unlike Donald, who portrays himself and who is constituted by his subordinates as one of them, Liu leaves little doubt about the fact that he is the one in charge. Although he makes fun of himself, it appears that he is confident that no-one will take his comments seriously. The examples have thus illustrated some of the ways in which culturespecific expectations of effective leadership performance play an important role in peoples behaviour in the workplace. In particular, Donald and Liu both draw on humour in ways that respond to cultural expectations of leadership performance while at the same time adhering to culture-specific expectations and norms of relational work. This aspect is further illustrated in the next section, where we look at some of the ways in which the leaders employ humour to mitigate the impact of negatively affective speech acts. 7.2. Mitigating the impact of negatively affective speech acts As we have argued in the literature section, humour is not only an excellent means of performing relational aspects but may also be used to achieve transactional objectives. And it is in particular the combination of these two functions which makes humour such a valuable leadership tool. Here we have chosen two examples that foreground more transactional aspects of humour, namely communicating negatively affective

148

Stephanie Schnurr and Angela Chan

speech acts, while also performing relational functions (i. e., mitigating their impact on the addressee). Donald and Liu also make use of humour as a means of achieving more transactional functions, such as when criticizing subordinates for their disappointing performance or a mistake they have made. The selected examples illustrate how both leaders employ humour as a means to mitigate the illocutionary force when performing these negatively affective speech acts. Example (5) is taken from a board meeting of A&B Resolutionz, in which all attendees are members of the companys board. The previous day Donald had disseminated some emails with important information relevant to the meeting. Samuel, who is on vacation in Australia and who participates via telephone at the meeting, has not read the emails. Example (5) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Don: Sam: Don: Sam: so do you not have access to any of that Samuel not not at the moment Donald no what have you done to your computer [laughs] its been its been m- more (i s t ac- as-) aspect (er) access (thats been) the problem aha aha [laughs] [laughs]

Don: Sam:

Imitating a reproachful voice, Donald mocks Samuel for not having read the emails (lines 1 2). Instead of anticipating that Samuel might not have had access to his emails since he is on vacation, Donald humorously accuses him of having caused problems with his computer. His teasing rhetorical question what have you done to your computer (lines 5 6) appears to criticize Samuel for not being well-prepared for the meeting and also prompts him to humorously justify himself. Samuels reply, especially his repair work (four restarts in lines 6 9) suggests that he wants to play along with the humour but perhaps has some problems producing a witty comment. His justification (lines 7 10) is humorously answered by Donalds ironic minimal responses aha aha (line 11), who once more makes fun of his colleague by indicating that he does not believe him. This example illustrates how Donald makes use of humour to mitigate the impact of negatively affective speech acts. He not only communicates

Politeness and leadership discourse in New Zealand and Hong Kong

149

his criticism or disapproval of Samuel but also expresses in-group solidarity, which is further intensified by their shared laughter (Devereux and Ginsburg 2001; Fine 1983). Thus, Donalds (humorous) criticism of Samuel enables him to portray himself as the one in charge, while at the same time mitigating his display of power and expressing in-group solidarity. Like Donald, Liu also employs humour as a mitigating strategy to minimize the negative impact of his criticism. Example (6) is from a Rainbow meeting. About one week prior to the meeting, four of the participants went to an exhibition (see also example (3) where this trip was planned). Each of the participants was supposed to write a report about the trip. Example (6) 1 Liu: hey do you remember 2 when I said the written report 3 is due? 4 Ant: the fourteenth 5 Liu: [laughs] 6 [smiling]: for sure it isnt: 7 (you-) at that time 8 {it was} the fourteenth (l-) 9 I told you two weeks later 10 right? 11 Liu: [laughs] //[laughs]\ 12 some: /[laugh]\\ 13 Liu: [smiles]: (you-) at that time 14 I told you two weeks later: 15 (the written report) said 16 {it was} the third of October: 17 Ant: k18 Liu: you again e- {was 19 your computer} infected by a virus? 20 Ant: no no [After a few more turns Anthony eventually admits that he mixed up the dates and the discussion ends] When Anthony provides an apparently wrong due date for the reports, Liu makes fun of his subordinate, in particular by directly contradicting Anthonys answer: for sure it isnt (line 6), and by explicitly correcting him (lines 6 10 and 9 10). This potentially threatening behaviour is, however, considerably mitigated by Lius laughter (line 3) and his smiling voice (lines 4 5 and 13 16).

