Cross Cultural Study of Workplace Talk

Politeness and leadership discoursein 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 communicat-ing are situated in the cultural context in which interactions occur. Thiscrucial role of culture is particularly apparent in a workplace setting: normsregarding appropriate ways of integrating the competing discourses ofpower and politeness at work are strongly influenced by wider culturalexpectations. Drawing on naturally-occurring data recorded in businessmeetings in New Zealand and Hong Kong, and using Locher and Watts’(2005) framework for analyzing relational work, this paper explores howleaders from two white-collar organizations achieve their various workplaceobjectives while simultaneously adhering to culture-specific politenessnorms and expectations. The analysis focuses on just one of the discursivestrategies which these leaders employ when performing relational work:humour. This strategy constitutes a versatile and multi-functional toolwhich assists leaders in achieving their various leadership objectives. It isparticularly useful for building rapport with subordinates and mitigatingthe impact of negatively affective speech acts. The analysis explores howthe leaders’ use of humour is consistent with culturally specific politenessnorms negotiated in the leaders’ community of practice; and how by draw-ing on it the leaders also meet cultural expectations concerning the enact-ment of effective leadership.

Keywords: leadership discourse, humour, culture, politeness

1. Introduction1

Behaviours that are considered as polite or politic vary depending onthe context in which they appear. Locher (2004: 90) notes, for example,that ‘[p]oliteness cannot be investigated without looking in detail at thecontext, the speakers, the situation and the evoked norms.’ In other

Journal of Politeness Research 5 (2009), 131�157 1612-5681/09/005�0131DOI 10.1515/JPLR.2009.009 � Walter de Gruyter

132 Stephanie Schnurr and Angela Chan

words, notions of what counts as polite and politic are always contingenton the situational and discourse context in which the utterance occurs(Eelen 2001; Mills 2003; Watts 2003). One particularly salient contextualfactor that has an impact on the enactment of politeness is culture.

Politeness is clearly situated in the wider cultural context in which itis expressed: in particular, norms of what are considered to be appropri-ate and polite ways of interacting with each other are embedded in thecultural context in which interactions occur. Conversely, cultures arecharacterized at least in part by their distinctive notions of what consti-tute polite or politic behaviours: cultural expectations influence inter-active norms, and by regularly drawing on these particular norms, mem-bers at the same time enact, reinforce and shape culture-specific notionsof politeness.

Numerous studies have explored issues of politeness across diversecultures. They have identified distinctive culture-specific ways in whichmembers in different cultures enact the notion of politeness in their in-teractions, and in particular, how their appropriate and politic discursivebehaviour reflects and reinforces culture-specific norms of politeness(e. g., Blum-Kulka 1987, 1992; Ide 1989; Gu 1990; Ide et al. 1992; Fuku-shima 2000; Koutsantoni 2004; Ruzickova 2007). In particular, remark-able differences have been identified in the ways in which politeness isenacted 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 appro-priate or politic behaviour is particularly salient in a workplace context,where members constantly negotiate the competing discourses of powerand politeness (Holmes and Stubbe 2003). Workplaces typically developtheir own distinctive and preferred ways of expressing politeness, andmembers of different workplaces tend to differ substantially in the waysin which they ‘do politeness’. Norms concerning what counts as un-marked and appropriate behaviour are negotiated among the membersof workplaces or working groups who form distinct communities ofpractice (we have explored these aspects in great detail elsewhere; seeSchnurr et al. 2007, 2008). Ways of doing politeness at work, however,are not only influenced by the working groups or communities of prac-tice (henceforth CofPs [Wenger 1998]) within which organizational mem-bers communicate, but are also consistent with culture-specific norms.And ways of doing politeness actively contribute to the construction ofdifferent kinds of CofPs as well as to the reinforcement of culturallyinfluenced notions of politeness.

This paper explores how people in leadership positions from twowhite-collar organizations in different cultures, one in New Zealand andone 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 bydrawing on these norms they also meet cultural expectations of whatconstitutes effective leadership.

2. Leadership across cultures

People in leadership positions, perhaps more so than other organiza-tional members, face a range of more or less specific expectations aboutwhat behaviours are considered ‘effective’ and appropriate aspects ofleadership performance in the context in which they operate.

Elsewhere we have defined leadership performance as a communica-tive activity which includes both transactional and relational behaviours:doing leadership involves advancing the organization’s goals while alsomaintaining harmony within the team (see, for example, Holmes et al.2003; Schnurr 2009). Transactional behaviours ‘focus on the task to beachieved, the problem to be solved, or the purpose of the meeting’ (Dwyer1993: 572), while relationally oriented behaviours concentrate on creat-ing a positive working atmosphere, ensuring that team members getalong and can work together productively. Both activities are equallyimportant for the performance of leadership (Gardner 1990).

However, the ways in which these aspects of leadership are enacted bydrawing on distinctive discursive strategies, as well as the relative empha-sis put on these leadership behaviours in a particular context, vary acrosscultures. In other words, culture seems to be one of the most prominentfactors that has an impact on defining ‘the array of preferred and accept-able leader behaviours’ (Cullen 1999: 527; see also Guirdham 2005).Often, different expectations about appropriate ways of doing leadershipare linked to culture-specific values, and are explained by drawing onframeworks of cultural dimensions (e. g., Hall 1976; Hofstede 1980). Oneof the most frequently used frameworks in this context is Hofstede’swork.

3. Hofstede’s 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 differentcountries, and identified four dimensions along which he measured andcharacterized his participants’ (national) cultures: power distance, uncer-tainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, and masculinity-femininity. A few years later, Hofstede together with another scholardeveloped a fifth dimension, the Confucian work dynamism dimension(i. e., long-term vs. short-term orientation), which is closely related to


Confucianism, one of the most influential philosophical teachings in theChinese culture (Hofstede and Bond 1988).

In comparison with 63 other nations, New Zealand was rated as aboveaverage in individualism and masculinity, moderate on uncertaintyavoidance, and relatively low in power distance (Hofstede 1980) and inConfucian work dynamism (Hofstede and Bond 1988). Hong Kong, onthe other hand, was characterized by high power distance, low uncer-tainty avoidance, moderate individualism, as well as above average inmasculinity (Hofstede 1980) and in Confucian work dynamism (Hof-stede and Bond 1988).

