Introduction

This section examines how leader identities are constructed and negotiated in routine daily interactions in different workplaces. Managers, co-workers, directors, team members and team leaders are some of the more common identities that professionals construct for themselves and others in a workplace. The process of identity construction is a continuous one, and professionals may simultaneously enact more than one identity. These various identities can be in a complementary relationship (e.g. co-workers and team members), or they can be in a more contested relationship (e.g. a team member and a team leader). This section first introduced relevant literature, it then introduces the results of the ethnographic observations on the topic in one of a workplaces in Hong Kong.

 

In the same working group, members tend to develop distinct expectations about the norm of working together and these expectations would “create a shared repertoire of linguistic norms on which they regularly draw when interacting with each other” (Schnurr, 2008, p.1126). Such working groups are often classified as the communities of practice (CoP) in sociolinguistic research.

 

To recall from the previous section on workplace culture, communities of practice is defined as “an aggregate of people who come together around mutual engagement in an endeavor. Ways of doing things, ways of talking, beliefs, values, power relations – in short, practices – emerge in the course of this mutual endeavor” (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet,1992, p.464). There are three ways to distinguish different communities of practice, namely mutual engagement, a joint and negotiated enterprise, and a shared repertoire developed over a period of time (Wenger, 1998). The process of leader identity construction is thus highly depending on the characteristics of the community of practice concerned.

 

Theoretical Basis

Recent research points out that, leadership is not a static attribute or a position but instead it is a dynamic performance. Like other professional identities, “leader identities are relational phenomena which are not only co-constructed between interlocutors but which also acquire their meaning in relation to other identities” (Schnurr & Zayts, 2011, p.40- 41). Leader identities are co-constructed between leaders and their subordinates who may reinforce or challenge the identities in the on-going interaction.

 

Linguistically, identity construction is manifested in stance taking, style marking and code choice (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005). Stance taking refers to “the display of evaluative, affective, and epistemic orientations in discourse” and style marking and code choice are “similarly indirect processes whereby through the repeated use of certain codes or styles interlocutors associate themselves with particular identities”(Schnurr & Zayts, 2011, p.43). Leadership may also be indexed by certain interactional moves. In a meeting, leaders may open and close the meetings, move the discussion to the next agenda item, and designate responsibilities to team members (Schnurr & Zayts, 2011).  Furthermore, making suggestions on how to solve the problem, checking up on progress, providing evaluative feedback and summarizing the problem are also some of the significant transactional activities that “are indexed for power and authority and are thus associated with a leadership role” (Schnurr & Zayts, 2011, p.51). Through observing such interactional cues, one is also able to observe if leadership is accomplished in a typical hierarchical leadership, a shared leadership or a distributed leadership constellation (Gumperz, 1999). However, a leader’s identity may be delegitimized if other interlocutors challenge a leader or if the institutionalized power associated with the leadership role and its legitimacy are being questioned (Schnurr & Zayts, 2011). The two-way construction of leadership could be seen in the use of teasing and humour as communicative strategies.

 

Teasing is one of the strategies that interlocutors frequently employ in a workplace when they construct, negotiate or contest their leader or subordinate identities. With regards to teasing, Schnurr believes that “a teasing utterance expresses a potentially face-threatening comment but simultaneously indicates that it is to be understood as non-threatening” (Schnurr, 2008, p.1127). It is believed that through teasing in a workplace people may construct their identities as a leader or a subordinate, while simultaneously specifying their membership of a particular group.

 

Three kinds of teasing humour are classified, namely biting, nipping and bonding. According to Schnurr, “biting refers to rather aggressive and challenging teasing remarks which are primarily aimed at putting down the addressee. Bonding teasing has the opposite function: rather than challenging or dividing the interlocutors, it emphasizes common grounds and reinforces solidarity. Nipping is the most ambiguous term: positioned in the middle of the continuum, it combines elements of biting as well as bonding” (Schnurr, 2008, p.1127). It is suggested by observing a range of contextualization cues like intonation, laughter and other non- verbal features, one would be able to distinguish between biting, nipping and bonding types of teasing (Schnurr, 2008). Apart from the three types of humour classified above, the use of self-denigrating humour could also be used as a way to strengthen solidarity among the interlocutors.

 

Case Study

Case Study 1: International Finance Company

This ethnographic research took place in a financial services company with offices in Hong Kong, Bangkok, Moscow and Shanghai. Its target customers are foreign expats living in Hong Kong and the company offers offshore financial services, local and international estate services, mortgage arrangements, insurance broking as well as trust creation and asset protection. Among their staff in Hong Kong are employees from England, Hong Kong, the Philippines, India and the Mainland China.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While doing our ethnographic research in the Hong Kong office, we conducted an interview with the company’s managing director, Scott. As one of the leaders in the company, he stated repeatedly that “we believe in leading by example”. He stressed his vision for an open and friendly office where staff members work hard but also have friendly relationships. As we conducted our research, we noticed several interesting things.