150

Stephanie Schnurr and Angela Chan

After Liu has provided some more explanations for his criticism (lines 13 16), he poses a humorous (though perhaps a little challenging) question was your computer infected by a virus (lines 18 19). This can be interpreted as an attempt to move away from the topic by blaming the computer for the misunderstanding, i. e., by humorously suggesting that it might have been the computer that has prevented Anthony from finishing his report in time7. By humorously shifting the blame onto the computer, Liu considerably mitigates the negative impact of his otherwise direct criticism of Anthony. He thus not only expresses criticism but also builds rapport with his subordinates, e. g., by providing a break from the serious discussion and by reinforcing solidarity through the shared laughter (line 12). Examples (5) and (6) thus demonstrate that both leaders use humour to assist them in expressing their criticisms in a way that is not too threatening to the addressee, and which nevertheless enables them to get their message across. In doing so Donald and Liu manage to disguise the oppressive intent of their message through humour and enact their power in a subtle manner (Mullany 2004; see also Diamond 1996). Again, Donald and Lius behaviour could be explained by reference to cultural expectations concerning specific ways of doing relational work as well as expectations about effective leadership performance. As argued above, New Zealand is a culture of low power distance where people in superior positions are expected to downplay their status (cf. the tall poppy syndrome). However, since Hong Kong, by contrast, has been characterized as a culture with a high power distance (Hofstede 1980) in which politic leadership behaviour means overt display of power (e. g., Cullen 1999), we would expect Liu to communicate his criticism in a rather direct and unmitigated way. But similar to example (3) his behaviour appears not to adhere to these cultural expectations. Instead, he considerably mitigates the negative impact of his criticism by using humour and a smiling voice. This behaviour can be explained by reference to another cultural characteristic of the Hong Kong culture which is not considered in Hofstedes early work, namely Confucianism. Hong Kong, like other Chinese cultures, is greatly influenced by Confucianism, the core principle of which is harmony. According to this teaching, harmony is founded on the rules of correct behaviour in particular with regard to hierarchical relationships, such as between leaders and subordinates (Bond and Hwang 1986). As a consequence, Chinese leaders are expected to create and maintain a harmonious working atmosphere, in which confrontation and overt criticism would be considered as threats. Hence, by uttering his criticism in a smiling voice and wrapping it in a humorous remark, Liu mitigates its negative impact and thus maintains harmony within his team. By drawing on humour as

Politeness and leadership discourse in New Zealand and Hong Kong

151

a means to mitigate negatively affective speech acts in ways that are considered appropriate and politic in the leaders CofP, while also reflecting aspects of cultural norms of relational work, the leaders at the same time meet cultural expectations concerning the enactment of effective leadership. 8. Discussion and conclusion Norms of what are considered appropriate and politic ways of communicating are situated in the cultural context in which interactions occur. This crucial role of culture is particularly apparent in a workplace setting, where norms of appropriate ways of integrating the competing discourses of power and politeness are strongly influenced by wider cultural expectations. We have focused here on one aspect of workplace performance that appears to be particular sensitive to cultural expectations, namely leadership. We have explored some of the ways in which two leaders in different cultures, New Zealand and Hong Kong, do leadership in ways that are consistent with culturally specific norms of relational work negotiated in the leaders CofPs, and how by drawing on humour in particular the leaders meet cultural expectations concerning the enactment of effective leadership. Our analysis of naturally occurring data has illustrated that both leaders employ humour as a means of building rapport with their subordinates (thereby predominantly achieving their relational leadership objectives) as well as mitigating negatively affective speech acts (thereby predominantly achieving their transactional leadership objectives). We have identified some differences as well as similarities in the ways the leaders make use of and respond to humour, which we believe, can at least partly be interpreted as reflections of cultural specific norms of relational work as negotiated in the leaders CofPs. Donald and Liu both use humour to build rapport with their subordinates, in particular by creating in-groups and by minimizing status differences. However, substantial differences were found in the ways in which they employ this socio-pragmatic device to perform these leadership behaviours, as well as in the ways in which their subordinates respond to the humour. These distinctive ways of using humour reflect the leaders responses to cultural expectations about effective leadership behaviour and distinctive expectations and norms of relational work negotiated in their respective CofPs. The analysis has also indicated that both leaders use humour in relatively similar ways when criticizing their subordinates: the humour enables them to communicate the criticism in a way appropriate to their small close-knit CofPs by minimizing the negative illocutionary force on