These ratings along Hofstede’s dimensions also have an impact onnotions of leadership performance (see, for example, Evans et al. 1995).A particularly crucial dimension in this context is the power distancedimension, which describes the extent to which less powerful individualsaccept and respect the unequal distribution of power (Hofstede 1980).Applied to a workplace context, this dimension indicates the extent towhich superiors and subordinates may influence each other’s 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 themore junior is expected to be loyal and obedient (Redding 1990; West-wood 1992; Selmer and de Leon 2003). In cultures with low power dis-tance 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 cul-tures, and the extent to which cultures are rated along the power distancedimension has a crucial impact on expectations about what is consideredappropriate and effective leadership performance. Chee and West (2004:71), for instance, note that ‘[i]n cultures with high power distance, subor-dinates expect to be led and do not question authority’. And Cullen(1999: 531) argues that subordinates in these cultures ‘expect autocraticleadership’. In cultures with low power distance, on the other hand, sub-ordinates prefer more consultative leadership styles: ‘they expected to beconsulted before a decision was made that affected their work’ (Hofstede2001: 103, referring to a study conducted by Smith et al. 1994).

However, Hofstede’s approach has been criticized, particularly regard-ing its restricted methodology and the alleged universal applicability ofthe four dimensions (e. g., McSweeney 2002; see also Sondergaard 1994).Some researchers have cautioned that things may be more complex thansuggested in these studies and that ‘[t]aking solely cultural factors intoconsideration in analyzing intercultural interactions runs the risk ofmaking stereotypical statements and presenting rigid views about inter-cultural communication’ (Cheng 2003: 10). Nevertheless, Hofstede’s di-


mensions provide useful guidelines along which cultures may be assessedand compared (Williamson 2002), and they constitute a popular frame-work for explaining differences observed inter-culturally and cross-cul-turally. Thus, although these differences clearly represent generalized pat-terns that are unlikely to apply to every organization in either NewZealand or Hong Kong, they nevertheless provide useful general picturesof both cultures which serve as a starting point for our analysis.

In our cross-cultural case study we aim to explore ways in which twoleaders in a low and a high power distance culture (New Zealand andHong Kong, respectively) interact with their subordinates and discussthe extent to which this is consistent with culture-specific politenessnorms. We also examine how through their discursive behaviour theseindividuals reflect, reinforce, negotiate and at times resist certain aspectsof cultural expectations about doing leadership appropriately.

4. Framework of politeness

In order to explore the ways in which two leaders achieve their variousworkplace objectives by adhering to culture-specific norms of effectiveleadership performance, we draw on the framework of relational workdeveloped by Watts (1992, 2003) and expanded by Locher and Watts(2005).

Since Brown and Levinson’s seminal work on politeness theory, re-search on politeness has moved on considerably, and recent models regardpoliteness as a matter of subjective judgments about social appropriate-ness. This idea has been developed in some detail by Watts (2003) andLocher (2004) (see also Locher and Watts 2005) in their comprehensiveframework of relational work. They describe a continuum of relationalwork ranging from over-polite (i. e., negatively marked, non-politic) topolite (i. e., positively marked, politic) and non-polite (i. e., unmarked,politic) to impolite (i. e., negatively marked, non-politic) behaviour. Theyargue that most behaviours are unmarked and hence constitute politicand 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 displayedby the leaders and their subordinates. In particular, we aim to explorehow the leaders’ discursive behaviour reflects culturally specific polite-ness norms negotiated in their respective CofPs; and how by drawing onthem the leaders also meet cultural expectations concerning the enact-ment of effective leadership.

In order to achieve this aim, we focus on humour, just one componentof the linguistic repertoire available to leaders to construct their profes-sional identities and portray themselves as effective leaders in ways that


are considered appropriate or politic in the context of their CofP andtheir culture. Due to the diverse functions that humour may perform, itconstitutes a valuable means for achieving transactional and relationalaspects of leadership performance, sometimes even simultaneously.

5. Humour

Although ‘[h]umor and work are frequently thought of as mutually ex-clusive activities’ (Duncan et al. 1990: 255), humour may actually per-form a myriad of positive functions in a workplace context. Most ofthese functions concur with crucial leadership objectives and may par-ticularly facilitate the performance of relational tasks (see Schnurr 2009).In this context, humour may, for instance, motivate and support subor-dinates and thus enhance their job satisfaction which may in turn im-prove their performance (Coser 1960; Barsoux 1993). It is often used tocreate team spirit and to emphasize a sense of belonging (Duncan andFeisal 1989; Barsoux 1993). It may also help to minimize status differ-ences between leaders and subordinates (Yukl 1989; Beck 1999), whichin turn may have positive effects on subordinates’ motivation and per-formance. However, these generally positive functions of humour forleadership performance may be subject to cross-cultural variation. Inparticular, since the use of humour is influenced by socio-culturalfactors, and because it is closely linked with cultural perceptions (Apte1985: 16; see also Berger 1976), it appears to be a useful tool for provid-ing insights into the ways in which cultural norms and expectations ofpolitic behaviour are enacted in a workplace context.

6. Data and methodology

In order to analyze the ways in which the leaders’ discursive perform-ance, in particular their use of humour, reflects and responds to culture-specific norms of relational work, the analysis draws on more than30 hours of naturalistic data collected in two organizations in NewZealand and Hong Kong. The New Zealand data was collected by bothauthors and forms part of Victoria University’s Language in the Work-place Project data base which currently comprises more than 1500 in-teractions from over 22 organizations. The Hong Kong data was col-lected 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 interviewswith the leaders and the people they work with, as well as by participantobservation, consultation of organizational documents, and a survey


questionnaire to assess the workplace cultures of the two organizations(based on Hofstede 1997 and Hagner 2000, ms). Employing such amulti-method approach involving diverse sources of data provides depthto the linguistic analysis of the leaders’ discursive performance. It alsoprovides valuable background information and additional knowledgewhich substantially contributes to the reliability of the interpretation ofthe linguistic data (for the various advantages of a multi-methods ap-proach in a cross-cultural comparison see Gudykunst 2000).

