GENDER IN WORKPLACE

Introduction

The relationship between gender and discourse has long been one of the major topics in theorizing work communication. Approaches to gender discourse research involves analyzing the ways in which language influences or reflects gender roles and stereotypes by critically looking into such linguistic cues or strategies as the use of pronouns, certain verb phrases, filler words, emotion words and many others. A range of linguistic methodologies, as introduced in the previous section (see here), and theoretical frameworks have been developed. Through describing and explaining the linguistic constructions and realizations of gendered discourse styles, one can also explore other associated topics of discourse including identity, leadership, power, ethnicity, and also global issues such as feminism and equality.

 

Theoretical Basis

Deborah Frances Tannen has researched extensively on gender-related issues. In her book Indirectness at Work (Tannen, 2000), she suggested that women tend to speak in a more indirect way compared to men, for example, they soften their tone and make commands or requests less compelling. Instead of playing themselves down or showing lack of confidence, indirect discourse can in turn show respect for others and contribute to constructing a polite image for speakers whose demands may be considered face-threatening in the direct sense (cf. politeness in workplace). In addition, it is often observed that a person in a position of authority gives directives to his/her subordinates indirectly as a kind of politeness strategy in order to make them even harder to reject. This refutes the conventional stereotyped association between indirectness and powerlessness, demonstrating the importance of thinking outside the box, including gender stereotypes, in conducting discourse analysis: Despite the fact that indirectness is conventionally and prevalently regarded as a “feminine” linguistic strategy, it is not rare in men’s language as Tannen (2000) has pointed out: “ways of speaking associated with gender are not sex-linked (i.e. not necessarily used by all women or all men) but rather sex-class linked (i.e. aspects of ‘gender display’ that become associated in a given culture with the class of women or the class of men but not necessarily with every individual in that class)” (p. 190). Indirectness as a “male” strategy is usually found in expressing negative emotions, revealing one’s weaknesses and in situations when there is a power hierarchy among men (male subordinates and superordinates) (see case study for more information). It is thus crucial to be cautious and critical when evaluating “gendered” strategies in workplace and professional discourse and consider other elements that may be significant to the interpretation of gendered differences such as, for instance, cultural backgrounds and situation-specific authority (see O'Barr & Atkins. 1980). 

 

Pioneering scholars often draw a clear line between “male” and “female” discourse strategies, especially in early discourse studies (e.g. Lakoff, 1973; Tannen, 1991; Keith & Shuttleworth, 2000). However, gendered discourse is no longer confined to establishing a gendered dichotomy in relation to linguistic strategies. Instead, studies look at how such gendered discourse is manipulated to help achieve one’s goals in communication, for instance, by constructing gender identity so as to fulfill the other side’s expectation. Hall (1995) examines the relation between gender and linguistic power by referring to a very specific case - adult fantasy lines. She illustrates that in reality, the dynamics between language, gender, identity and power are interrelated and can be much more complex. By adopting the “powerless women’s speech” and manipulating the female stereotypical conversational behavior, for example, acting submissively, raising their voice to “sound like a woman” and employing a variety of other “typical” feminine linguistic features (including but not limited to lexical hedges, tag questions, empty adjectives and intensifiers), the operators are actually the ones who own power in the sense that they are in control of the conversation flow and enjoy financial return as a result of employing these gendered strategies and patterns. Interestingly, some of the operators may be men, and they manage to be equally successful in matching their customers’ expectations and enacting different identities/personas (e.g. an Asian woman, a female student).

           

While men and women are often portrayed to display speech styles stereotypically associated with their gender in everyday situations including workplace talk, the binary categories themselves are not to be regarded as ontological. The interplay of gender and language is subject to the influences of social and contextual factors (Trudgill, 1974), which thus requires a flexible understanding.

 

Case Study

By observing the naturally occurring talks in different work settings, the following two case studies examine how linguistic choices that can be assigned to interlocutors’ gender influence workplace interactions, in particular interlocutors’ authority in professional positions. These data analyses provide insights into how research on gender and language can be conducted.

 

Case Study 1: District Councilor

Although managerial positions are traditionally dominated by masculine figures, higher ranking individuals in specific workplaces may deliberately employ feminine interactional strategies to complete the tasks. In District Council, workers linguistically minimize the asymmetry in professional-lay person relationship to create a sincere and approachable image for themselves. Based on its specific job function feminine speech style is found to be more persuasive and acceptable.

 

District Council serves to collect public opinion and promote district development. The District Council where this ethnographic study was conducted is a male-dominated workplace that consists of 4 staff members: District Council Member Adam and lower-ranking colleagues Bryan, Donald and Cathy (these names are anonymized). District council’s working area covers the whole district, where the residents are mainly elderly people. As the job involves frequent contact with old people, communication may be expected to be clear, friendly, and focus on constructing bonding with the local community.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Researchers shadowed Adam and his assistants for two days as they performed community service in the district and the office. In the first visit, Adam set up a registration counter at an estate’s entrance to promote a free lightbulb installation programme. While conversing with local residents, Adam balances the needs for preserving authoritative status as the District’s representative and consultant and establishing and maintaining friendly relationship with the residents using feminine interactional styles as Example 1 demonstrates.

