Rogers, P - Lee-Wong, S - Reconceptualizing Politeness to Accommodate Dynamic Tensions in Subordinate-To-Superior Reporting

Journal of Business and Technical Communication http://jbt.sagepub.com

Reconceptualizing Politeness to Accommodate Dynamic Tensions in Subordinate-to-Superior Reporting Priscilla S. Rogers and Song Mei Lee-Wong Journal of Business and Technical Communication 2003; 17; 379 DOI: 10.1177/1050651903255401 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jbt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/17/4/379

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Business and Technical Communication can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jbt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jbt.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations (this article cites 20 articles hosted on the SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): http://jbt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/17/4/379

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

JBTC / October 2003

ARTICLE

Rogers, 10.1177/1050651903255401 Lee-Wong / RECONCEPTUALIZING POLITENESS

Reconceptualizing Politeness to Accommodate Dynamic Tensions in Subordinate-to-Superior Reporting PRISCILLA S. ROGERS University of Michigan SONG MEI LEE-WONG Nanyang Business School, Singapore This research provides a framework identifying dynamic tensions that occur as subordinates try to maintain a sufficient degree of politeness while reporting to superiors on workplace tasks. Building on politeness theory, the framework suggests how conventional politeness dimensions, such as deference, solidarity, and non-imposition are challenged by organizational obligations and workplace tasks requiring confidence, direction, and individuality. The framework evolved from a series of analyses of two samples: one consisting of e-mail between international project teams and their domestically located supervisors, the other of Asian and U.S. business undergraduates’ responses to two workplace scenarios involving critiquing a superior’s work. Analyses revealed competing communicative dimensions relevant to subordinate-to-superior interactions, including dimensions that are underdeveloped in politeness literature. Examples from these data suggest that managing a sufficient equilibrium between these dimensions requires a substantial knowledge of rhetorical and linguistic alternatives. Keywords: politeness; deference; tone; organization; subordinate reporting

A

representative of an international team wrote in an e-mail to one of his supervisors, “To some extent, your feedback contradicted feedback Sam gave us. Since Sam is working

Authors’ Note: This research was supported by the University of Michigan Business School and Nanyang Business School, Singapore. We give special thanks to Nanyang’s Business Communication Research Think Tank, October 2000-April 2001, a small group of teachers and researchers whose investigation of assessment instruments for business education encouraged this research; to Colin Clark, who assisted with the demographic data; to Nanyang’s head of Strategy, Management, and Organization, Soon Ang, who put resources behind her conviction that business communication research is crucial; and to Andy Lawlor who, as director of the University of Michigan Business School’s international project teams, helped us obtain the e-mail data for this study. We also greatly appreciate the thorough and positive editorial support we received from Dorothy Winsor, Lori Peterson, and the two anonymous JBTC reviewers and from Andrea Perry, Elizabeth Girsch, Pam Russell, and Cindy Wilson. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, Vol. 17 No. 4 October 2003 379-412 DOI: 10.1177/1050651903255401 © 2003 Sage Publications

379

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

380

JBTC / October 2003

directly with us and with the client, we heeded his feedback over yours.” Is this e-mail sufficiently polite? Could the reporting team representative have exercised a greater degree of tact and still have remained forthright? Would the supervisor whose feedback has not been used expect a greater degree of tact? Or consider the following e-mail that a new hire wrote to his boss: “Sir, I have analyzed the draft of [your] sales presentation argument and am delighted to say that its selling point is a rather strong one.” Although the boss asked for a critique, is the employee’s response sufficiently courteous? Overall, how do conventional issues of politeness apply to these reporting situations? Politeness has been defined as the grease in social interaction with cooperation as one of its goals (Grice, 1975). Indeed, in a civil society where courtesy is the norm, individuals are expected to communicate with a measure of considerateness and tact so as not to impinge on the personal pride, honor, and dignity of others (Goffman, 1967, 1983). Although few would quibble with this general principle, the ways it is understood and put into practice vary. From a rich and deep history of research, including some definitive scholarship, we know politeness is complicated by personal, situational, and cultural variations. Politeness theory and strategies focusing on interpersonal relationships have long been explored within the fields of linguistics, sociolinguistics, and anthropology (Brown & Gilman, 1991; Brown & Levinson, 1987; Fraser, 1990; Morand, 2000; Ting-Toomey, 1994) and have been applied to business communication generally (e.g., David & Baker, 1994; Locker, 1999; Shelby & Reinsch, 1995; Yli-Jokipii, 1994). Yet, although polite linguistic expressions, as Morand (2000) observed, are “integral to the elaboration and maintenance of social hierarchies in organizations” (p. 236; see also Goffman, 1967, 1983), issues of politeness in organizational contexts remain underinvestigated. Consider, for example, just one line of questions that remain to be addressed: Are conventional approaches to politeness relevant to working relationships? What politeness issues may be particularly challenging for a subordinate reporting to a superior? What politeness issues might reporting subordinates benefit from considering in some detail? What politeness challenges are soon-to-be new hires likely to encounter when they assume working relationships with superiors? Our purpose for this research was to identify such issues of politeness that may be particularly challenging for soon-to-be new hires

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Rogers, Lee-Wong / RECONCEPTUALIZING POLITENESS

381

and, subsequently, to create a conceptual framework that could be used for focused training and research in this area. We envisioned this framework as highlighting politeness concerns that have particular relevance for novices and experienced subordinates alike. Furthermore, we intended to pinpoint concerns for bad-news situations in which politeness can be an issue as well as concerns that develop over time as subordinates report to superiors. Therefore, we undertook a series of analyses of two samples: one consisting of upper-level business school undergraduates’ responses to a case situation that required reporting bad news to a boss, the other consisting of e-mail interactions between international project teams and their supervisors concerning projects in six diverse companies. The project teams were composed of MBA students selected by special application requiring significant work experience. These teams were stationed in international company locations where they worked as consultants, analyzing and reporting solutions to actual workplace problems. All of their ongoing reports to faculty supervisors, conducted almost entirely via e-mail, were available to us for analysis. We approached both of these samples openly—without any particular analytic scheme in mind—letting the data inform us regarding politeness issues for subordinate reporting. The framework evolved as we lived with and analyzed these samples, letting one analysis suggest the next in an evolutionary process of discovery. The following literature review forecasts the complexity of the subordinate reporting situations that are the focus of this study and provides grist for the various analyses involved.

LITERATURE REVIEW Like many politeness theorists, Takahara (1986) suggested that politeness is used “to facilitate interpersonal contacts by removing conflicts of interest between the interlocutors and promoting their cooperation” (p. 181; see also Grice, 1975). Interpersonal considerations also underlie proposed politeness strategies, such as Lakoff’s (1990) emphasis on camaraderie and non-imposition. Central to interpersonal politeness is the concern for face or the social self. Face is generally defined in sociological and sociolinguistic studies as the negotiated public image mutually granted each other by participants in a communicative event (Scollon & Scollon, 1995).

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

382

JBTC / October 2003

Brown and Levinson (1987) posited that politeness depends on sensitivity to face. Goffman (1967) further explained this relationship: Just as the member of any group is expected to have self-respect so also he is expected to sustain a standard of considerateness; he is expected to go to certain lengths to save the feelings and the face of others present, and he is expected to do this willingly and spontaneously because of emotional identification with the others and with their feelings. (p. 10; see also p. 44)

Building on this definitional work is research on politeness strategies involving face issues, particularly face issues related to the receiver of the communication. Strategies to Save the Other’s Face Brown and Levinson’s (1987) strategies for dealing with face issues are particularly well known. Their strategies center on showing sensitivity to the face needs of the receiver of the communication by mitigating face-threatening acts, such as requesting, criticizing, or refusing. They characterized the politeness strategies required for showing sensitivity to receivers’ face needs as positive and negative: “Positive politeness is redress directed to the addressee’s perennial desire that his wants or actions should be thought of as desirable” (1987, p. 106), such as claiming solidarity, a common point of view, or in-group membership. Negative politeness, by contrast, involves taking care so as not to impose on the receiver (sometimes called non-imposition). For example, writers of rejection letters are employing negative politeness when they take pains to convey negative information gracefully and tactfully in order to help their message receivers feel better (Schryer, 2000; see also Lariviere, 1989; McCord, 1991; Timmons, 1988). To be sensitive to the receiver’s face needs, the communicator may also need to show deference, tempering expressions of selfconfidence or capability. As Hubler (1983) explained, “The threat to the hearer is . . . lessened if the speaker modifies predications or sentences referring advantageously to himself” (p. 159). From Hubler’s perspective, when speakers make apodictic statements about the world or present themselves as highly knowledgeable, they may dictate a passive role to the receiver, thwart the receiver’s desire to give feedback, and ultimately threaten the receiver’s face. Strategies to