152

Stephanie Schnurr and Angela Chan

the addressee. In doing so, they do not overtly display their power but rather downplay it. These behaviours, too, can be viewed as responses to cultural specific norms of relational work negotiated in the leaders CofPs. And by drawing on these norms, the leaders behave in ways that are consistent with specific norms of relational work that characterize their respective culture, while also meeting cultural expectations concerning the enactment of effective leadership. Our findings thus illustrate that workplace discourse, and more specifically politic ways of doing leadership, are affected by several layers of culture: in addition to expectations and norms of relational work that apply to the macro-context (i. e., the wider society in which the workplaces are situated), it is of crucial importance to consider the specific ways in which these expectations and norms are enacted and responded to on the micro-level (i. e., in individual CofPs). Our examples have shown that the various aspects of doing leadership while adhering to prevalent norms of relational work cannot always adequately be explained by referring to cultural values that characterize the macrocontext. Instead, we need to acknowledge that while it is important to recognize that behaviour is unique within each culture and, at the same time, there are systematic similarities and differences, there is also clearly room for individual negotiation of these norms (Gudykunst 2000: 295), namely in CofPs. We have illustrated that the leaders in particular respond to cultural norms of relational work as well as expectations of effective leadership: they do this by reflecting, reinforcing, negotiating, and at times resisting certain aspects of these norms and expectations in ways that are politic in their respective CofP. The particular ways, then, in which leadership is performed linguistically vary across CofPs within a particular culture. Thus, clearly, rather than viewing culture as a static concept it needs to be more productively understood as a dynamic performance which people incorporate in their various workplace activities while at the same time adhering to norms of relational work. Appendix: Transcription conventions // .. \ / .. \\ (hello) BACK {it was} Pause up to one second Incomplete or cut-off utterance Simultaneous speech Transcribers best guess at an unclear utterance Stressed word Words added in English translation to help comprehension

Politeness and leadership discourse in New Zealand and Hong Kong [] [laughs] [laughs]: no:

153

Section of transcript omitted Paralinguistic features in square brackets Laughter throughout the utterance of the word in between the colons All names are pseudonyms. Bionotes Stephanie Schnurr is Assistant Professor at the School of English at the University of Hong Kong. Her main research focus is the sociolinguistic and discursive performance of leadership and gender at work, and in particular the multiple functions and strategic uses of humour in workplace discourse. She has published on various aspects of leadership discourse in the workplace. E-mail: sschnurr@hku.hk Angela Chan holds a PhD in Linguistics from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Her doctoral research examined meeting openings and closings in business settings and explored the impact of national and organisational cultures on the discourse practices of business meetings. Her research interests include interaction in workplace settings and the interplay between discourse strategies and interactional contexts. She is currently a senior research fellow at City University of Hong Kong. E-mail: angela@cityu.edu.hk Notes
1. The paper was presented at the Third Politeness Symposium, University of Leeds, 2 4 July, 2007. We are thankful to Janet Holmes for valuable comments on earlier versions of this paper. 2. We thank those who allowed their workplace interactions to be recorded. 3. While we do not have enough space to elaborate this issue here, this argument is further supported by Donalds relatively feminine behaviour (e. g., as indexed by his frequent downplaying of knowledge and authority, and minimizing status differences) in a culture that has been described as above average in masculinity (Hofstede 1980). For a more detailed discussion of how gender is enacted in this CofP see Holmes and Schnurr (2005). 4. The interactions recorded at Rainbow were originally conducted in Cantonese and have been translated by the second author. 5. Note that the meeting took place on a late Monday afternoon after normal working hours, which reflects the typical business practice of working after hours at Rainbow. 6. Although Liu responds to Richards second attempt to express his concern (lines 22 ff.), he does not seem to take him very seriously as his response indicates. Instead of trying to accommodate to his subordinates concerns, Liu replies that it doesnt matter (line 23) and sticks to his original plan.

154

Stephanie Schnurr and Angela Chan

7. We presume that Liu is implying here that Anthonys computer has mixed up the dates in his Outlook diary. However, because this is not made explicit in the extract we cannot be certain about this interpretation although we know that staff at Rainbow used Outlook for internal communication.