 

The CEO and managing director’s office doors are always open. With clear glass separating the interior from the rest of the cubicles, subordinates could see everything that is happening inside their seniors’ rooms. The cubicles in which the rest of the staff worked in were only about three feet tall. Anyone walking by could see what a fellow colleague was working on. This physical organization and structure of the workplace affords an atmosphere of openness and inclusion among members of the company, and across members on different managerial levels of the institution.

 

While we were at the office, the CEO emerged twice from his room – both times humming audibly as he walked into meetings with his employees. The managing director would always crack a joke with the neighboring colleagues each time he exited his room. We noticed that the staff in the office would do the same. A colleague shared her humorous telephone conversation with a client to her colleague sitting across from her. They both joked openly and laughed while fellow colleagues worked in their cubicles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Example

At around 5 pm, a staff member was getting ready to leave early from work. She reported to the managing director and from the open door of his office, their conversation was audible to everyone. As she mentioned that she would be taking a day off the next day, Scott asked her what her plans were. She replied that she will be attending a woman’s leadership conference the next day, and he expressed interest by asking further questions such as, “What will you be doing there?” and “How did you enjoy it so far?” After about five minutes, they ended the conversation with a loud reciprocated laughter, and she departed from the office.

 

The above example reflects the relationality principle in action. “Identities are created in interactions through interlocutors’ practices and engagements – they are not simply a reflection of institutional roles and responsibilities but are the results of ongoing interactional negotiations” (Hall et al., 1999). This indicates that identities are constructed in interactions, rather than institutionally preassigned. The CEO and the Managing Director, despite having the institutional authority to restrict their interactions with the staff to transactional work, developed a more intimate relationship within the workplace by constructing a friendly and approachable persona each time they interacted with their staff.This softens the hierarchical relationship with their employees embedded in the institutional nature of the workplace. Their open door policy, transparent glass window and humming and joking with colleagues helps them construct themselves as inviting and approachable leaders.

 

As they chose to lead by example, as Scott mentioned in his interview, their behavior does seem to trickle down into the actions of other colleagues. This is exemplified in the way a manager interacted with his intern. As they were discussing a business matter, the manager approached the intern at his cubicle. The intern remained sitting with his hands in pockets while his manager stood. As the intern spoke to his manager in an informal way with slang language in use, his manager was extremely polite and formal.  The manager used many formalities in the conversation and repeatedly said ‘thank you’ when the intern reported his findings. Although it was a short conversation, the manager took the role of being grateful and polite, while the intern sat and spoke casually with his manager with his hands in his pockets. This episode, in addition to the ones described above, portrayed the relationality principle at play as identities are constructed never in isolation but always as a process involving different interlocutors. As the CEO and Scott chose to set an example of being friendly and approachable in their interactions with colleagues, their subordinates reflected the same behavior when addressing their own junior team members.

 

Lastly, we also saw the indexicality principle at play. The receptionist, who supposedly occupied a more junior position in the company, addressed a more senior colleague by “Hi Bri”, when his full name was Brian. This shortened form of address reflected a casual nature of their interaction. Her code choice mirrored a lack of hierarchy in her informal address although that particular colleague should be above her in ranking within the company. An even more overt example of the lack of hierarchy happened when the managing director joked with the receptionist and she scolded him for his lack of motivation to lose weight. There were no reference terms such as ‘boss’ or ‘leader’ in their conversation that would reflect their different status in the company. Rather, she took on a more authoritative role and reprimanded him for not being disciplined enough about his weight loss. He merely accepted her scolding and responded with smiles and nods. The receptionist took the stance of one in authority in both cases, while her superiors seemingly took on an inferior position. This reversal of roles showed that the leadership style of Company A’s seniors is lax and non-hierarchical. As they willingly constructed their identities as approachable leaders who did not appreciate being authoritative and domineering when interacting with their subordinates, their staff followed suit.

 

Case Study 2 - Fashion trading company

This ethnographic research was conducted in the Hong Kong office of a private Denmark-based fashion trading company that is located in Kwun Tong. There are 41 staff members in this office, of which 95% are locals. Since this is an international company with employees of different backgrounds and with worldwide branches, English is used as the lingua franca, the common language for communication.

 