 

Example 1

Adam: 早晨啊！你買啲菜睇落好新鮮喎！咁好眼光嘅。話說，我地搞緊個免費嘅LED燈安裝計劃。佢哋光啲又用少啲電啲嫁！慳番啲能源！過黎睇吓！

Adam: Good morning! The vegetables you bought look very fresh! Good eye. By the way, we are organizing a free LED light bulb installation service. They are brighter and use less electricity! Save energy! Take a look!

 

Adam typically opened his conversation with non-task related small talk by sharing personal opinion on the weather and praising the elderly. Instead of using short, direct utterances to assert professional knowledge, Adam tried to enhance clarity of speech and simplified technical terms. He paraphrased ‘LED’ as ‘a brighter light that can save electricity’, followed with repetition and questions to ensure the elderly understood him. He further emphasized his bonding with the residents by holding their hands or giving them a pat on the back after the talk. With these feminine interactional styles that highlight his sincerity to serve the district, Adam mediated his authoritative figure, successfully capturing people’s attention to his programme and fostering closer connection with the local community.

 

In the second visit, researchers interviewed Cathy, the only female employee in the District Council Office, about the importance of gender in workplace and professional communication. Interestingly, she noted that local residents prefer dealing with her rather than other male colleagues if they needed a personal consultation. Indeed, Cathy’s 30-year working experience and familiarity with the neighbourhood have helped her establish an intimate relationship with the local community. Nevertheless, she thinks that the key reason for people feeling more comfortable with her is that she is a woman. Possibly, the facilitative, personal nature of feminine speech style is more effective at demonstrating speaker’s desire to engage and understand. Utterances created with this style thus create mutual trust and open up conversational opportunities. By mitigating utterances and minimizing the difference in status, Cathy establishes her role as a consultant.

 

In both contexts, workers of the District Council negotiate their professional statuses while simultaneously reinforcing the connection between themselves and their interlocutors. By employing feminine linguistic strategies, they downplay authority and build up trust and intimate relationship. For industries that highly depend on communication and human relationship, feminine, supportive speech style seems to be more preferable in terms of enhancing job efficiency.

 

Case Study 2: A Meeting for Nursing Professionals

While in many professions, male speech style would be considered a more powerful style, in industries that are traditionally dominated by female figures, the feminine “powerless” speech style might be more productive in achieving work goals. The role of healer or caregiver is often associated with the female figure. The researchers had therefore visited a meeting between nursing professionals and observed their patterns of speech to analyse how the industry would influence gendered roles in interaction.

 

The holder of the meeting, General Manager of Nursing, a woman called Eliza, adhered to many patterns that indicated “powerful” speech. For example, she opened the meeting by welcoming everyone, and proceeded to urge everyone to be precise due to time limitations. Both of these actions asserted her as the leader of the group. She often interrupted reports from her subordinates. The way she gave conclusions after each discussion is also a trait of leadership. These actions are often identified as male speech behaviour.

 

However, zooming in on a more local level, there were several interactions that showed the use of more feminine speech. In the following conversation, one of the participants (Angela) just finished reporting on the progress of a newly implemented program.

 

Example 2

Eliza: So uh (.) Does anyone have any question?

Gina: Well, (.) I don't exactly have any problems but maybe an opinion. ((Continues to describe the problem she experienced when implementing the program.))

Eliza: Okay, thank you, Gina. Does anyone else want to say something as well?

Kim: Well, I actually have something to say as well. ((Gives her opinion while others in the room form smaller groups and initiate their own discussions))

Eliza: Okay, now that we have these opinions, maybe Angela can evaluate them and report back in the next meeting?

 

As mentioned above, Eliza used a lot of “powerful” masculine speech style, such as initiating questions and giving evaluations. However, she also employed some mitigating devices, which are often identified as “powerless” female speech style. For example, there were clear hesitation markers and hedges (such as “uh” and “maybe”) that minimize status differences. By not directly challenging Angela, relationship between the two participants can be retained, which might facilitate future interactions. This is distinctly different from how male “powerful” speech tends to set up oppositions or debates as tools to develop ideas. However, it is clear that the common goal of finding possible improvement to the program is still achieved.

 

While it is not definite that “female” speech style would be more effective in a female-dominated industry, it can be said that these industries seem to be more tolerant and accepting of different kinds of speech strategies when compared to other industries.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A photo of the nurse meeting

 

Reflection

The study of language and gender has developed greatly since several decades ago and their relationships are proved to be dynamic, diverse and even multidisciplinary, especially regarding the possible approaches. While gender is continually being redefined by individual and group behaviours, centering language and gender research on local communities of practice allow us to better understand the complex identity, power and cultural relationships in shaping language. The analysis provides evidence that women and men in the workplace seldom consciously choose language options to create femininity or masculinity. On the contrary, they use different gendered discourse to best fulfill their professional positions.

 

References

Hall, K. (1995). Lip service on the fantasy lines. Gender articulated, 183-216.

Keith, G. R., & Shuttleworth, J. (2000). Living language: exploring advanced level English language: Hodder &
            Stoughton Educational.

Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman's place. Language in society, 2(01), 45-79.

O'Barr, W. M., & Atkins, B. K. (1980). " Women's language" or" powerless language"?

Tannen, D. (1990). Indirectness at Work. Language in Action: New Studies of Language in Society, Festschrift for Roger Shuy, ed. by Joy Peyton, Peg Griffin, Walt Wolfram and Ralph Fasold, 189-212.

Tannen, D. (1991). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation: Virago London.

Trudgill, P. (1974). The social differentiation of English in Norwich (Vol. 13): CUP Archive.