7. Analysis

We have chosen six representative examples to illustrate some of theways in which Donald, the owner and CEO of a small New Zealand ITcompany (pseudonymed A&B Resolutionz), and Liu, the owner andCEO of a small Hong Kong colour production company (pseudonymedRainbow), achieve their transactional and relational leadership aimswhile adhering to norms of relational work specific to their respectivecultures and negotiated in their CofPs. In particular, we look at the waysin which Donald and Liu use humour to build rapport and to mitigatenegatively affective speech acts, while at the same time responding tocultural expectations concerning the enactment of effective leadership.Although humour is frequently used to perform relational and transac-tional aspects simultaneously, we have divided our examples into twocategories, looking first at humorous instances that predominantly per-form relational functions (i. e., building rapport with subordinates), andsecondly we examine examples where more transactional behaviours(i. e., the communication of criticisms relating to the failure of perform-ing certain activities) are foregrounded.

7.1. Building rapport with subordinates

Example (1) is from the beginning stages of a meeting. Will, Eric, Lucyand Ann are project managers, while Donald is the CEO, and Tessa is amember of the Board and Donald’s wife. Before the meeting starts, Do-nald is about to sit down when Tessa reminds him to choose his placecarefully to ensure he is captured on our video cameras.

Example (1)

1 Tess: it might be making a great movie2 of your BACK there Donald �3 Don: good [laughs]4 Ann: [laughs]


5 Eric: I was gonna //sit there\6 Ann: /oh that one will\\ have his tummy7 Don: [laughs loudly]

[some humour omitted since unintelligible]8 Don: would you like me to hang it out9 a bit //more [laughs]\

10 Lucy: /[laughs]\\ no actually11 Don: the meeting will get through12 quicker I’m sure //[laughs]\13 Lucy: /[laughs]\\

This example of humour is embedded in small talk which occurs justbefore the meeting starts. It illustrates how Donald is teased by his sub-ordinates. In line 1 Tessa humorously reminds him to choose a goodposition so that our video cameras will capture him. This humour is thenpicked up by Ann who teasingly reminds Donald to choose a seat wiselybecause his current ‘one will have his tummy’ (line 6). Donald’s reactionto this teasing humour is clearly positive: he not only replies by laughingloudly (line 7), but he also plays along and produces more humour (lines8�9 and 11�12).

This extended instance of conjoint humour in which most of thosepresent participate constitutes an effective way of building rapportamong members of A&B Resolutionz. What is particularly interestingabout this example, however, is the evidence it provides that Donalddoes not mind being teased by his subordinates and being the butt oftheir humour. Instead, he skilfully plays along with their teasing. Thiskind 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), andthere is abundant evidence that it is acceptable for interlocutors to targettheir humour, in particular their teasing, towards Donald, the most se-nior person in the group. In this CofP, then, directing humour at superi-ors (including making fun or teasing around relatively personal topics)constitutes normative and politic discursive behaviour, as the reactionsof Donald and his subordinates indicate.

By using and responding to humour in ways described above, Donaldminimizes status differences among interlocutors, and downplaying hisstatus and power he also portrays himself as ‘one of them’ rather thanas their superior. Although minimizing status differences may not beperceived as stereotypical leadership behaviour, it nevertheless has sev-eral positive effects, such as emphasizing collaboration and fosteringegalitarian relationships (Yukl 1989; Beck 1999). This behaviour is alsotypical for Donald’s leadership performance (see Schnurr 2009) and it


reflects characteristics of leadership behaviours that are considered to benormative and appropriate in a New Zealand context. We discuss thisissue below after looking at another example from A&B Resolutionz.

Example (2) occurred during a job interview with Michael, a potentialnew employee, who is about to join Ann’s team at A&B Resolutionz.Donald, who usually wears shorts and no shoes around the office, isdressed relatively formal wearing a suit and tie (as well as shoes).

Example (2)

1 Don: things are looking like2 this year will probably be3 our best year ever4 um but it does come on the back of5 you know fairly tight6 fairly lean times7 we’re just now8 there’s four main shareholders9 um so it’s you know

10 it’s however deep our pockets are11 and you can see the quality of my suit12 //[laughs]\13 Mic: /[laughs]\\14 Ann: he’s got shoes on15 so he must be having //a good day\16 Don: /[laughs]\\ oh yes we try and17 run a relaxed atmosphere18 [laughs]

The ways in which Donald and his subordinate Ann use humour in thisextract once more construct Donald as an approachable leader, whodoes not seem to put much emphasis on maintaining or reinforcingstatus differences. He presents himself (and is constituted by his subordi-nates and colleagues) as ‘one of them’.

The humorous sequence is initiated by Donald’s self-denigrating hu-mour playing down the company’s success instead of displaying hispower and status being the CEO of a successful IT company. With hiscomment ‘you can see the quality of my suit’ (line 11), he portrays him-self as an equal or perhaps even of lower status than those present. Andself-denigrating humour is an excellent means to achieve this (Ervin-Tripp and Lampert 1992: 114). Laughing at themselves, the “leadersopen up the way to a more honest dialogue”, and their willingness toadmit their own weaknesses and failures “makes them seem more human


and approachable” (Barsoux 1993: 112; see also Morreall 1997). Hence,minimizing status differences by employing self-denigrating humour con-stitutes a valuable means for performing relationally oriented aspectsof leadership.

This effect is further enhanced by Ann’s response to Donald’s humour:she plays along by teasingly making fun of her boss’ often rather casualappearance: ‘he’s got shoes on so he must be having a good day’ (line14�15). Her comment is particularly amusing since she doesn’t addressDonald directly but talks about him using the third person singular pro-noun ‘he’ as if he weren’t present. Donald thus gets excluded from theon-going discourse and takes on the role of a ratified overhearer who ispartly distanced from the action (Kang 1998) while Ann creates an in-group with Michael. Ann’s comment and the fact that she uses teasinghumour to her boss further minimize status differences, and Donald’ssubsequent laughter as well as his supporting utterance ‘oh yes we tryand run a relaxed atmosphere’ (line 16�17) suggest that he does notmind being the butt of the humour. Instead, he takes up Ann’s commentand skilfully transforms it into a positive remark about the ‘relaxed at-mosphere’ of the workplace. This is further emphasized by Donald’s useof the inclusive pronoun ‘we’ (line 16) when referring to the organiza-tion.

The ways in which Donald is portrayed in examples (1) and (2) pro-vide evidence of important aspects of the notion of effective leadershipin a New Zealand context. In particular, the emphasis he (and his teammembers) put on downplaying status differences appears to be charac-teristic for the discourse of New Zealand leaders (see Schnurr 2009). Ithas been observed, especially in New Zealand, that people in leadershippositions often “have a tendency to ‘downplay’ their authority, effec-tiveness and achievements” (Olsson 1996: 366). This behaviour may beexplained by the “tall poppy syndrome” which is deeply embedded inNew Zealand culture and which describes the cutting down of “conspicu-ously successful” persons (Moore 1997: 1393; cited in Peeters 2004: 4) toprevent any individual from standing out (Acheson, 2002). Hence, inorder not to be perceived as a “tall poppy” the leaders may downplaytheir own expertise, and portray themselves as equals to their subordi-nates.