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Rogers, Lee-Wong / RECONCEPTUALIZING POLITENESS

383

attenuate possible face threats of this kind include using understatement, hedging, and inquiry (e.g., “Might the argument be strengthened if your time period were longer than two years?” or “Could it be that some customers were dissatisfied but did not complain?”). We found three conclusions in the literature relevant as background for conceptualizing politeness for subordinate reporting across cultural and workplace contexts: (a) Politeness is situated and interpretative, (b) politeness routines for various purposes are known to be effective across situations, and (c) cultural and organizational relationships affect politeness but not necessarily as we might expect from conventional wisdom on intercultural communication. Politeness Is Situated and Interpretative The degree to which various strategies are interpreted as polite is ultimately determined by the communication context. In other words, politeness is situated and interpretative. As Fraser and Nolen (1981) observed, “No sentence is inherently polite or impolite. . . . [It] is not the expressions themselves but the conditions under which they are used that determine the judgment of politeness” (pp. 96-97). Consider the strategy of indirectness, for example. According to Searle (1975), “Politeness is the most prominent motivation for indirectness in requests” (p. 76; see also Yli-Jokipii, 1994). For example, “Please pass the salt” could be considered impolite, despite the opening “please,” if delivered to an elder or individual with seniority or supervisory responsibilities. Changing this directive to a more deferent question with a soft modal verb (e.g., ”Could you please pass the salt?”) might reduce the illocutionary force of assertiveness and thereby improve receptivity in such contexts. We know that indirectness is suited to different situational and cultural settings (e.g., Lee-Wong, 2000; Riley, 1988); indeed, the effectiveness of indirect communication strategies has been empirically proven (e.g., Shelby & Reinsch, 1995). At the same time, a number of studies show that directness may also be interpreted as polite (e.g., Graham, 1998; Limaye, 1988; Locker, 1999; Shwom, 1990). For example, Leech (1983) argued that a more indirect illocution is preferred when a proposition does not benefit the hearer but directness can be interpreted as polite if the proposition is beneficial to the hearer (e.g., “Have another helping of potatoes”). Other scholars have agreed. Blum-Kulka’s (1987) study of Israeli speakers, Wierzbicka’s (1985)

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

384

JBTC / October 2003

analysis of Polish communication, and Scollon and Scollon’s (1995) examination of Chinese texts from Hong Kong all suggest that indirectness is not always perceived to produce politeness. In fact, research shows that directness may actually be appreciated in cultural contexts associated with more passive social interactions. For example, Lee-Wong’s (2000) study of politeness in Chinese culture suggests that imposition and directness are not always face threatening but rather may be valued between intimates in some situations. Looking at written organizational communication, Suchan and Dulek (1988) argued that what constitutes politeness depends on personal position, power, working relationships, and the amount of contact between writer and reader; it further depends on corporate practices and cultural expectations. Graham and David (1996) have also shown that politeness is influenced by organizational values and protocols. They maintained that the egalitarian climate perpetuated in a university context is reflected in communicative practices; administrators tend to de-emphasize their power and thus communicate some degree of indebtedness and indirectness. This contrasts, they posited, with the corporate setting in which organizational hierarchy and efficiency may invite directness (see also Graham, 1998). Communicative Purposes and Politeness Routines While accepting the variable nature of polite discourse situation to situation, business communication and organizational research also recognizes the existence of politeness routines, such as using explanation to buffer bad news. Shelby and Reinsch’s (1995) empirical study suggests that stating things positively from the perspective of the receiver and buffering bad news really do have desirable results for business communication. Their findings are echoed by Schryer’s (2000) analysis of insurance claim denial letters and Locker’s (1999) experiments soliciting responses to letters refusing credit and denying admission to graduate school (see also Graham & David, 1996; Perlman, 1981). In addition, Van Waes and van Wijk (2000-2001) found that individuals of all ages responded most favorably to product recall letters that allowed them some freedom of action, that is, letters favoring indirectness, questions, and passive voice instead of directional statements (see also Hagge & Kostelnick, 1989). Such studies seem to support what Searle (1975) concluded, “Certain forms naturally tend to become the conventionally polite ways of making requests” (p. 76; see also Yli-Jokipii, 1994).

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Rogers, Lee-Wong / RECONCEPTUALIZING POLITENESS

385

More recently and directly relevant to this study, Morand (2000) identified politeness routines in superior-subordinate interactions. He transcribed the laboratory role-plays of 84 full-time university students performing four different face-threatening acts toward persons of either lower or higher organizational status. Analysis of this corpus revealed a frequency of some specific politeness tactics; indeed, his regressions indicated that the students shared common linguistic reference points in formulating and anchoring judgments of politeness. “Polite language,” Morand concluded, “is thus envisioned as a finite menu of weighted tactics that users choose from, liberally or sparingly, as circumstances require” (p. 244). Cultural and Organizational Relationships Various politeness strategies have also been associated with cultural groups and organizational relationships (e.g., Graham & David, 1996; Suchan & Dulek, 1988). For example, Scollon and Scollon (1995) observed that the self projected by Asians is more collectivistic and more connected to membership in family and working groups than that projected by Westerners. Such displays of membership include the inclusive “we” (Brown & Gilman, 1991; Brown & Levinson, 1987), which has also been used as a marker of corporate identity and solidarity (Rogers & Swales, 1990; Swales & Rogers, 1995; Van Waes & van Wijk, 2000-2001). Various speech acts have also been connected with types of relationships and organizational involvement, such as superior-subordinate relationships. For example, Fraser and Nolen (1981) concluded that to request reflects an equal status between the communicator and the receiver whereas to order reflects a higher status on the part of the communicator. Meanwhile, studies of communication competency in organizations report that showing empathy, self-monitoring, and listening are essential skills for maintaining relationships. Moreover, such abilities have more recently been closely tied to an awareness of receiver face needs (e.g., DiSalvo, 1980; DiSalvo & Larsen, 1987; Jablin, Cude, House, Lee, & Roth, 1994; Monge, Bachman, Dillard, & Eisenberg, 1982; Zorn & Violanti, 1996). Some experts in workplace competency have suggested the importance of the subordinate function of providing superiors with information, including bad news, so that they can perform their job and maintain face in the organization (Lawler, Zaidi, & Atmiyanandana, 1989). Sriussadaporn-Charoenngam and Jablin (1999) discovered that this function is important even in the

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

386

JBTC / October 2003

supposed high-context culture (Hofstede, 1980) of Thailand, where communication is influenced by kreng jai, or extreme reluctance to impose or disturb an individual’s personal equilibrium by direct criticism or confrontation. Sriussadaporn-Charoenngam and Jablin reported that “[Thai] supervisors rated those subordinates who provide complete information to them, as well as those who ask their supervisors questions about unclear matters, as highly competent communicators” (p. 411). “Paradoxically,” these researchers concluded, “while communicatively competent subordinates in Thai organizations are expected to be open and straightforward, they are also expected to know how and when to communicate to avoid conflict and interpersonal problems with their supervisors” (p. 412).

SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS STUDY The literature shows that succeeding as a new hire is difficult and requires some understanding of reporting situations—situations in which tone and politeness are consequential (e.g., Jablin et al., 1994; Morand, 2000)—yet, research in subordinate reporting remains limited. Business communication research has examined politeness as it relates to negative or bad-news situations generally or as it involves external communication, especially corporate public relations or interactions with clients and customers (e.g., letters denying insurance claims, refusing credit or denying school admission, recalling products, or relaying auditors’ suggestions); however, with some exceptions (e.g., Morand, 2000; Sriussadaporn-Charoenngam & Jablin, 1999), situated studies remain too few in number. Research has also tended to focus on politeness strategies involving receiver face issues, paying less attention to sender face issues, such as demonstrating sufficient expertise and confidence while reporting to superiors. Politeness strategies encourage a communicator to address the receiver in a non-imposing manner, to show deference toward the receiver, to temper face-threatening acts, and to reduce expressions of self-assurance (such as by indirectness or hedging) in the interest of saving the receiver’s face. But what if self-assurance is required, as for employees who are paid to offer their input? Although we know that politeness is situated, we do not know enough about politeness concerns that may be highly relevant in particular situations, such as subordinate reporting situations likely to

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Rogers, Lee-Wong / RECONCEPTUALIZING POLITENESS

387

require some degree of self-assertion, or about how the complexities of such situations may affect generally accepted politeness strategies. In addition to filling a vacuum in the literature, this study served the practical purpose of identifying students’ needs. To that end, this study was encouraged by assessment evaluators and course instructors at two large business schools, one in the midwestern United States and the other in South Asia. The 18 faculty members at these schools who were involved with this study (12 at the Asian school and 6 at the U.S. school, including us) were European, Asian (Chinese, Malaysian, and Singaporean), and U.S. American and had 3 to 20 years of experience teaching business communication at all educational levels (undergraduate to executive) throughout Asia, the European Union, Canada, and the United States. At each site, several of these faculty members, including one of us, also had considerable experience designing and delivering corporate training in industries ranging from manufacturing and transportation to financial services. Student assessment and feedback (including an exit assessment) had become important aspects of the communication programs at both schools. Because these assessment programs were initiated by one of us, both schools used comparable (a) case-based assessments requiring students to produce a written response to a realistic and recurring workplace situation; (b) Educational Testing Service holistic scoring procedures including systematic blind, multiple readings of each student response and monitoring to achieve a sufficient level of interrater reliability; and (c) holistic scoring criteria covering audience analysis (including issues of tone and politeness), content development, organizational strategy, and language control. Students’ individual holistic scores and written responses as well as sample responses at each scoring level are given to faculty, who then discuss these results with the students. Consequently, the faculty at both schools had become quite familiar with students’ responses and needs. During 2000-2001, these schools coordinated their assessments (i.e., used the same assessment prompts and evaluation protocols) in an effort to learn from each other and to obtain data for this and other research. For this coordinated assessment, interrater reliability was 86% or higher. Students’ holistic scores were comparable between the two schools, resulting in a typical bell curve, with roughly 3% scoring at the highest level, 28% to 34% scoring at the lowest level, and the majority of the students scoring at the midlevel.

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

388

JBTC / October 2003

In assessment debriefing meetings, instructors and evaluators identified one area of significant concern: students’ limited understanding of tone and politeness for workplace communication. Student responses to the cases, which involved reporting bad news to the boss, showed that some students were oblivious to the subordinateto-superior reporting relationship whereas others seemed inhibited by this relationship and had difficulty actually telling the boss the bad news (e.g., critiquing the boss’s argument, which is clearly flawed). These results were not particularly surprising; faculty had observed students’ need for training in this area for some time, but the coordinated assessment and faculty debriefing confirmed it formally. Our major goal for this research, then, was to identify politeness concerns that are particularly significant for individuals who will assume reporting obligations in the workplace, individuals like those we had assessed and for whose training we were responsible. We intended to create a foundational framework with heuristic potential, a framework that could be used in classroom discussions and consultations with students. We further intended this framework to provide some direction for future research, particularly for situated studies relevant to individuals preparing to enter the global workplace. Specifically, our desire to develop a framework for subordinate reporting across organizational and cultural contexts motivated this study and also influenced our methodological decisions.

METHOD To develop a foundational framework highlighting critical politeness issues for subordinate reporting that would be particularly relevant for diverse new entrants into the global workplace, we needed to look at a large number of subordinate reports produced by such individuals. Moreover, although drawing cultural comparisons through close discourse analysis was not the objective of this study, we needed to use data from culturally diverse populations and to analyze those data from different cultural perspectives. To do so, we employed an analytic process involving individual, blind readings followed by comparisons to identify similarities and arrive at a common understanding. In this process, we followed Bhawuk and Triandis (1996), Lucy (1996), and Thatcher (2001), all of whom specified the need for research to recognize that similarities based on shared situations are the foundation for studying differences. We believed that a frame-

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Rogers, Lee-Wong / RECONCEPTUALIZING POLITENESS

389

work presenting foundational, shared issues of politeness could become the basis for examining differences. The following descriptions of our research samples, research population, and analysis of the samples show how we implemented this ideal. Research Samples To develop the framework, we conducted a series of analyses on samples from two large data sets, with findings from one analysis determining the next in a step-by-step process of discovery. One data set involved several subsamples drawn from 965 responses (636 from Asian students and 329 from U.S. students) to the case-based assessment given to upper-level undergraduates. The specific scenario for this assessment involved responding to a boss’s request for a critique of the major argument that he intended to use for an upcoming sales presentation. The boss’s argument was flawed in several ways. Respondents needed to identify the flaws in the boss’s argument and tell the boss about them in writing. Our second data set consisted of all the e-mail between six teams of MBA students working on actual company projects in international locations and their home-based faculty supervisors. These team members were all MBA students at the University of Michigan Business School, a top-tier U.S. school, who were selected for these projects by special application. They all had considerable work experience, which was a requirement for application. Teams ranged in size from three to six members. Accepted applicants could bid on projects, but faculty supervisors ultimately assigned selected applicants to the teams because the projects required team diversity in experience, expertise, and cultural background. Therefore, all the teams were multicultural and usually had at least one member who was native to the country in which the project was headquartered. Although the MBA students received graduate credit for their project work, these company projects were nonetheless real, requiring professional services like those expected of consultants. These projects were not classroom exercises in the traditional sense as they involved workplace results and consequences—a team’s findings were either endorsed to some degree or not endorsed by the companies involved. In reporting to their faculty supervisors, teams relied heavily on e-mail, not only when they were at the job site but also during the days when they were at home. Therefore, for the 7-week duration of the

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

390

JBTC / October 2003

projects, much of the communication between the teams and their supervisors was by e-mail. Our e-mail data for this study were drawn from a collection of e-mail from 44 project teams, some of which were supervised by one of us. From this corpus, our goal was to select teams working on projects in diverse industries (e.g., consumer goods, biochemical, financial services, consulting), in different countries and in companies varying in size and organizational structure, including start-ups. (All names are pseudonyms.) Although each project was contracted with one particular company, some projects spanned several countries and involved team travel. We selected several of these cross-country projects to examine subordinate reports complicated by intermittent travel and related complexities. The six projects meeting our criteria for diversity included two manufacturing firms (an appliance company in Singapore and an automotive and truck parts firm in Japan, Thailand, Korea, China, and India), one special-chemicals company in Israel and Western Europe, one communications company in the Dominican Republic and Jamaica, one financial services firm in Western Europe, and, finally, one biochemical start-up developing fertility treatments in Israel. We analyzed two quite different data sets—responses from Asian and U.S. undergraduate students to workplace reporting scenarios and actual reports from experienced and culturally diverse teams of MBA students to superiors about company projects over time—to develop a politeness framework that would be applicable across reporting situations and populations. We collected the individual responses to the assessment scenario in a controlled environment involving a time constraint and a uniform reporting task. This task required communicating bad news, which we know is significant from the literature on politeness strategies, research on positive emphasis and bad news, and the ongoing interest in teaching these topics in business communication classes. Moreover, the scenario presented a situation subordinates encounter in the workplace, namely, the need to report unfavorable information to a superior. Having multiple responses to such a scenario, produced in a controlled environment by students in Asia and the United States who could soon expect to face such situations, would allow us to identify politeness challenges that are significant across these populations. On the other hand, having e-mail data comprising communications between subordinates and superiors during the course of actual projects in a variety of international companies allowed us to observe

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Rogers, Lee-Wong / RECONCEPTUALIZING POLITENESS