In this ethnographic research, we observed one regular head meeting that is of weekly basis, in the company’s meeting room. Besides the two of us, 7 people of managerial positions participated in the meeting. The participants who were from different departments gathered to report and share information, while going through items on the agenda. The meeting revolved around a project about the operation and future direction of the company, and followed the pattern of reporting information, asking questions and providing answers. The tone of the meeting was mostly serious and formal, with a few instances of laughter. Participants engaged in formal oral communication and all communication was in English.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Based on the fact that they are the heads of different departments, it is assumed that every participant is on equal ranking and there should not be any hierarchical differences among them. Yet, after the meeting, we had the impression that Lauren has more power than the others, as reflected from her domination of the meeting. She is a German female employee who has been the global sourcing manager stationing in the Denmark headquarter. While Lauren spoke the most during the meeting in a tone that was particularly firm and assertive, most of her utterances were either in the form of i) questions like ‘but we don’t pay them earlier right?’, ‘what about the factory there?’; ii) comments, advices or suggestions like ‘I think this is useful’, ‘good’, ‘nice to know that’, ‘we have to be very cautious about this’; and iii) assigning tasks to the rest of the participants like ‘I would like your team to check on the materials’, ‘so you will be taking care of this’. Besides, Lauren was the only one among the participants who did a long and full presentation on her project, which was the focus of the meeting. With reference to the indexicality principle developed by Bucholtz and Hall (2005), the behaviours of Lauren, like giving evaluative comments, checking on progress and designating responsibility to others, were associated with a leadership identity through the sense of authority and power they evoked (cf. Schnurr & Zayts, 2011). While her knowledge on the topic she presented had given her expert power, by employing the interactional strategies as mentioned, Lauren seemed to be taking over the responsibility and presenting herself as the one in charge. The other participants in the meeting also seemed to support her identity as they generally contributed to the meeting by replying Lauren’s questions and giving simple feedbacks like ‘ok’ to her suggestions. All these may explain Lauren's perceptual superior ranking, which is not sourced from the institutional structure. This observation suggests that Lauren may be the leader; however, the results obtained from the short interviews we conducted suggest otherwise.

 

We interviewed two other participants in the meeting, namely Paula, the merchandizing manager of one of the brands, and Anna, the finance manager of the company. To our surprise, both of them did not regard Lauren as the leader, in the sense that they did not think she was more superior than all the others who were present in the meeting. There were two main reasons for such: 

 

1. The Company adheres to the project-based working principle. In other words, the project determines the person who will be taking charge. This time, we observed a meeting which focused on Lauren’s project. This made Lauren more knowledgeable among all the participants. Therefore, participants in the meeting understood that Lauren had the right to assign tasks because she was responsible for the project and so displaying such practices did not attribute her to a leader identity. Although we observed Lauren as the leader based on her acts and contribution to the meeting this time, if we had attended another meeting, there is a high possibility that we would have regarded someone else who is in charge of the project or issue being discussed in that meeting as the leader. 
    

2. While we knew that Lauren stationed in the Denmark headquarter and was not based in Hong Kong, Anna informed us that the day we observed the meeting was the first day Lauren arrived at the Hong Kong office. Since she was not always around and didn’t know much about the business operation of this branch, Lauren came in the meeting with the hope of informing the local staff about her project and to get more information on the Asian side of development. Therefore, it made perfect sense to the participants that Lauren would raise questions, check on progress, and ask for clarifications for certain data and ideas. It is then possible to say that Lauren employed these practices simply for the sake of finishing her task, but not for constructing a leadership identity. 

 

While we initially perceived Lauren as a leader in the meeting context, the two short interviews we conducted provided us with a completely different perspective in interpreting the data collected from the observation. In order to get the full picture of one’s leadership identity, it is therefore necessary for us to understand more about the professional context, the structure of the company as well as the relationships among the participants. For a more comprehensive analysis, it would be better if we could spend more time on-site by attending more meetings, conducting interviews with more individuals and making observations on their daily operations.

 

Reflection

Through our field work experience, we have learnt that leadership identity is constructed relationally. For example, it is constructed through interactions between members of a company and a byproduct of the company culture. There are also many indicators for one’s leadership identity and various ways to construct one’s leadership identity, such as the indexical processes of the indexicality principle. Although theories can be used to analyze identity constructions, our field work also demonstrates how different workplace cultures and different professional contexts lead to a variety of leadership identity constructions.

 

The limitations to this study are mainly related to a short period of time we were given to conduct this field work study. Therefore, if one was to conduct a research study on a similar topic, one may consider a more comprehensive approach such as using interviews and observation of various offices under one company to understand the situation more fully.

 

Reference

Bucholtz, M., Hall, K. (2005) 'Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach', Discourse
           studies 7 (4-5): 585-614.

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.

Gumperz, J., (1999) 'On interactional sociolinguistic method', in Sarangi, S., Roberts, C. (Eds.), Talk,
          Work and Institutional Order. Discourse in Medical, Mediation and Management Settings, pp. 453-
          471. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Hall, C., Sarangi, S., Slembrouck, S., (1999)'The Legitimation of the Client and the Profession: Identities

          and Roles in Social Work Discourse' In S. Sarangi and C. Roberts (eds) Talk, Work and Institutional

          Order: Discourse in Medical, Mediation and Management Settings (Berlin: deGruyter).

Schnurr, S., Zayts, O. (2011) Be(com)ing a leader: a case study of co-constructing professional identities
           at work. Basingstoke: Palgrave pp. 40-60.

Schnurr, S., (2009) 'Constructing leader identities through teasing at work', Journal of Pragmatics 41 (6):
           1125-1138.

Wenger, E., (1998). Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge
           University Press.