Introduction

Workplace culture is “a system of shared meanings and values as reflected in the discursive and behavioral norms typically displayed by members that distinguish that workplace from others” (Schnurr, 2013, p.61). It is not limited to the ethnic background of participants in an interaction. Recent studies take the view that culture is dynamically negotiated during interactions between members in a workplace (Miller, 1999, p.96, Holmes & Marra, 2002, p.1685).

 

Theoretical Basis

The notion of Community of Practice (CoP) is a useful concept to explore the dynamic nature of workplace communication. According to Eckert and McConnell Ginet (1992, p.64), CoP is defined as “an aggregate of people who come together around mutual engagement in some common endeavor. Ways of doing things, ways of talking, beliefs, values, power relations - in short, practices - emerge in the course of their joint activity around that endeavor”. More specifically, members of a workplace engage in constant negotiation of the different norms and expectation of what is considered “acceptable behaviors” in the workplace. In this sense, it is important to analyze the culture of a workplace as a prerequisite for understanding and interpreting members’ communicative and behavioral practices.

 

Power relation is inherent to workplace culture as it is closely linked to every practice of a workplace - both relational and transactional. Power in the workplace can be classified into positional power and expert power. Positional power derives from the member’s formal title and position in a workplace, while expert power derives from his/ her “knowledge, aptitude, and ability” (Schnurr, 2013, p.82). The following case studies demonstrate how workplace communication can be analyzed with a focus on workplace culture.

 

Case Study

Case Study 1: District councilor

The integration of new members in the workplace is a typical case study on CoP since it involves the learning of what ways of communication and collaboration are deemed acceptable in accordance with a particular workplace culture. We conducted a job shadowing in a district councilor (DC)’s office in which a new assistant was in his first week of work. The workplace has four members in total, including the district councilor (Adam), two full-time assistants (Bryan and Cathy) and the newly admitted part-time assistant (Donald).

 

At the outset, ethnographic details of the workplace are available as a prelude to understanding its culture. The DC’s office has an open layout without walls or cubicles. The open environment design encourages collaboration and open conversation. The workplace may therefore be interpreted as having an open culture which encourages a non-hierarchical power structure. Since all the members are working in the same room, they can hear each other and participate in the discussions, and co-contribute to the decision-making process. In order to have a clear picture of the workplace culture, specific daily interactions between members of the DC’s office are analyzed.

 

Donald (the new assistant) is assigned to take charge of his first resident-visiting project in the district. The project is sponsored by a local environmental group as a means to promote the use of energy-efficient products. The DC’s office is responsible for both management and field operation activities in helping the residents to replace their traditional lighting with greener alternatives. When Adam (the DC) wants to discuss the detailed arrangement of the project, he asks Donald “Can you come (to my seat) to talk about the arrangement of Saturday? (你可唔可以過嚟講吓星期六安排成點?)” With this utterance, Adam mitigates his directive by putting it in a question form to minimize the sense of positional difference between him and Donald. However, the utterance is still embedded with an underlying power structure. Instead of coming to Donald’s desk, Adam asks Donald to go to his seat to make a brief report on the project. It is a typical example of superior-subordinate interaction because it is usually the superior who asks the subordinate to meet him/her rather than the subordinate who makes such a request. 

 

Also, since the interaction at hand was initiated between Adam and Donald, they are supposed to be the only interlocutors in the meeting. It is worth noting that although other members (Bryan and Cathy) have not been explicitly invited to participate in the discussion, the one-room office space enables them to be aware of the discussion and the issues raised. When Adam and Donald are talking about contacting each of the residents and reminding them of the installation time, Bryan joins the discussion by interrupting Adam. This suggests that the physical context is drawn upon in constructing workplace culture. Bryan directly expresses his opposition to Donald’s idea.

 

1.         Adam:    依個有排打喎=

                           It takes a lot of time to make the calls=

2.         Bryan:    =唔係啊. 唔打㗎喇.

                            =No. don’t do that.

3.                         因為係:.係我哋去唔係佢哋嚟吖嘛.

                            because it’s:. it’s we going to their places instead of them coming to us.

4.                         咁所以你一定預唔實時間㗎, 不嬲以前都係咁.

                            so you can’t be sure about the time, It’s always like that in the past.

5.                         你都係同佢講番上晝幾點到幾點去佢樓下屋企.

                             you should tell them that we will arrive during the morning time period.

6.         Donald:  如果有時間. 我會建議打一打同提一提.

                            If there is time. I will advise to just call and remind.

7.         Bryan:    但係. 因為你. 你講唔實㗎. 有時你知你=

                            But. because you. you can’t be sure. Sometimes you know you=

8.         Donald:  =唔係. 唔係講個時間. 只係提一提嘅啫(.) reminder.

                            =No. it’s not telling them about the time. it’s just reminding them(.) reminder.

9.         Adam:    Remind係都好嘅. Remind都好嘅.

         To remind is good though. To remind is good.

10.                      唔緊要喇, 你就reminder形式去打喇.

                           never mind, you just call them in a reminder format.

11.                      跟住(.) 唔緊要喇. 因為我都未咁樣做過.

                           Then (.) never mind. because even I haven’t done this before.

12.                      下次.做完睇吓下次點樣再做得好啲.