391

politeness issues that subordinates and superiors naturally encounter as they work together over time. In contrast to the case-based assessment responses, these e-mail data were interactive and written by subordinates who had reporting and workplace experience. Research Population The two populations for this study allowed us to explore politeness concerns relevant to both novices and individuals with workplace experience. Both populations were business school students, undergraduate students on one hand and MBA students on the other (whom we studied following human-subject policies at our universities)—all soon-to-be new hires for whom subordinate reporting was likely to be consequential. The undergraduate students were seniors at two major business schools, one in South Asia and one in the United States; the MBA students were culturally diverse. The 636 participants from South Asia were undergraduate students in one of the largest business schools in the world. Located in Singapore, this school has a student population of more than 4,000 undergraduates divided between two majors, business and accountancy. Those who responded to the assessment scenario reflected the general composition of this student body as a whole, the majority being locally born ethnic Chinese (76%) and the remainder consisting of Malays (14%), Indians (8%), and other ethnic groups (2%). Meanwhile, the 329 participants from the U.S. school were upperlevel undergraduate students majoring in business. Less than one half of these largely U.S.-born students were women (42%), and slightly more than one fourth were minorities (26%). Although significantly smaller in size than the Singaporean counterpart, with an undergraduate student population of about 600, this U.S. school has been consistently ranked as one of the top undergraduate business programs in the nation. In English language background, the two groups were comparable. English is the language of instruction in both contexts; therefore, all the respondents’ English facility was sufficient for admission to the university. In general, Singaporean students are quite comfortable speaking, reading, and writing in English. Government initiatives, such as Singapore’s Speak Good English Campaign, have reinforced the need for high-level competency although “Singlish,” an English influenced by Chinese, remains favored by some for personal communication between Singaporeans. All the Singaporean respondents

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

392

JBTC / October 2003

in this study had fulfilled an advanced English requirement, which included passing the Qualifying English Test (QET), and some had completed additional course work in English. Analysis of Samples The analyses for this study involved a series of individual, blind readings followed by discussions to identify shared views and reach consensus. One analysis led to the next in a step-by-step process intended to discover politeness issues that were significant for the soon-to-be new hires whose communication we were observing. We began this analysis process with trait identification (e.g., Rogers & Rymer, 2001). For this analysis, we used 200 responses to the case-based assessment (randomly drawn from the 965 total responses to reflect the approximate percentage at each holistic scoring level) as well as the entire e-mail corpus from the six international project teams. Each of us read through these data quickly and frequently across several weeks, keeping a basic question in mind: What politeness issues should we discuss with the student or team who produced this communication? Then we compared our notes, identified politeness dimensions of concern, and agreed on examples from the samples to characterize each dimension. We agreed that three dimensions from conventional politeness literature were particularly relevant in these data: deference, non-imposition, and solidarity. After comparing the examples compiled during our individual analyses and reviewing the politeness literature, we drafted preliminary definitions of these three dimensions, definitions specific to subordinate reporting. Next we looked closely at deference, non-imposition, and solidarity using a ranking scheme to indicate the degree to which each was operative in our data. For this we employed a high, medium, and low scheme (i.e., high meaning this dimension is highly relevant in this individual text, etc.). To prepare for this analysis, we identified and numbered e-mail strings (two or more e-mails on a particular topic) and then independently awarded a single ranking to each e-mail string. We used the same high, medium, or low scheme to rank 20 responses from our case-based assessment data, 10 from U.S. and 10 from Asian students. (This subset of responses represented the range of holistic scores on overall effectiveness. The subset had been already identified by the evaluators at the Asian and U.S. schools and was intended for instructors to use in classes and student consultations.)

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Rogers, Lee-Wong / RECONCEPTUALIZING POLITENESS

393

For this analysis, agreement on our individual rankings was more than 90%, and all three dimensions received high-level ranking on at least one third of these data. This high ranking of deference, nonimposition, and solidarity affirmed our earlier impression that these dimensions of conventional politeness were relevant to our data. In discussing the ranking analysis, however, we were uneasy that the three conventional politeness dimensions did not seem to tell a complete story. In some samples, for example, the writer not only displayed deference but also a lack of the assertiveness that would be required to tell the boss that his argument was flawed or that his comments arrived too late to be integrated. Indeed, in each sample in which we identified the conventional politeness dimensions, we could also sense a tension involving organizational obligations (e.g., the subordinate was directed to critique the superior’s argument, a face-threatening act but also a required task that might not be achieved if the communication were too hedged or indirect). In some samples, respondents struggled to report adverse information and sometimes evidenced difficulty in asserting an opinion. When we reflected back to the literature, our discovery that a subordinate might need to negotiate various tensions in reporting situations, especially situations involving some sort of bad news, was not particularly surprising. The literature has long shown that displays of confidence can pose a face threat to a receiver and that self-assertion may be interpreted as a lack of tactfulness (e.g., Hubler, 1983). At the same time, we know from recent studies that subordinates are expected to use their expertise and communicate confidently and directly and are rewarded when they do so, even in cultures known for indirectness (e.g., Lee-Wong, 2000; Sriussadaporn-Charoenngam & Jablin, 1999). Clearly, this expectation poses something of a dilemma for the communicator, a dilemma we observed in our data. In response to this observation, our next analysis involved identifying a counterpart for each of the three conventional politeness dimensions. For this analysis we applied the notion of “competing values” that Quinn, Hildebrandt, Rogers, and Thompson (1991) used to examine management presentations. They argued that characteristics of communication that individuals judge important for an effective presentation might at times be competing values. For example, openness and candor are valued in presentations, but conclusiveness and decisiveness may also be appreciated. Can you communicate with complete openness, qualifying details and tempering self-assertions, yet remain sufficiently conclusive, asserting conclusions and recom-

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

394

JBTC / October 2003

mendations with some measure of self-confidence? To be effective, they argued, you need to find equilibrium between such competing values in a way that is suited to the goals of the presentation and is appropriate for the presentation situation. The competing values operating in our data appeared to involve relational needs on one hand and organizational obligations on the other. The conventional politeness dimensions we had identified addressed relational needs (as might be expected given the emphasis on interpersonal communication in the politeness literature) but not organizational obligations. Therefore, to identify the operative competing values, we reviewed all the examples we had associated with each of the conventional dimensions using the same process of individual review and follow-up discussion. Eventually, we agreed on three opposing dimensions, or competing values: Deference was challenged by the need to display confidence in reporting, non-imposition was opposed by the need for personal direction or expertise, and solidarity was tempered by the expectation of individuality. Reviewing the examples also helped us to define these new categories and refine our preliminary definitions of the three conventional dimensions—in other words, to draft the framework. After drafting the framework, we checked it against the data, revising the definitions of the dimensions and considering possible new examples for each. To do so, we each reviewed again all the data we had used for prior analyses. In addition, we pulled a new sample of 51 scenario responses (25 U.S., 26 Asian). Nearly one half of this new sample had scored highest (12 U.S., 13 Asian) and one half had scored lowest (13 U.S., 13 Asian) on overall effectiveness in the original holistic assessment. In pulling this sample, we assumed that the ability to communicate politeness might correlate with the ability to communicate overall, particularly because audience analysis was an important criterion for the original holistic scoring. Our intent was not to test this assumption but rather to build a conceptual framework. Thus, we reviewed this new set of scenario responses receiving the highest and lowest scores to determine whether the framework was addressing issues of critical importance to these diverse groups. Furthermore, if responses scoring low on overall effectiveness demonstrated difficulty negotiating the dimensions in the framework, then perhaps the framework could become the basis for developing an analytic tool for empirical research involving statistical correlations between holistic scores on overall effectiveness and analytic politeness scores. The same might be true for responses with high scores. Overall, by

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Rogers, Lee-Wong / RECONCEPTUALIZING POLITENESS

395

reviewing all our data plus this new sample, we were able to reexamine the broad relevance of the framework, consider its research potential, and harvest some new examples. We also revised our definitions again as a result of this review. In discussions following this review, faculty agreed that the framework would be useful for training soonto-be new hires and that it had research potential. Finally, the conceptual framework, which evolved through the analyses summarized here, is neither the creation of an armchair theorist nor the result of a highly systematic study involving statistical rigor. Rather, the framework evolved as researchers with knowledge of the literature examined subordinate reports (both solicited in an academic setting as part of a program to provide student feedback and acquired from real workplace projects) written by individuals for whom subordinate reporting is consequential. Through a collaborative process involving readings, rereadings, analyses, debates, and characterizations of these data, the framework emerged. Thus, the process was evolutionary, reflecting more than a year of our interactions with each other and with faculty who expressed the need for such a study.