References
Acheson, Helen (2002). Nurturing our tall poppies. Concepts. http://goldenkey.org/NR/ rdonlyres/7A762D53-0EBB6AC1745/0/8Features.2.pdf (accessed 15 Aug 2004). Apte, Mahadev (1985). Humor and Laughter. An Anthropological Approach. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Barsoux, Jean-Louis (1993). Funny Business. Humour, Management and Business Culture. London: Cassell. Beck, Dominique (1999). Managing discourse, self and others: women in senior management positions. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Western Sydney, Nepean. Berger, Arthur Asa (1976). Anatomy of the joke. Journal of Communication 26 (3): 113 115. Bond, Michael Harris and Kwang-kuo Hwang (1986). The social psychology of Chinese people. In The Psychology of the Chinese People, Michael Bond (ed.), 213 266. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: same or different? Journal of Pragmatics 11: 131 146. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana (1992). The metapragmatics of politeness in Israeli society. In Politeness in Language: Studies in Its History, Theory and Practice, Richard Watts, Sachiko Ide, and Konrad Ehlich (eds.), 255 280. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Chee, Harold and Chris West (2004). Myths about Doing Business in China. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Chen, Rong (1993). Responding to compliments: a contrastive study of politeness strategies between American English and Chinese speakers. Journal of Pragmatics 20: 49 75. Cheng, Winnie (2003). Intercultural Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Clyne, Michael G. (1994). Inter-Cultural Communication at Work: Cultural Values in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coser, Rose Laub (1960). Laughter among colleagues. A study of the social functions of humor among the staff of a mental hospital. Psychiatry 23: 81 95. Cullen, John B. (1999). Multinational Management. A Strategic Approach. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing. Devereux, Paul and Gerald Ginsburg (2001). Sociality effects on the production of laughter. The Journal of General Psychology 128 (2): 227 240. Diamond, Julie (1996). Status and Power in Verbal Interaction: A Study of Discourse in a Close-Knit Social Network. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Duncan, W. Jack and J. Philip Feisal (1989). No laughing matter: patterns of humour in the workplace. Organizational Dynamics 17 (3): 18 30. Duncan, W. Jack, Larry R. Smeltzer, and Terry L. Leap (1990). Humor and work: applications of joking behavior to management. Journal of Management 16(2): 255 278. Dwyer, Judith (1993). The Business Communication Handbook (3rd ed.). New York: Prentice Hall. Eelen, Gino (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.

Politeness and leadership discourse in New Zealand and Hong Kong

155

Ervin-Tripp, Susan and Martin Lampert (1992). Gender differences in the construction of humorous talk. In Locating Power. Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference (Vol. 1), Kira Hall, Mary Bucholtz, and Birch Moonwomon (eds.), 108 117. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group. Evans, W. A., K. C. Hau, and D. Sculli (1995). A cross-cultural comparison of managerial styles. In Cross-Cultural Management, Terence Jackson (ed.), 125 134. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Fine, Gary Alan (1983). Sociological approaches to the study of humor. In Handbook of Humor Research, Paul McGhee and Jeffrey Goldstein (eds.), 159 181. Berlin: Springer. Fukushima, Saeko (2000). Requests and Culture: Politeness in British English and Japanese. Bern: Peter Lang. Gardner, John (1990). On Leadership. New York: The Free Press. Gu, Yueguo (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 237 257. Gudykunst, William B. (2000). Methodological issues in conducting theory-based cross-cultural research. In Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport Through Talk Across Cultures, Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), 293 313. London: Continuum. Guirdham, Maureen (2005). Communicating across Cultures at Work (2nd ed.). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Hagner, David (2000). Coffee Breaks and Birthday Cakes: Evaluating Workplace Cultures to Develop Natural Supports for Employees with Disabilities. St. Augustine, Florida: Training Resource Network. Hagner, David (ms). Workplace culture survey. Unpublished manuscript. Hall, Edward T. (1976) Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press. Haugh, Michael (2004). Revisiting the conceptualisation of politeness in English and Japanese. Multilingua 23 (1 2): 85 110. Hofstede, Geert (1980). Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, Geert (1995). The business of international business is culture. In CrossCultural Management, Terence Jackson (ed.), 150 165. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Hofstede, Geert (1997). Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, Geert (2001). Cultures Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, Geert and Michael Harris Bond (1988). The Confucius connection: from cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics 16 (4): 4 21. Holmes, Janet, Louise Burns, Meredith Marra, Maria Stubbe, and Bernadette Vine (2003). Women managing discourse in the workplace. Women in Management Review 18(8): 414 424. Holmes, Janet and Stephanie Schnurr (2005). Politeness, humour and gender in the workplace: negotiating norms and identifying contestation. Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1): 121 149. Holmes, Janet and Maria Stubbe (2003). Power and Politeness in the Workplace: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Talk at Work. London: Longman. Ide, Sachiko (1989). Formal forms and discernment: two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua 8 (2 3): 223 248. Ide, Sachiko, Beverly Hill, Yukiko M. Carmes, Tsunao Ogino, and Akiko Kawasaki (1992). The concept of politeness: an empirical study of American English and Japanese. In Politeness in Language: Studies in Its History, Theory and Practice, Richard Watts, Sachiko Ide, and Konrad Ehlich (eds.), 281 298. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