However, we do not want to claim that all leaders in New Zealandconform to these cultural expectations in the same way or to the sameextent. In fact, our earlier analyses of leadership performance (involving6 leaders) in a range of workplaces (see Schnurr 2009) indicate that al-though each of these leaders puts some emphasis on downplaying statusdifferences, they differed with regards to their choice of strategy toachieve this aim. And although all leaders who took part in the study


employed humour, they differed in their choice of type and style of hu-mour: one of the leaders, for instance, did not use a single instance ofself-denigrating humour, but similar to Donald he was frequently thebutt of his subordinates’ teasing and even jocular abuse. Another leaderfrequently drew on self-denigrating humour in order to down-play herstatus and power, but she was hardly ever the butt of her subordinates’humour. These differences indicate that different CofPs develop differentnorms of what counts as appropriate and politic behaviour, and thatbehaviour that is considered appropriate and politic in one CofP maynot necessarily be interpreted in the same way in a different CofP, evenwithin the same cultural context.

These observations together with Donald’s behaviour in examples (1)and (2) illustrate that there is no one-to-one relationship between cul-tural expectations about effective or appropriate leadership performanceand the leaders’ actual behaviour. Instead, our analyses indicate thatthese culture-specific expectations and norms are responded to dif-ferently in each CofP. By drawing on specific styles of interaction andnorms of relational work (as negotiated among members of the leaders’CofPs), leaders ‘do leadership’ in ways that are considered appropriateand effective in their immediate working environment (i. e., their respec-tive CofPs) while also taking account of cultural expectations concerningthe enactment of effective leadership3. In other words, Donald’s re-sponses and use of humour in examples (1) and (2) can be viewed as aneffective way of meeting New Zealand specific cultural expectationsabout leadership performance (namely, the importance of minimizingand downplaying status differences) by drawing on linguistic strategiesthat are considered as appropriate and politic for achieving this in hisparticular working group or CofP. However, since the notion of effectiveleadership as well as behaviours typically associated with it, vary acrosscultures (Clyne 1994; Thomas 2001), leaders in other countries may usedifferent strategies for ‘doing leadership’ in their CofPs.

A rather different way of creating rapport is displayed by Lui, theCEO of Rainbow, a Hong Kong company. Example (3) was recordedjust before Liu and some of his subordinates (Anthony, Daniel, andRichard) were to attend an exhibition in Shanghai. The extract occurredtowards the end of the meeting, where Liu informs them about his planfor the schedule of the trip.

Example (3)4

1 Liu: so we may take an early flight2 on Wednesday �3 Ant: mm


4 Liu: yeah we’ll fly very early5 in the morning �6 by the time we are there7 they will have just started8 just finished the speech �9 then it would be perfect

10 All: //[laugh]\11 Ric: /[laughs]: but it’ll be really early:12 Mr Liu\\13 Dan: //[laughs]\14 Liu: /yes � \\ the earliest flight should be15 eight o’clock � eight o’clock16 when we get there it should be17 eleven erm ten something18 Ric: but when you arrive19 the convention centre20 it’ll already be the time for lunch21 [laughs]22 Liu: yes that’s good23 it doesn’t matter24 we may have lunch with our clients �25 they’ll officially start at eleven o’clock26 they will have just cut the ribbon at ten o’clock27 there will be a speech28 which will take up half an hour29 those important people right30 it was the same in Beijing last year right31 they usually talk for32 a long time just like me33 no stopping yeah34 we’ll let them talk35 it doesn’t matter36 when we arrive the convention centre37 say eleven’ish38 Ant: mm

Although much could be said about this example we want to focus hereon the ways in which Liu uses humour to build rapport with subordi-nates. The humour is embedded in transactional talk: Liu is informinghis subordinates about his plans for the upcoming conference in Shang-hai. 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 longtime’. He humorously explains to his subordinates that arriving a little


later at the convention centre has the advantage of missing these people’sspeeches (lines 6�9).

By making fun of these absent others, Lui builds rapport with hissubordinates by creating an in-group. This positive function is furtherenhanced by his use of the inclusive pronoun ‘we’ in line 18: ‘we’ll letthem talk’. In employing these strategies, in particular the humour, Liu“draws the circle around” the participants of the meeting and makesthem feel included (Morreall 1997: 240). However, in addition to makingfun of these absent others, Liu also employs humour in what appears tobe an attempt to downplay his status: ‘They usually talk for a longtime � just like me’ (line 17). Moreover, Liu uses a colloquial Cantoneseexpression to further strengthen rapport or solidarity between interlocu-tors (he says ‘gai doeng m dyun’ which literally means ‘cannot be cut offby the beak of a hen’, and which implies that his talk cannot easilybe stopped).

Like Donald in examples (1) and (2) then, one of the functions ofLiu’s humour is to build rapport with his subordinates by creating an in-group. However, unlike Donald’s use of self-denigrating humour, Liu’sutterance 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 hedoes not assume any of his subordinates to take him seriously. Thisinterpretation is supported by our knowledge of the Hong Kong culture(in which it would be clearly inappropriate for subordinates to criticizetheir boss), as well as by participants’ responses. In comparison to thehumour in the New Zealand data, Liu’s humour elicits rather differentresponses. His initial humorous comment about the fact that a late ar-rival will mean that they miss the speeches is responded to with lots oflaughter (line10), while his use of self-denigrating humour (line 32) doesnot receive an audible response. The only reaction to Liu’s humorousutterance is Anthony’s agreeing minimal response (line 38) which isprobably an indication that he follows Liu’s overall argument ratherthan a response to Liu’s seemingly self-denigrating comment.