POLITENESS FRAMEWORK FOR SUBORDINATE REPORTING Our proposed framework, shown in Figure 1, presents six communicative dimensions for subordinate reporting: deference, nonimposition, and solidarity, on one side; confidence, direction, and individuality, on the other. Dimensions on the left half of the framework (deference, non-imposition, and solidarity) serve relational needs; dimensions on the right (confidence, direction, and individuality) serve organizational obligations. Figure 2 contains descriptions of these six competing dimensions. Dimensions on the left, as emphasized in politeness literature, represent discourse strategies that communicators may use to protect the receiver’s face, or self-image, by deferring to the receiver’s status and role. Meanwhile, dimensions on the right represent qualities that communicators may display in order to demonstrate they have the experience, expertise, or capabilities that an organization requires. The juxtaposition of these dimensions in the framework illustrates tensions that an individual may need to negotiate in order to produce polite discourse that fulfills both relational needs and organizational obligations.

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

396

JBTC / October 2003

Communicative Dimensions for Subordinate Reporting Relational Needs

Figure 1.

Organizational Obligations

Deference

Confidence

Non-Imposition

Direction

Solidarity

Individuality

Politeness Framework for Subordinate Reporting

For instance, the framework illustrates that subordinates, in reporting to their superiors, must display the appropriate deference, as conventional strategies suggest, yet at the same time demonstrate a sufficient level of personal confidence, particularly when asserting their views in the areas of expertise for which they are paid. Subordinates should also possess direction, taking initiative to find out what their assigned tasks involve and assuming the responsibilities necessary to complete those tasks. This will require asking questions, requesting resources, and providing critique, and in a way that does not impose on their superior’s territory or ego, which may be particularly challenging when face-threatening acts are involved. Finally, the framework suggests that, in reporting to superiors, subordinates should show solidarity, as contributing members of the organization, yet also demonstrate individuality, highlighting the unique skills and insights they bring to the organization. Therefore, the framework is intended to help communicators conceptualize these tensions, which, we believe, may be a step toward managing them. Furthermore, in juxtaposing relational issues, which the literature already emphasizes, and organizational obligations, the framework suggests that communicators must continually negotiate tensions between receiver face needs and expectations for personal performance. In other words, conventional politeness strategies look a bit different when counterbalanced by organizational needs. In the following subsections, we provide examples that clarify the tensions across the framework. The examples show that the tensions are not as neat as the paired dimensions in the framework would suggest; rather, the dimensions intermingle and the politeness strategies

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Rogers, Lee-Wong / RECONCEPTUALIZING POLITENESS

Deference

397

Confidence

Communication displays an understanding of and respect for reporting relationships and the organizational structure. Such communication reflects the relative power of individuals in the workplace, which changes with various workplace situations.

Communication demonstrates an awareness that one can contribute to the organization through personal expertise, through work, and by supporting various initiatives. Expressions of confidence provide others with assurance that the communicator can be relied on to complete assigned tasks.

Deferent communications show an awareness that organizational relationships are asymmetrical in one way or another, if not by an imposed pecking order, then by expertise and experience.

Confident communications suggest to the receiver that hiring and assigning particular tasks to the reporting party was a good decision.

Non-Imposition

Direction

Communication involves not burdening others with needless (or endless) requests, providing sufficient lead time, and expressing openness to refusal. Not imposing may also involve refraining from assuming the responsibility of others.

Communication indicates a sense of how to proceed, especially in completing assigned tasks and meeting individual performance demands. It suggests little need for hand-holding from a superior.

Nonintrusive communications may be indirect and neutral, perhaps focusing on the ideas or tasks without referring to the parties involved. Tone is moderate in pointing out weaknesses (e.g., using soft modals such as might or could as hedges). Communication displays openness to the superior’s input (e.g., “Would you agree?”).

Solidarity Communication acknowledges an obligation to work with others. Tasks, issues, and problems are expressed in communal terms. Overall, the communicator writes and speaks as an insider who belongs and who assumes a collaborative role even when expressing an opposing viewpoint. Differences are framed from the perspective of commonalities (e.g., “While in principle we agree, there seem to be some important differences in the way we might approach this problem.”). Personal opinions, challenges, and calls for change are expressed as beneficial for the group. The discourse of solidarity suggests cohesion, trust, commitment, and even enjoyment in working with others.

Figure 2.

Directed communications demonstrate an understanding that questions may need to be asked to ensure that tasks are understood but that once understood, these tasks can and will be tackled solo, without a lot of supervision. Direction may also involve taking initiative for assigned projects, even anticipating pitfalls and constructing plans for dealing with them. Communications reveal a proactive approach involving problem solving and personal initiative.

Individuality Communication acknowledges that contribution is expected and that by nature of being an employee, one has some degree of personal responsibility to think and perform independently, bringing unique expertise, experience, and insight to workplace issues, problems, and tasks. The discourse of individuality registers a willingness to contribute by sharing views (e.g., “I think that might be a problem.”). Commonalities are used to introduce differences (e.g., “While in principle we agree, there seem to be some important differences in the way we might approach this problem.”). Discourse displays confidence and an ability to remain objective despite group influence.

Descriptions of Competing Communicative Dimensions for Subordinate Reporting

that may be employed to address them overlap. Consequently, these examples illustrate communicative struggles related to the dimensions, struggles that subordinates may face when reporting. Furthermore, whether the reports in these examples would be interpreted as sufficiently polite and professional would depend, of course, on contextual variables, especially the nature of the subordinate-superior relationship and organizational expectations for reporting.

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

398

JBTC / October 2003

Deference and Confidence For subordinates, communicating confidently yet deferentially may involve some tricky juggling. Sometimes it is necessary, if not critical, for a subordinate to share unfavorable conclusions, make suggestions or requests, or promote some sort of organizational change— all potentially face-threatening acts—when communicating with a superior. The subordinate’s role is not a passive one; the subordinate is assigned tasks and expected to report on them. At the same time, the hierarchical, social, and political particulars of the environment remain present, including the need to display deference to those who have power over them and, moreover, to do so according to workplace norms. The primary dilemma then is this: How can subordinates demonstrate a sufficient measure of self-assurance so that their contributions get recognized and yet remain sufficiently beholden to the relational realities of the organizational environment? Although the literature has thoroughly examined strategies for communicating deference, these strategies may not be so easy to apply to workplace relationships. Data from this study suggest that deference is complicated by expectations for subordinate performance and, more important, that soon-to-be new hires are likely to lack the linguistic and rhetorical sophistication needed to manage the communicative tensions between confidence and deference. Consider Example 1.1, in which a subordinate reports her evaluation of her superior’s presentation: Example 1.1: It is a great privilege to aid you in this sales presentation. I noticed that there are a few faulty assumptions and a lack of definitions within your sales pitch that I believe weakens the overall argument.

Here the reporting subordinate acknowledges the asymmetrical role relationship and attempts to convey deference; indeed, the statement in the first line suggests positive politeness, as Brown and Levinson (1987) defined it. In the second line, the “I believe” functions as a hedge and also suggests that the subordinate is confident enough to say what she thinks. A linguistic balance appears to be struck here. But to some receivers, such expressions of confidence could also come across as arrogant or self-assured to the point of being obnoxious (e.g., recall that Hubler, 1983, cautioned that presenting one’s self as a highly knowledgeable person may pose a potential threat to the

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Rogers, Lee-Wong / RECONCEPTUALIZING POLITENESS

399

receiver’s face). Removing the personal pronouns might attenuate this possibility (e.g., changing “your sales pitch” to “the sales pitch” or, to communicate solidarity, perhaps even “our sales pitch”). Examples 1.2 and 1.3, however, are more likely to be interpreted as failed politeness: Example 1.2: Sir, I have analyzed the draft of [your] sales presentation argument and am delighted to say that its selling point is a rather strong one.

As in Example 1.1, in this example, the subordinate’s task is to critique his superior’s presentation argument, a face-threatening act. The subordinate must have sufficient confidence to do so. Passing judgment, including giving praise, may not be in keeping with the superiorsubordinate role relationship, however. Here we can confidently conclude that complimenting is outside the parameters of the specific task; critiquing does not require complimenting. Indeed, praising the superior may communicate a lack of deference, suggesting judgment about the performance of the superior overall, which is not in keeping with the subordinate’s relative position in the hierarchy. Whereas praise from the superior to the subordinate could function as positive politeness, in reverse it may be interpreted as presumptuous. In Example 1.3, reporting subordinates are even less successful communicating confidently with deference: Example 1.3: Since Sam [our other faculty supervisor] is working directly with us and with the client, we heeded his feedback over yours. . . . Many of your comments we chose not to incorporate. . . . Given our professional experience (3 of us have between 3 to 8 years consulting experience and the other 3 years of auditing), we felt confident about moving forward. . . . Your comments regarding communicating in the form of reason vs. benefit were helpful; however, we were unable to respond due to the time constraint. We apologize. Lastly, we did not add your name to the Project Roles and Responsibilities list because as far as the client is concerned, you’re an invisible part of our infrastructure. The client is not familiar with who you are.