156

Stephanie Schnurr and Angela Chan

Kang, Agnes (1998). Strategies of inclusion: addressee(s) in triadic exchanges. Text 18 (3): 383 416. Koutsantoni, Dimitra (2004). Relations of power and solidarity in scientific communities: a cross-cultural comparison of politeness strategies in the writing of native English speaking and Greek engineers. Multilingua 23 (1 2): 111 144. Locher, Miriam (2004). Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Locher, Miriam and Richard Watts (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1): 9 33. Matsumoto, Yoshiko (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 403 426. McSweeney, Brendan (2002). Hofstedes model of national cultural differences and their consequences: a triumph of faith a failure of analysis. Human Relations 55 (1): 89 118. Mills, Sarah (2003). Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moore, Bruce (1997). The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Morreall, John (1997). Humor Works. Amherst, Mass.: HRD Press. Mullany, Louise (2004). Gender, politeness and institutional power roles: humour as a tactic to gain compliance in workplace business meetings. Multilingua 23: 13 37. Olsson, Su (1996). A takeover? Competencies, gender and the evolving discourses of management. In Women and Leadership: Power and Practice, Su Olsson and Nicole Stirton (eds.), 359 378. Palmerston North: Massey University. Peeters, Bert (2004). Tall poppies and egalitarianism in Australian discourse: from key word to cultural value. English World-Wide 25 (1): 1 25. Redding, S. Gordon (1990). The Spirit of Chinese Capitalism. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. Ruzickova, Elena (2007). Strong and mild requestive hints and positive-face redress in Cuban Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1170 1202. Schnurr, Stephanie (2009). Leadership Discourse. Interactions of Humour, Gender and Workplace Culture. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Schnurr, Stephanie, Meredith Marra, and Janet Holmes (2007). Being impolite in New Zealand workplaces: Maori and Pakeha leaders. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 712 729. Schnurr, Stephanie, Meredith Marra, and Janet Holmes (2008). Impoliteness as a means of contesting power relations in the workplace. In Impoliteness in Language, Derek Bousfield and Miriam Locher (eds.), 211 229. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Selmer, Jan and Corinna de Leon (2003). Culture and management in Hong Kong SAR. In Culture and Management in Asia, Malcolm Warner (ed.), 48 65. London: Routledge Curzon. Silin, Robert H. (1976). Leadership and Values: The Organization of Large Scale Taiwanese Enterprises. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sondergaard, Mikael (1994). Research note. Hofstedes consequences: a study of reviews, citations and replications. Organization Studies 15 (3): 447 456. Smith, Peter B., Mark F. Peterson, Debo Akande, Victor Callan, Nam Guk Cho, Jorge Jesuino, Maria Alice DAmorim, Paul Koopman, Kwok Leung, Shahrenaz Mortazawi, John Munene, Mark Radford, Arja Ropo, Grant Savage, and Conrad Viedge (1994). Organizational event management in fourteen countries: a comparison with Hofstedes dimensions. In Journeys into Cross-Cultural Psychology, Anne-Marie Bouvy, Fons J. R. van de Vijver, Pawel Boski, and Paul Schmitz (eds.), 364 373. Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Politeness and leadership discourse in New Zealand and Hong Kong

157

Thomas, David C. (2001) Leadership across cultures: a New Zealand perspective. In Leadership in the Antipodes: Findings, Implications and a Leader Profile, Ken W. Parry (ed.), 22 45. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington. Watts, Richard (1992). Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: reconsidering claims for universality. In Politeness in Language. Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, Richard Watts, Sachiko Ide, and Konrad Ehlich (eds.), 43 66. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Watts, Richard (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, Etienne (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Westwood, Robert I. (1992). Culture, cultural differences, and organisational behaviour. In Organisational Behaviour: Southeast Asian Perspectives, Robert I. Westwood (ed.), 27 62. Hong Kong: Longman. Williamson, Dermot (2002). Forward from a critique of Hofstedes model of national culture. Human Relations 55 (11): 1373 1395. Yu, Ming-chung (2003). On the universality of face: evidence from Chinese compliment response behavior. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1679 1710. Yukl, Gary (1989). Managerial leadership: a review of theory and research. Journal of Management 15 (2): 251 289.