Thus, rather than interpreting Liu’s behaviour as an attempt to down-play status differences, we would suggest he is building rapport with hissubordinates by being friendly and by portraying himself as a humanbeing rather than emphasizing his superior position. These distinctiveways in which Liu builds rapport are in accordance with the negotiatedrepertoire that characterizes this particularly close-knit CofP. In the datathat we have collected of this working group at Rainbow, there is con-siderably less humour than in the meetings recorded at A&B Resolu-tionz, and Liu typically dominates the floor (a fact that he makes fun ofhere). Moreover, in this CofP subordinates do not generally audibly re-


spond to what looks like self-denigrating humour of their boss as thismay be perceived as agreeing and thus face-threatening to Liu, and mem-bers never use Liu as the butt of their humour when he is present.

The next example occurred during another meeting, in which Benja-min receives a phone call from his father on his mobile phone. He an-swers the phone and talks to his father very briefly.

Example (4)

1 Ben: [puts down his mobile phone]2 Liu: yeah excuse me Benjamin �3 don’t be angry4 Ben: oh no no-5 Liu: w- w- we //we have had6 this meeting for too long\7 Ben: ( ) my father\\8 my father //urged\ me9 Liu: /yeah\\

10 Ben: asked me whether11 //I am going home for dinner\12 Liu: /talking to your father\\13 in such an impolite manner14 how //can it be\15 All: /[laugh]\\16 Liu: you can be17 impolite to your boss18 you can’t be impolite to your father19 //do you know that\20 it’s hard to be a father �21 All: /[laugh]\\22 Liu: do you understand23 Ben: m

This instance provides an example of Liu building rapport with his sub-ordinates by acting like a parent who is not only concerned about hisemployees’ performance at work but who also feels (at least partly) re-sponsible for their well-being and behaviour outside work, in particularthe way they treat their parents. And in contrast to example (3), Liu’suse of humour in this example builds rapport with his subordinates byminimizing status differences.

As a reaction to Benjamin’s allegedly ‘impolite’ behaviour towards hisfather, Liu reprimands his subordinate and takes the side of Benjamin’sfather. He explains that Benjamin shouldn’t be angry at his father for


calling him during the meeting5 and puts some blame on the group forhaving ‘the meeting for too long’ (line 6). Then, in lines 12�14, Liuexplicitly reprimands Benjamin for ‘talking in such an impolite manner’to his father. The responding laughter (line 15) may be interpreted as asignal of embarrassment on the part of Benjamin and as a welcomeopportunity for all participants to take a break from the rather long andtedious discussion they were engaged in prior to the phone call.

Liu’s further explanations cause even more laughter, in particularwhen he explains that it is acceptable to be impolite to one’s boss (i. e.,to him) but not to one’s father (lines 16�17). In saying this, Liu makesexplicit reference to the importance of the family, in particular to harmo-nious, respectful, and obedient family relationships, a domain that is ofcrucial importance in the Chinese culture (Redding 1990; Selmer and deLeon 2003). Interestingly, in his remark Liu also makes a clear, albeittongue-in-cheek, distinction between the role of a father (who has to behonoured regardless) and the role of a boss. His suggestion that it is OKto be ‘impolite’ to one’s boss (in this case to him) elicits some morelaughter from the other interlocutors who thereby signal that they under-stand that this is meant humorously (since it is obviously not appropriatefor them to be impolite to their boss). By producing humour in thissituation and in particular by making fun of himself in such a way, Liubuilds rapport with his subordinates and downplays status differences.

While reprimanding subordinates for their inappropriate behaviourtowards their parents appears to be an acceptable leadership behaviourat Rainbow, it is highly unlikely that Donald would interfere with hissubordinates’ private conversations in a similar way. If he behaved likethis in the New Zealand workplace context it would certainly be per-ceived as non-politic and perhaps even impolite or rude. These differ-ences in acceptable leader behaviours can (at least partly) be explainedby different culture-specific expectations. In the Chinese culture, peopleare expected to understand their roles and “follow the dictates of properrole behaviour” (Bond and Hwang 1986: 216) (cf. the discussion of ex-ample (6) below). For example, individuals in lower positions, such aschildren and subordinates, are expected to be obedient and respectful tothose in higher positions (i. e., their father and their boss, respectively),and those in socially higher positions have the right and the obligationto teach their subordinates how to behave ‘properly’. Liu’s response toBenjamin, then, constitutes politic behaviour in the context of this HongKong workplace, and it could even be argued that it may be regardedas a trait of Chinese leadership style (Silin 1976; cited in Redding 1990).However, in Western cultures where individualism is generally highlyvalued (Westwood 1992), such an interference in what would be regardedas personal matters would most likely be regarded as inappropriate.


These four examples have illustrated that both leaders employ humourto achieve their relational leadership objectives by building rapport withtheir subordinates. However, our analysis has also indicated that al-though Donald and Liu both use humour to reinforce solidarity and tominimize status differences, they draw on this socio-pragmatic device todifferent extents, and they use it in different ways. While Donald useshumour to portray himself as ‘one of them’, it appears that Liu leaveslittle doubt about the fact that he remains the ‘one in charge’. This isreflected, for instance, in Liu’s ‘pseudo-self-deprecation’ (in example (3))and his question ‘do you understand’ (example (4), line 22) with whichhe checks that Benjamin has understood his message. This claim is fur-ther supported by the observation that in example (3) Liu does not in-clude the other interlocutors in the decision-making process (e. g., by nottaking Richard’s concerns into account [see lines 11�12, 18�21]6). Itthus appears that while both leaders make use of humour to achievesimilar means, they do so in different ways with the result that Donaldminimizes status differences with his subordinates to a considerablygreater extent than does Liu.

These differences are also reflected in the responses the leaders’ hu-mour receives. While members of Rainbow generally do not participatein their boss’s humour, Donald’s humour is typically responded to withnumerous contributions that continue and ratify it. Moreover, while sub-ordinates at Rainbow do not generally respond with laughter to Liu’sself-denigrating humour (because, we suggest, this may be perceived asinappropriate and non-politic considering the status differences betweeninterlocutors, which is important to recognize in Hong Kong), Donald’sself-denigrating humour is frequently responded to with laughter andthe production of more humour (such as teasing) which is explicitlytargeted at Donald.