In this example, the deference-confidence relationship seems incongruous. Clearly, the reporting team is confident and says so: “We felt confident about moving forward.” The entire passage shows initia-

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

400

JBTC / October 2003

tive, independence, direction, and even some measure of politeness in extending an apology for not responding in due time. Yet it could be interpreted as extremely face threatening for two reasons: 1. The status of the superior in the organization is explicitly denied (“You’re an invisible part of our infrastructure”). 2. The superior is told point-blank that he is irrelevant to the client (“The client is not familiar with who you are”) as well as to the team itself (“We heeded [the other supervisor’s] feedback over yours”).

In framing this superior’s input as irrelevant to the team’s fieldwork, such statements may be interpreted as inconsiderate, disrespectful, and undiplomatic. Even if the team is attempting to make an implied contrast (i.e., the superior is important to them but less important to the client), it seems flawed and clumsy in regard to politeness. In proposing a tension between deference and confidence, the framework suggests that if expressing confidence entails dismissing the role and contribution of the other person, superior or otherwise, then communicative arrogance may inadvertently displace confidence and defeat deference. By contrast, deferent communication may include explicit expressions of appreciation and acknowledgments of input or assistance (as opposed to the apparent judgment or evaluation in Example 1.2). Deferent communication indicates respect for the other’s knowledge and abilities, demonstrates understanding of the other’s work obligations and time constraints, and employs tone and forms of address that do not overstep the superior-subordinate hierarchical relationship. The report in Example 1.4 shows greater skill in managing the deferent-confident tension: Example 1.4: Thank you both for taking the time to make suggestions for changes to the engagement letter. I’ve tried to incorporate your suggestions. I think the plan of attack from this point is to work with Jim [our company contact] and see if this fulfills his and our needs. Thanks again for your help.

Here the reporting team member expresses appreciation for the superiors’ suggestions and explains that she has attempted to implement them. At the same time, the subordinate implies that the letter may need to be modified should the client request it, suggesting that she

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Rogers, Lee-Wong / RECONCEPTUALIZING POLITENESS

401

and her team know how to proceed if that becomes necessary. Thus, the subordinate appears to succeed in communicating politeness because she conveys gratitude and acts in good faith according to her superiors’ suggestions, displaying trust in her superiors’ competence and expertise. Meanwhile, her use of hedges (e.g., “think” and “if this fulfills”) suggests that she is tentative and open to counsel from them. But balancing deference with confidence when the face-threatening act of critique is necessary (as in the scenario used for our solicited data) may prove more complicated. In Example 1.5, the subordinate is quite successful in responding to the superior’s request for critique of the data for an upcoming sales presentation: Example 1.5: We could show that our experience in the industry gives us a technological advantage. . . . Our specialization could also be included with the data above to underscore the better quality of IBI Bearings.

Here the subordinate critiques the boss’s data using hedged suggestions (e.g., “we could show”) and inclusive pronouns (“we” and “our”) coupled with the soft verb could, showing a good deal of deference while making suggestions that seem to be useful and informative. In Example 1.6, the reporting team member also seems deferential as he explains to his supervising faculty member that the procedures this professor originally mapped out have been changed by a company representative: Example 1.6: There has been a slight change of plans since my last email. I just spoke to Rajiv and we confirmed the following: 1. There will be no conference. . . . 2. Rajiv does not need to see a summary of our strategy before the presentation. Professor, we look forward to seeing you on Monday. . . . Many thanks.

In this example, the subordinate uses a confident tone expressing what will be done rather than what will not be done and a deferential tone expressing “thanks” to his “Professor.” Overall, the subordinate explains that his team is proceeding to get the job done and does so without detracting from his superior ’s role, expertise, and experience.

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

402

JBTC / October 2003

Non-Imposition and Direction As long recognized in politeness literature, respecting the receiver’s autonomy can require some degree of distancing. Receivers may feel imposed on if communicators assert their views in clear definitive terms or make suggestions in a manner that does not allow the receiver to negotiate, object, or reject. To communicate humbly and politely, communicators may need to refrain from imposing their views on others. But others may consider communicators who display little sense of direction about how to proceed as being either unwilling or unable to contribute fully. Does communicating a sense of direction necessitate some form of imposition? Perhaps communicating decisively while maintaining a nonintrusive stance requires a delicate linguistic and rhetorical balancing act, one that involves mixing strong and weak modal verbs, hedging and declaring, evaluating and inquiring, and incorporating questions to express openness to alternatives and input. Communicators who fail to achieve that proper balance in their messages may register as too authoritative, pushy, or unaware of their superiors’ time pressures, expertise, and obligations, as the report to a supervisor in Example 2.1 illustrates: Example 2.1: Since we are planning to leave for Toledo very early tomorrow, I would like to request that we have your comments some time tonight in order to incorporate any changes for presentation to Jim [our company contact]. Thanks for your time.

In this report, the subordinate’s expressed need for haste might garner a more receptive hearing if his rather direct request were replaced with inquiry (e.g., “Might it be possible for you to take a quick look at our presentation slides tonight or early tomorrow?”). In Example 2.2, the reporting team member seems to have a better idea regarding how to balance non-imposition and direction: Example 2.2: Just a quick note to coordinate the final report feedback plan for next week. . . . It is our current plan to . . . We were hoping that you could provide feedback sometime on Tuesday. . . . Do you have time available on Tuesday? We wanted to give you plenty of advance notice so we don’t disrupt your schedule at the last minute. . . . Please let us know if this works for you.

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Rogers, Lee-Wong / RECONCEPTUALIZING POLITENESS

403

Overall, the writer of this report is not as assertive as the writer of the report in Example 2.1. In Example 2.2, the writer’s tone seems tentative, considerate, and also reassuring (e.g., the team has a “plan”). The superior could comfortably respond, “No, I can’t do it on Tuesday.” In other words, the subordinate’s desire not to impose on the superior’s autonomy is apparent in the message. At the same time, the subordinate is not directionless; she does present a suggestion of a specific day albeit softened by the follow-up question, “Do you have time available on Tuesday?” The writers of the reports in Examples 2.3 and 2.4 also mediate the imposition related to time; for example, they suggest that steps have been taken to make the report easy for the superior to process: Example 2.3: Please find updated to the web page the European Community interviews and the status report for 4/9/01. Note in the status report the matter for [your] review. We have also revised the categories and the visual presentation of the web page. We hope these revision[s] will make the web page easier to follow. . . . The team would like to meet with you. . . . Would Wednesday at 10:00 am fit into your schedules? Example 2.4: We apologize for the confusion, but thought posting the 2 different documents in different places would make it less confusing.

By contrast, how does a superior’s perspective differ from that of the reporting subordinate? Superiors are expected to give orders. The superior-to-subordinate reports in Examples 2.5 and 2.6 illustrate this perspective: Example 2.5: We expect teams to file a report for each country/city that you work in. Example 2.6: Having just arrived in Europe a few hours ago, and feeling the effects of jet lag myself, I certainly understand your “strong” wish to get back to the States as originally planned. Nevertheless, in my experience the extra day in turnaround won’t benefit you significantly, and the $805 per person makes the XYZ flight unreasonable. . . . the XYZ flight is out of the question. That’s $3,200. For a night’s sleep. . . . The Amsterdam connection sounds fine. . . . Then you could overnight in Stamford and be well rested for the presentation. . . . Keep me aware of your selections.