                            next time. when it is done let’s see how to do it better next time

 

In the example, both Bryan and Adam show endeavors to enact a harmonious and supportive workplace culture by taking different approaches to the project. Although Bryan overtly articulates his disagreement with Donald’s advice in line 2, his disagreement is mitigated since it is followed with a justification. By referring it to his past experience (line 4), Bryan has reduced the potential face threat to Donald. It is interesting that in a later interview, Bryan revealed that he was referring to his general experience in project arrangement when he said ‘it’s always like that in the past”. In contrast, Adam was referring to his lack of specific experience in arranging resident-visiting project which involves lighting installation. According to Pullin (2011), the integration of a new member into a workplace poses a complicated and even “contradictory” task to the superior. On the one hand, the superior needs to monitor and assess the performance of the new member. On the other hand, the superior needs to ensure a smooth integration of the new member into the team as a means for “building solidarity” (p. 266). In the example, Adam accepted Donald’s advice even though it is not practical and too time-consuming (as stated in line 1). His decision appears to be made to boost solidarity with the new member. In lines 9-12, he further gave recognition to Donald’s advice. By saying “even I haven’t done this before”, Adam implied that no one will be blamed even if things do not work well. Adam further reassures Donald that the project will turn into a valuable experience which helps him doing better in the future. In brief, Bryan and Adam have performed different communicative practices to develop a good rapport with the new member. Eventually, it encourages the new member to integrate into the workplace culture and its CoP.

 

Case Study 2: Law firm

Another workplace we visited is a law firm. The firm is a small-size office with a total of six employees: two senior lawyers, two trainees, one office administrator and one accountant. Other than the two senior lawyers, all the employees are local. According to one of the senior lawyers, the office is hierarchically structured, with senior lawyers assigning jobs for the trainees and the trainees would assist them in documentation drafting and researches.

 

In a workplace with employees from multiple language backgrounds, the firm adopted English as the lingua-franca. All written documents are drafted in English yet communication between employees may vary from Cantonese to English. Since the two senior lawyers do not speak Cantonese, there is a lot of code-switching involved in the communication. We notice a pattern that in practice, if the conversation only involves Cantonese-speaking employees, the communication will be in Cantonese but if it involves either of the two English-speaking senior lawyers, the lingua-franca English will be used. Often, it involves the process of translating from English to Cantonese or vice-versa. For instance, when the office administrator (Grace) delivered the senior lawyer’s message to one of the junior lawyer, she made use of reported speech, “Derreck問你搞店份野未(translated into English: Derreck (the senior lawyer) asked if you’ve finished drafting the document)”. As the clientele of the firm is mostly English-speaking foreigners. When a client is present, all the conversation will be in English, even if it is a private conversation between two local employees such as a discussion on how to make a skimmed milk coffee for the client. The use of English in the presence of a client contributes to the showing of respect. Since only the two seniors will handle meetings with clients, the client meetings are also conducted in English. The code switching between English to Cantonese also shows a change in the purpose of communication. Since it is a workplace with minimal communication, most of the conversation is purely transactional. However, the use of Cantonese in relational talk is more common than that of English. While the users of Cantonese are mostly employees in the lower-level of the office hierarchy, i.e. they are to take orders from the English-speaking senior lawyers, the use of Cantonese contributes to the feeling of an insider and they are more likely to involve in small talks. For example, after the meeting with a client where the accountant of the firm is first introduced to the client, a junior lawyer (Joyce) engages in a small talk with the accountant (Peter) using Cantonese. Here we notice a difference in the conversation as there are more relational talk. Joyce started the conversation with “頭先見client OK呀可？(How is the meeting with the client?)” and other causal talks such as “我見到你笑左 (I saw you smiling)” as to mock Peter for being too nervous. Yet, in their English conversation with their superior, they only gave minimal responses such as “OK”, “Yes”, etc. The switch of codes also indicates the different types of communication.

 

Regarding the communication between senior lawyers and their trainees, they are mostly transactional. A senior lawyer would give instruction to their subordinates. The senior would employ the form of questions such as “Can I get all the documents in a file?” or the positive-face strategy “I suggest you do that” to avoid the use of directives. In one case, a junior lawyer (Shelly) forgot to make one call to client. Derreck first started with a question, “Have you called [the client’s name] yet?” After knowing that she has yet to make the call, he replied by “I suggest you do that”. When noticed that Shelly was still not making the call, Derreck added, “I know you’re doing this. But maybe you should call him first. There’s another case coming so I’m just asking you to call him first.” This time more direct and with more emphasis on the importance of the call. Noticing the possible tension, Derreck then also employed the use of humor, “Hey I should’ve mentioned that earlier. That’s the priority” and ended it with a chuckle. This contributes to the maintenance of collegiality at work. The use of humor can be seen as an indirect strategy for enacting leadership and to attenuate the effect of an unpalatable decision.

 

Reflection

Culture determines the hidden work protocol in a workplace. It is a crucial element on how we should behave, especially under the hierarchical structure of a workplace, or we will be deemed unsociable or impolite. As illustrated in the above examples, workplace culture is dynamically negotiated in the interactions between members of a workplace. There are no general guidelines for how we should behave in all workplaces for each workplace has its unique culture and usual communicative practice. Therefore, newcomers in the office are advised to attempt observing and learning the distinctive communication and behaviour patterns in order to truly assimilate into a new workplace culture.

 

Reference

Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). 'Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as
          community-based practice', Annual review of anthropology, 21: 461-490.

Holmes, J. and Marra, M. (2002). 'Having a laugh at work: How humour contributes to workplace culture',
          Journal of Pragmatics, 34: 1683-1710.

Miller, K. (1999). Organizational communication: Approaches and processes. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth.

Pullin, P. (2011). Humour and the integration of new staff into the workplace: An interactional study. In M.
          Dynel (ed.), The pragmatics of humour across discourse domains, pp.265-287. Amsterdam: John
          Benjamins BV.

Schnurr, S. (2013). Exploring professional communication: Language in action. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon:
            Routledge.