Such an interpretation of the leaders’ linguistic expressions of down-playing status differences and of portraying themselves in a distinctiveway is further supported by evidence from our ethnographic observa-tion: Donald’s typically very informal and casual dressing style (i. e.,shorts, T-shirt and no shoes) nicely reflects and reinforces the relaxedworking atmosphere at A&B Resolutionz, while Liu’s rather formaldress (i. e., suit, tie and leather shoes) conforms with the relatively formalworking climate at Rainbow in which the hierarchical relationship be-tween employees is strictly maintained. These differences are particularlymeaningful since Donald and Liu are relatively similar in role and posi-tion in their organizations: both are the CEOs, founders and owners oftheir company; and, while both of them spend most of their time in-teracting with the members of their teams, they also regularly see clients.However, while Liu is always dressed formally Donald only puts on a


suit for special occasions. Moreover, at Rainbow employees are requiredto dress formally (with the exception of ‘casual Saturday’), and not wear-ing shoes would be completely inappropriate on any occasion.

The distinctive ways in which Donald and Liu draw on humour toachieve their various workplace aims, can be interpreted as respondingto culturally specific norms of appropriate and politic behaviour for peo-ple in leadership positions. In particular, Donald’s repeated downplayingof his own power and status can be viewed as reflecting the relativelylow power distance that characterizes New Zealand culture, and as aresponse to the “tall poppy syndrome”. Liu’s behaviour, on the otherhand, in particular his attempts to minimize status differences, appearsto contradict cultural expectations. Based on work by Hofstede andothers (e. g., Selmer and de Leon 2003; Westwood 1992) who have de-scribed the Hong Kong culture as high in power distance, we wouldassume that Liu would not typically employ discursive strategies todownplay his status. Instead, based on this literature, we would expecthim to overtly display his more powerful position within the company.And indeed, a more detailed analysis of Liu’s behaviour has indicatedthat although he appears to be downplaying status differences by makingfun of himself, he clearly maintains a hierarchical distance between him-self and his subordinates. Unlike Donald, who portrays himself and whois constituted by his subordinates as ‘one of them’, Liu leaves little doubtabout the fact that he is ‘the one in charge’. Although he makes fun ofhimself, it appears that he is confident that no-one will take his com-ments seriously.

The examples have thus illustrated some of the ways in which culture-specific expectations of effective leadership performance play an impor-tant role in people’s behaviour in the workplace. In particular, Donaldand Liu both draw on humour in ways that respond to cultural expecta-tions of leadership performance while at the same time adhering to cul-ture-specific expectations and norms of relational work. This aspect isfurther illustrated in the next section, where we look at some of the waysin which the leaders employ humour to mitigate the impact of negativelyaffective 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 excel-lent means of performing relational aspects but may also be used toachieve transactional objectives. And it is in particular the combinationof these two functions which makes humour such a valuable leadershiptool. Here we have chosen two examples that foreground more transac-tional aspects of humour, namely communicating negatively affective


speech acts, while also performing relational functions (i. e., mitigatingtheir impact on the addressee).

Donald and Liu also make use of humour as a means of achievingmore transactional functions, such as when criticizing subordinates fortheir disappointing performance or a mistake they have made. The se-lected examples illustrate how both leaders employ humour as a meansto mitigate the illocutionary force when performing these negatively af-fective speech acts.

Example (5) is taken from a board meeting of A&B Resolutionz, inwhich all attendees are members of the company’s board. The previousday Donald had disseminated some emails with important informationrelevant to the meeting. Samuel, who is on vacation in Australia andwho participates via telephone at the meeting, has not read the emails.

Example (5)

1 Don: so do you not have access2 to any of that Samuel3 Sam: not not at the moment4 Donald no5 Don: what have you done to6 your computer7 Sam: [laughs] it’s been it’s been8 m- more (i s t ac- as-)9 aspect (er) access

10 (that’s been) the problem11 Don: aha aha [laughs]12 Sam: [laughs]

Imitating a reproachful voice, Donald mocks Samuel for not having readthe emails (lines 1�2). Instead of anticipating that Samuel might nothave had access to his emails since he is on vacation, Donald humor-ously accuses him of having caused problems with his computer. Histeasing rhetorical question ‘what have you done to your computer’ (lines5�6) appears to criticize Samuel for not being well-prepared for themeeting and also prompts him to humorously justify himself. Samuel’sreply, especially his repair work (four restarts in lines 6�9) suggests thathe wants to play along with the humour but perhaps has some problemsproducing a witty comment. His justification (lines 7�10) is humorouslyanswered by Donald’s ironic minimal responses ‘aha aha’ (line 11), whoonce more makes fun of his colleague by indicating that he does notbelieve him.

This example illustrates how Donald makes use of humour to mitigatethe impact of negatively affective speech acts. He not only communicates


his criticism or disapproval of Samuel but also expresses in-group soli-darity, which is further intensified by their shared laughter (Devereuxand Ginsburg 2001; Fine 1983). Thus, Donald’s (humorous) criticism ofSamuel enables him to portray himself as the ‘one in charge’, while atthe same time mitigating his display of power and expressing in-groupsolidarity.

Like Donald, Liu also employs humour as a mitigating strategy tominimize the negative impact of his criticism. Example (6) is from aRainbow meeting. About one week prior to the meeting, four of theparticipants went to an exhibition (see also example (3) where this tripwas planned). Each of the participants was supposed to write a reportabout the trip.

Example (6)

1 Liu: hey do you remember2 when I said the written report3 is due?4 Ant: the fourteenth5 Liu: [laughs] �6 [smiling]: for sure it isn’t: �7 (you-) at that time8 {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 time14 I told you two weeks later:15 (the written report) said16 {it was} the third of October: �17 Ant: k-18 Liu: you again e- {was19 your computer} infected by a virus?20 Ant: no no[After a few more turns Anthony eventually admits that he mixed up thedates 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 contradictingAnthony’s answer: ‘for sure it isn’t’ (line 6), and by explicitly correctinghim (lines 6�10 and 9�10). This potentially threatening behaviour is,however, considerably mitigated by Liu’s laughter (line 3) and his smilingvoice (lines 4�5 and 13�16).


After Liu has provided some more explanations for his criticism (lines13�16), he poses a humorous (though perhaps a little challenging) ques-tion ‘was your computer infected by a virus’ (lines 18�19). This can beinterpreted as an attempt to move away from the topic by blaming thecomputer for the misunderstanding, i. e., by humorously suggesting thatit might have been the computer that has prevented Anthony from fi-nishing his report in time7. By humorously shifting the blame onto thecomputer, Liu considerably mitigates the negative impact of his other-wise direct criticism of Anthony. He thus not only expresses criticismbut also builds rapport with his subordinates, e. g., by providing a breakfrom the serious discussion and by reinforcing solidarity through theshared laughter (line 12).