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

404

JBTC / October 2003

Using strong verbs such as “expect” and the imperative “Keep me aware” coupled with the nonnegotiable statement “the XYZ flight is out of the question,” the superiors give their subordinates little opportunity to refuse or negotiate alternatives. In Example 2.6, the phrase “in my experience” cleverly hedges the superior’s directive yet reminds the receivers that the superior is indeed their boss—and a boss with considerable experience. And yet this supervisor’s use of personal experience softens the imposition by associating with his subordinates’ perspective. He displays understanding of his role as superior and the requirement for direct action, yet he also identifies at a personal level (e.g., “I certainly understand your ‘strong’ wish to get back”). Solidarity and Individuality At first glance, the descriptions of solidarity and individuality in Figure 2 seem diametric. Solidarity implies belonging; individuality implies independence. Individuality spells uniqueness and difference; solidarity often means similarity and agreement. So, too, a subordinate may report results obtained through individual effort, yet the subordinate expends this effort on behalf of a superior and, ultimately, on behalf of an organization as a whole. That is, a task that a subordinate accepts and completes independently will advance the entire organizational endeavor in some way. Organizing is about pooling individual resources and reaching consensus sufficient to accomplish something; it is about group ownership at some level. Indeed, individual results may be regarded as group property. Then, the “I versus you” and “mine versus yours” may evolve into “we” and “ours” in reports about these activities. Or, the reports may be altogether free of pronouns (“With the gaps filled, this presentation” versus “With the gaps filled, your presentation”). In Example 3.1, in which the task is to critique the superior’s argument, the reporting subordinate does not fully understand how to communicate the interplay between individuality and solidarity for this situation. Example 3.1: Regarding our earlier conversation concerning ABC Motor of Poland, I’ve completed your assigned task [to critique your argument]. The holes I’ve found [in your argument] are easily mendable. With the gaps filled, your presentation will be airtight.

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Rogers, Lee-Wong / RECONCEPTUALIZING POLITENESS

405

This critique possesses a strong mine-versus-yours character. The two “I’ve” and two “your” references overcast the initial “our”; meanwhile, the flaws in the argument are clearly associated with the superior. The subordinate could attenuate this problem by proactively and positively suggesting alternatives rather than finding fault with the boss’s argument and by eliminating some references to the boss individually (e g., “Might X be associated with Y? Then we could claim that . . . ”). In Example 3.2, the subordinate provides alternatives; however, his strong assertion of what should be done could be construed as insensitive to the hierarchical order despite his use of the corporate “we.” Example 3.2: The figures are merely taken over a two-year time period and are derived from customers who took time to complain. . . . Consequently we must provide them with more objective data that encompasses a longer time period. We must emphasize the cost advantages of our bearings.

In this instance, the verbs used may assert individual opinion too strongly (e.g., “must provide,” “must emphasize”), particularly since the subordinate is critiquing the superior’s argument. Some superiors may regard this critique as harsh, overly critical, or disrespectful. On the other hand, being overly solicitous (e.g., “Do you think perhaps we could provide?”) may not be the answer either. Example 3.3 illustrates a report in which individuality and solidarity seem more effectively balanced. Here the boss’s input is not dismissed even though it was too late to be entirely useful. Example 3.3: The power point presentation I posted . . . has changed pretty significantly since the initial draft [which you reviewed], but I will use your comments as a spring board [nevertheless].

In this example, the subordinate reports that work was completed to meet the client’s presentation schedule although without the benefit of the superior’s timely input. In reporting that, however, the subordinate clearly shows respect for the boss’s feedback by stating her intentions to use it. The fact that the boss’s feedback came too late remains in the subtext. In contrast to Examples 3.1 and 3.2, Example 3.3 implies a “working side-by-side” approach involving individuality and solidarity alike.

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

406

JBTC / October 2003

In organizations, employees who express individuality absent of solidarity may contribute to group chaos, yet the literature has shown that expressions of solidarity without individuality may result in groupthink (e.g., Janis, 1973). The challenge for subordinates is to balance these expressions most appropriately and productively for each situation.

CONCLUSION Our proposed politeness framework suggests that although conventional strategies long associated with receiver face needs remain critical in subordinate reporting, such strategies may also need to accommodate obligations concerning self-assertion. In building the framework, we discovered through data analyses that conventional politeness dimensions are challenged when situated in subordinate reporting. Subordinates encounter communicative dilemmas involving ostensibly opposing values: For example, their obligation to express findings with sufficient self-confidence and sense of direction may complicate their competing need to express deferential regard. According to the framework, subordinates’ attention to saving the receiver’s face and to the pragmatic and overarching goal of cooperation in reporting should not come at the expense of their displaying the self-assertion necessary to meet organizational obligations. The proposed framework would have us reconceptualize conventional politeness (deference, non-imposition, and solidarity) and the notion of face in subordinate reporting. Obviously, subordinates are still expected to demonstrate politeness and cooperation. At the same time, subordinates are also expected to display personal capability, confidence, and drive. This set of personal qualities includes an ability to relay bad news and perhaps even to challenge directives or conclusions that may not seem in the best interest of the organization. Individuals with advanced education, like the soon-to-be new hires at the undergraduate and MBA levels in our samples, are hired not to capitulate but to contribute. According to our proposed framework, contributing via reporting requires that subordinates negotiate the dynamic interplay between competing dimensions, displaying an appropriate level of understanding of the reporting relationship and respect for their superiors while at the same time fulfilling their organizational obligations for self-assertion. The framework has applications for both pedagogy and research.

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Rogers, Lee-Wong / RECONCEPTUALIZING POLITENESS

407

Pedagogical Applications For teaching, the politeness framework with its focus on subordinate reporting may be used to situate discussions about conventional politeness, communicative tone, bad news, and positive emphasis, suggesting the complexity of achieving polite discourse in organizational situations. Class activities might involve examining sample reports (e.g., videotaped meetings, e-mail, formal reports, PowerPoint slides) in light of the framework’s six dimensions. In examining these reports, students could be asked, for example, to identify rhetorical strategies and linguistic features that may or may not work to achieve equilibrium between the competing dimensions. Written and oral exercises, such as responding to a bad-news situation, like the scenario we used, could also be administered and reviewed with the framework in mind. Such a review might begin by discussing the way and degree to which the relational values of deference, non-imposition, and solidarity are preserved. Next, students could examine textual displays of direction, individuality, and confidence in relationship to the assigned task. A scoring scheme ranging, for example, from 1 (not achieved) to 6 (fully achieved) could also be used to evaluate reports (written by students or by others) on their achievement of these dimensions. Students might be asked to justify their scores with actual examples from the texts. Such exercises illustrate the complicated truth that although relational issues may be addressed, organizational responsibilities may be lacking or vice versa. This analysis becomes yet another way to dramatize the situational complexity of “tone” and politeness strategies. As one of our students expressed it during a class discussion of the framework: “This is a lot more difficult than being friendly and positive!” Research Applications For research, the framework invites situated studies of politeness and provides three additional dimensions for analysis. Although studies have observed dimensions of conventional politeness in texts, including subordinate reports (Morand, 2000), no studies have analyzed the counterpart dimensions involving individual responsibilities as proposed here. Systematic analyses of subordinate reports on all these dimensions might take any number of forms. Discourse studies could investigate the presence and interplay between the dimensions in select texts. The framework might also accommodate

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

408

JBTC / October 2003

empirical, statistical research. For example, a sample could be scored holistically on overall effectiveness (preferably by the actual communicators involved) and also analytically using a tool based on the framework, as we outlined for the classroom scoring exercise. Correlations between the holistic and analytic scores could suggest the extent to which these dimensions condition perceptions regarding overall effectiveness. If demographic data were collected from the participants in such a study, further statistical analyses might reveal the presence or absence of cultural, gender, or other influences affecting both sender choices and receiver interpretations related to these dimensions. Following methods outlined by Bhawuk and Triandis (1996), Lucy (1996), and Thatcher (2001), we built the framework to identify shared politeness concerns across subordinate-reporting contexts so that it could be employed for analyzing various differences. We might generally assume, for example, that women demonstrate communicative facility with the relational dimensions in the framework but less facility displaying confidence whereas the reverse might be imagined for men. If statistical analyses of reports on the dimensions showed otherwise, this finding could provide useful new knowledge. Or an analytic tool based on the framework could be developed to analyze reports in relationship to the classic high-context, low-context cultural model (Hall, 1976; Hofstede, 1980). SriussadapornCharoenngam and Jablin (1999) have found that communicatively competent subordinates in Thai organizations are expected to be open and straightforward despite the general cultural tendency toward relational kreng jai, or extreme reluctance to impose on anyone. Might this finding be further validated? Studies of this sort could explore whether and how the communicative demands for subordinate reporting in the global workplace conflict with long-held notions regarding cultural differences. Finally, with the proposed framework in mind, consider in closing the example given at the start of this article, an e-mail report from the representative of an international team to one of two superiors: To some extent, your feedback contradicted feedback Sam gave us. Since Sam is working directly with us and with the client, we heeded his feedback over yours.