Examples (5) and (6) thus demonstrate that both leaders use humourto assist them in expressing their criticisms in a way that is not toothreatening to the addressee, and which nevertheless enables them to gettheir message across. In doing so Donald and Liu manage to disguisethe “oppressive intent of their message” through humour and enact theirpower in a subtle manner (Mullany 2004; see also Diamond 1996).

Again, Donald and Liu’s behaviour could be explained by referenceto cultural expectations concerning specific ways of ‘doing relationalwork’ as well as expectations about effective leadership performance. Asargued above, New Zealand is a culture of low power distance wherepeople 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 (Hofstede1980) in which politic leadership behaviour means overt display of power(e. g., Cullen 1999), we would expect Liu to communicate his criticismin a rather direct and unmitigated way. But similar to example (3) hisbehaviour appears not to adhere to these cultural expectations. Instead,he considerably mitigates the negative impact of his criticism by usinghumour and a smiling voice. This behaviour can be explained by refer-ence to another cultural characteristic of the Hong Kong culture whichis not considered in Hofstede’s early work, namely Confucianism.

Hong Kong, like other Chinese cultures, is greatly influenced by Con-fucianism, the core principle of which is harmony. According to thisteaching, harmony is founded on the “rules of correct behaviour” inparticular with regard to hierarchical relationships, such as betweenleaders and subordinates (Bond and Hwang 1986). As a consequence,Chinese leaders are expected to create and maintain a harmonious work-ing atmosphere, in which confrontation and overt criticism would beconsidered as threats. Hence, by uttering his criticism in a smiling voiceand wrapping it in a humorous remark, Liu mitigates its negative impactand thus maintains harmony within his team. By drawing on humour as


a means to mitigate negatively affective speech acts in ways that areconsidered appropriate and politic in the leaders’ CofP, while also re-flecting aspects of cultural norms of relational work, the leaders at thesame time meet cultural expectations concerning the enactment of effec-tive leadership.

8. Discussion and conclusion

Norms of what are considered appropriate and politic ways of communi-cating are situated in the cultural context in which interactions occur.This crucial role of culture is particularly apparent in a workplace set-ting, where norms of appropriate ways of integrating the competing dis-courses of power and politeness are strongly influenced by wider culturalexpectations. We have focused here on one aspect of workplace perform-ance that appears to be particular sensitive to cultural expectations,namely leadership.

We have explored some of the ways in which two leaders in differentcultures, New Zealand and Hong Kong, ‘do leadership’ in ways that areconsistent with culturally specific norms of relational work negotiated inthe leaders’ CofPs, and how by drawing on humour in particular theleaders meet cultural expectations concerning the enactment of effectiveleadership. Our analysis of naturally occurring data has illustrated thatboth leaders employ humour as a means of building rapport with theirsubordinates (thereby predominantly achieving their relational leader-ship objectives) as well as mitigating negatively affective speech acts(thereby predominantly achieving their transactional leadership objec-tives). We have identified some differences as well as similarities in theways the leaders make use of and respond to humour, which we believe,can at least partly be interpreted as reflections of cultural specific normsof relational work as negotiated in the leaders’ CofPs.

Donald and Liu both use humour to build rapport with their subordi-nates, in particular by creating in-groups and by minimizing status dif-ferences. However, substantial differences were found in the ways inwhich they employ this socio-pragmatic device to perform these leader-ship behaviours, as well as in the ways in which their subordinates re-spond to the humour. These distinctive ways of using humour reflectthe leaders’ responses to cultural expectations about effective leadershipbehaviour and distinctive expectations and norms of relational work ne-gotiated in their respective CofPs.

The analysis has also indicated that both leaders use humour in rela-tively similar ways when criticizing their subordinates: the humour en-ables them to communicate the criticism in a way appropriate to theirsmall close-knit CofPs by minimizing the negative illocutionary force on


the addressee. In doing so, they do not overtly display their power butrather downplay it. These behaviours, too, can be viewed as responsesto cultural specific norms of relational work negotiated in the leaders’CofPs. And by drawing on these norms, the leaders behave in ways thatare consistent with specific norms of relational work that characterizetheir respective culture, while also meeting cultural expectations concern-ing the enactment of effective leadership.

Our findings thus illustrate that workplace discourse, and more spe-cifically politic ways of doing leadership, are affected by several layersof culture: in addition to expectations and norms of relational work thatapply to the macro-context (i. e., the wider society in which the work-places are situated), it is of crucial importance to consider the specificways in which these expectations and norms are enacted and respondedto on the micro-level (i. e., in individual CofPs). Our examples haveshown that the various aspects of ‘doing leadership’ while adhering toprevalent norms of relational work cannot always adequately be ex-plained by referring to cultural values that characterize the macro-context. Instead, we need to acknowledge that while “it is important torecognize that behaviour is unique within each culture and, at the sametime, there are systematic similarities and differences”, there is alsoclearly room for individual negotiation of these norms (Gudykunst 2000:295), namely in CofPs. We have illustrated that the leaders in particularrespond to cultural norms of relational work as well as expectations ofeffective leadership: they do this by reflecting, reinforcing, negotiating,and at times resisting certain aspects of these norms and expectations inways that are politic in their respective CofP. The particular ways, then,in which leadership is performed linguistically vary across CofPs withina particular culture. Thus, clearly, rather than viewing culture as a staticconcept it needs to be more productively understood as a dynamic per-formance which people incorporate in their various workplace activitieswhile at the same time adhering to norms of relational work.

Appendix: Transcription conventions

� Pause up to one second- Incomplete or cut-off utterance… // ….. \ …… / ….. \\ … Simultaneous speech(hello) Transcriber’s best guess at an unclear utteranceBACK Stressed word{it was} Words added in English translation to help compre-

hension


[…] Section of transcript omitted[laughs] Paralinguistic features in square brackets[laughs]: no: Laughter throughout the utterance of the word in

between the colonsAll names are pseudonyms.