Clearly, this team representative displays self-confidence, communicating a sense of direction as to how the team should best proceed. The

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Rogers, Lee-Wong / RECONCEPTUALIZING POLITENESS

409

supervisors receiving this communication may appreciate the fact that this team does not seem to require a lot of hand-holding. Yet the team representative also demonstrates a lack of deference, imposing decisions that are not his to make. From talking with the supervisors in this situation, we know that this team was a little too self-directed at times, overstepping specified obligations to superiors. The supervisors themselves, not the reporting team, were expected to decide if and how to divide their supervisory responsibilities. Knowing this, we see how the team representative’s directed self-confidence toward the operations of the project overreaches, impinging on the superiors’ role and failing to meet the relational need for deference and nonimposition. The framework helps us to articulate why this team representative’s communication was impolite. Deferent, non-imposing team communication might have rather involved a request for supervisors’ direction (e.g., “Since Sam is working directly with us, how would you advise us to use feedback from both of you?”). The team representative, in displaying direction and confidence in this instance, should not have assumed authority that belonged to the supervisors but rather should have formulated questions that displayed awareness of their relationships and their unique responsibilities. As the revisiting of this example shows, the framework can facilitate discussion. Yet it also raises questions by illustrating the shifting interplay between relational demands and individual responsibilities in subordinate reporting, questions that suggest a connection between sophisticated textual choices and situational variables. We propose this framework as a springboard for more situated complex analyses of politeness.

REFERENCES Bhawuk, D., & Triandis, H. (1996). The role of culture theory in the study of culture and intercultural training. In D. Landis & R. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (2nd ed., pp. 17-34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 131-146. Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1991). Politeness theory and Shakespeare’s four major tragedies. Language in Society, 18, 159-212. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

410

JBTC / October 2003

David, C., & Baker, M. (1994). Rereading bad news: Compliance-gaining features in management memos. Journal of Business Communication, 31, 267-289. DiSalvo, V. (1980). A summary of current research identifying communication skills in various organizational contexts. Communication Education, 29, 269-275. DiSalvo, V., & Larsen, J. K. (1987). A contingency approach to communication skill importance: The impact of occupation, direction, and position. Journal of Business Communication, 24, 3-22. Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219-236. Fraser, B., & Nolen, W. (1981). The association of deference with linguistic form. International Journal of Sociology of Language, 27, 93-109. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order. American Sociological Review, 48, 1-17. Graham, M. B. (1998). Administrative writing: Bringing context to pedagogy. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 12, 238-252. Graham, M. B., & David, C. (1996). Power and politeness: Administrative writing in an “organized anarchy.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 10, 5-27. Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press. Hagge, J., & Kostelnick, C. (1989). Linguistic politeness in professional prose: A discourse analysis of auditors’ suggestion letters, with implications for business communication pedagogy. Written Communication, 6, 312-339. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Anchor/Doubleday. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hubler, A. (1983). Understatements and hedges in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Jablin, F. M., Cude, R. L., House, A., Lee, J., & Roth, N. L. (1994). Communication competence in organizations: Conceptualization and comparison across multiple levels of analysis. In L. Thayer & G. Barnett (Eds.), Organizational communication: Emerging perspectives (Vol. 4, pp. 114-140). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Janis, I. L. (1973). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Lakoff, R. T. (1990). Talking power: The politics of language. New York: Basic Books. Lariviere, E. (1989). Writing skills in business: Implications for teachers of technical writing. The Technical Writing Teacher, 16, 103-113. Lawler, J. A., Zaidi, M., & Atmiyanandana, V. (1989). Human resource strategies in Southeast Asia: The case of Thailand. In A. Need, G. Ferris, & K. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management supplement (Vol. 1, pp. 201-221). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman. Lee-Wong, S. M. (2000). Politeness and face in Chinese culture. New York: Peter Lang. Limaye, M. (1988). Buffers in bad news messages and recipient perceptions. Management Communication Quarterly, 2, 90-101. Locker, K. O. (1999). Factors in reader responses to negative letters: Experimental evidence for changing what we teach. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 13, 5-48. Lucy, J. (1996). The scope of linguistic relativity: An analysis and review of empirical research. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Rogers, Lee-Wong / RECONCEPTUALIZING POLITENESS

411

McCord, E. A. (1991). The business writer, the law, and routine business communication: A legal and rhetorical analysis. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 5, 173-199. Monge, P., Bachman, S. G., Dillard, J. P., & Eisenberg, E. M. (1982). Communicator competence in the workplace: Model testing and scale development. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 5, pp. 505-527). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Morand, D. A. (2000). Language and power: An empirical analysis of linguistic strategies used in superior-subordinate communication. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 235-248. Perlman, A. M. (1981). Some linguistic components of tone. Technical Communication, 28, 211-219. Quinn, R., Hildebrandt, H. W., Rogers, P. S., & Thompson, M. P. (1991). A competing values framework for analyzing presentational communication in management contexts. Journal of Business Communication, 28, 213-232. Riley, K. (1988). Conversational implicature and unstated meaning in professional communication. The Technical Writing Teacher, 15, 94-104. Rogers, P. S., & Rymer, J. (2001). Analytical tools to facilitate transitions into new writing contexts: A communicative perspective. Journal of Business Communication, 38, 112-152. Rogers, P. S., & Swales, J. M. (1990). We the people? An analysis of the Dana Corporation policies document. Journal of Business Communication, 27, 293-313. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (1995). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach. Cambridge, UK: Basil Blackwell. Schryer, C. F. (2000). Walking a fine line: Writing negative letters in an insurance company. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 14, 445-497. Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 59-82). New York: Academic Press. Shelby, A. N., & Reinsch, N. L., Jr. (1995). Positive emphasis and you-attitude: An empirical study. Journal of Business Communication, 32, 303-327. Shwom, B. L. (1990, March). Why bad news letters fail: An argument for going beyond the formula. Paper presented at the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Chicago. Sriussadaporn-Charoenngam, N., & Jablin, F. M. (1999). An exploratory study of communication competence in Thai organizations. Journal of Business Communication, 32, 382-418. Suchan, J., & Dulek, R. (1988). Toward a better understanding of reader analysis. Journal of Business Communication, 25, 29-45. Swales, J. M. & Rogers, P. S. (1995). Discourse and the projection of corporate culture: The mission statement. Discourse & Society, 6, 223-242. Takahara, K. (1986). Politeness in English, Japanese and Spanish. In J. H. Koo & R. N. St. Clair (Eds.), Cross-cultural communication: East and West (pp. 181-194). Seoul, South Korea: Samji. Thatcher, B. (2001). Issues of validity in intercultural professional communication research. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15, 458-489. Timmons, T. C. (1988). Consulting in an insurance company: What we as academics can learn. The Technical Writing Teacher, 15, 105-10. Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Upward and downward influence tactics in managerial networks. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 8, 147-158.

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

412

JBTC / October 2003

Van Waes, L., & van Wijk, C. (2000-2001). The influence of politeness on the perception of product recall notices. Document Design, 2, 272-279. Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Different cultures, different languages, speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 145-178. Yli-Jokipii, H. (1994). Requests in professional discourse: A cross-cultural study of British, American and Finnish business writing. Annales Academiae Schientiarum Fennica. Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum 71. Helsinki, Finland: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Zorn, T. E., & Violanti, M.T. (1996). Communication abilities and individual achievement in organizations. Management Communication Quarterly, 10, 139-167.

Priscilla S. Rogers is an associate professor of business communication at the University of Michigan Business School and senior fellow in Strategy, Management and Organization at Nanyang Business School, Singapore. Her research focuses on developing conceptual frameworks and tools to evaluate communication effectiveness in workplace contexts. She may be reached by e-mail at [email protected]. Song Mei Lee-Wong was an assistant professor at Nanyang Business School until recently returning to her home in Australia. Her research focuses on cross-cultural communication, language, politeness, and speech acts in business and professional contexts. She is the author of Politeness and Face in Chinese Culture (Lang, 2000). She may be reached by e-mail at [email protected].

Downloaded from http://jbt.sagepub.com by Martín Acebal on May 11, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.