Bionotes

Stephanie Schnurr is Assistant Professor at the School of English at theUniversity of Hong Kong. Her main research focus is the sociolinguisticand discursive performance of leadership and gender at work, and inparticular the multiple functions and strategic uses of humour in work-place discourse. She has published on various aspects of leadership dis-course in the workplace. E-mail: [email protected]

Angela Chan holds a PhD in Linguistics from Victoria University ofWellington, New Zealand. Her doctoral research examined meetingopenings and closings in business settings and explored the impact ofnational and organisational cultures on the discourse practices of busi-ness meetings. Her research interests include interaction in workplacesettings and the interplay between discourse strategies and interactionalcontexts. She is currently a senior research fellow at City University ofHong Kong. E-mail: [email protected]

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 earlierversions 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 Donald’s relatively feminine behaviour (e. g., as indexed byhis frequent downplaying of knowledge and authority, and minimizing status differ-ences) in a culture that has been described as above average in masculinity (Hof-stede 1980). For a more detailed discussion of how gender is enacted in this CofPsee Holmes and Schnurr (2005).

4. The interactions recorded at Rainbow were originally conducted in Cantonese andhave been translated by the second author.

5. Note that the meeting took place on a late Monday afternoon after normal workinghours, which reflects the typical business practice of working after hours atRainbow.

6. Although Liu responds to Richard’s second attempt to express his concern (lines22 ff.), he does not seem to take him very seriously as his response indicates. Insteadof trying to accommodate to his subordinate’s concerns, Liu replies that it ‘doesn’tmatter’ (line 23) and sticks to his original plan.


7. We presume that Liu is implying here that Anthony’s computer has mixed up thedates in his Outlook diary. However, because this is not made explicit in the extractwe cannot be certain about this interpretation although we know that staff at Rain-bow 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 Cul-ture. London: Cassell.

Beck, Dominique (1999). Managing discourse, self and others: women in senior man-agement 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 Chi-nese 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 dif-ferent? Journal of Pragmatics 11: 131�146.

Blum-Kulka, Shoshana (1992). The metapragmatics of politeness in Israeli society. InPoliteness in Language: Studies in Its History, Theory and Practice, Richard Watts,Sachiko Ide, and Konrad Ehlich (eds.), 255�280. Berlin and New York: Moutonde Gruyter.

Chee, Harold and Chris West (2004). Myths about Doing Business in China. Basing-stoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Chen, Rong (1993). Responding to compliments: a contrastive study of politenessstrategies between American English and Chinese speakers. Journal of Pragmatics20: 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 Pub-lishing.


Ervin-Tripp, Susan and Martin Lampert (1992). Gender differences in the constructionof humorous talk. In Locating Power. Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Womenand Language Conference (Vol. 1), Kira Hall, Mary Bucholtz, and Birch Moonwo-mon (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 mana-gerial styles. In Cross-Cultural Management, Terence Jackson (ed.), 125�134. Ox-ford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Fine, Gary Alan (1983). Sociological approaches to the study of humor. In Handbookof Humor Research, Paul McGhee and Jeffrey Goldstein (eds.), 159�181. Berlin:Springer.

Fukushima, Saeko (2000). Requests and Culture: Politeness in British English and Japa-nese. 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 TalkAcross Cultures, Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), 293�313. London: Continuum.

Guirdham, Maureen (2005). Communicating across Cultures at Work (2nd ed.). Basing-stoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hagner, David (2000). Coffee Breaks and Birthday Cakes: Evaluating Workplace Cul-tures 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). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Re-

lated Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Hofstede, Geert (1995). The business of international business is culture. In Cross-

Cultural Management, Terence Jackson (ed.), 150�165. Oxford: Butterworth-Hei-nemann.

Hofstede, Geert (1997). Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind (2nd ed.).New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, Geert (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institu-tions, and Organizations across Nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, Geert and Michael Harris Bond (1988). The Confucius connection: fromcultural 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 Re-view 18(8): 414�424.

Holmes, Janet and Stephanie Schnurr (2005). Politeness, humour and gender in theworkplace: negotiating norms and identifying contestation. Journal of PolitenessResearch 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 univer-sals 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 andJapanese. In Politeness in Language: Studies in Its History, Theory and Practice,Richard Watts, Sachiko Ide, and Konrad Ehlich (eds.), 281�298. Berlin and NewYork: Mouton de Gruyter.


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 communi-ties: a cross-cultural comparison of politeness strategies in the writing of nativeEnglish speaking and Greek engineers. Multilingua 23 (1�2): 111�144.

Locher, Miriam (2004). Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Com-munication. 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 phe-nomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 403�426.

McSweeney, Brendan (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences andtheir consequences: a triumph of faith � a failure of analysis. Human Relations55 (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 Ni-cole Stirton (eds.), 359�378. Palmerston North: Massey University.

Peeters, Bert (2004). Tall poppies and egalitarianism in Australian discourse: from keyword 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 redressin Cuban Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1170�1202.

Schnurr, Stephanie (2009). Leadership Discourse. Interactions of Humour, Gender andWorkplace Culture. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Schnurr, Stephanie, Meredith Marra, and Janet Holmes (2007). Being impolite in NewZealand workplaces: Maori and Pakeha leaders. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 712�729.

Schnurr, Stephanie, Meredith Marra, and Janet Holmes (2008). Impoliteness as ameans of contesting power relations in the workplace. In Impoliteness in Language,Derek Bousfield and Miriam Locher (eds.), 211�229. Berlin and New York: Mou-ton de Gruyter.

Selmer, Jan and Corinna de Leon (2003). Culture and management in Hong KongSAR. 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 Tai-wanese Enterprises. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sondergaard, Mikael (1994). Research note. Hofstede’s consequences: a study of re-views, 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 D’Amorim, Paul Koopman, Kwok Leung, ShahrenazMortazawi, John Munene, Mark Radford, Arja Ropo, Grant Savage, and ConradViedge (1994). Organizational event management in fourteen countries: a com-parison with Hofstede’s 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.


Thomas, David C. (2001) Leadership across cultures: a New Zealand perspective. InLeadership 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: reconsider-ing claims for universality. In Politeness in Language. Studies in its History, Theoryand Practice, Richard Watts, Sachiko Ide, and Konrad Ehlich (eds.), 43�66. Ber-lin 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 behav-

iour. In Organisational Behaviour: Southeast Asian Perspectives, Robert I. West-wood (ed.), 27�62. Hong Kong: Longman.

Williamson, Dermot (2002). Forward from a critique of Hofstede’s model of nationalculture. Human Relations 55 (11): 1373�1395.

Yu, Ming-chung (2003). On the universality of face: evidence from Chinese compli-ment response behavior. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1679�1710.

Yukl, Gary (1989). Managerial leadership: a review of theory and research. Journal ofManagement 15 (2): 251�289.

Documents

Cross Cultural Study of Workplace Talk