top of page
Apps Developer
Introduction
Workplace culture is “a system of shared meanings and values as reflected in the discursive and behavioral norms typically displayed by members that distinguish that workplace from others” (Schnurr, 2013, p.61). It is not limited to the ethnic background of participants in an interaction. Recent studies take the view that culture is dynamically negotiated during interactions between members in a workplace (Miller, 1999, p.96, Holmes & Marra, 2002, p.1685).
Theoretical Basis
The notion of Community of Practice (CoP) is a useful concept to explore the dynamic nature of workplace communication. According to Eckert and McConnell Ginet (1992, p.64), CoP is defined as “an aggregate of people who come together around mutual engagement in some common endeavor. Ways of doing things, ways of talking, beliefs, values, power relations - in short, practices - emerge in the course of their joint activity around that endeavor”. More specifically, members of a workplace engage in constant negotiation of the different norms and expectation of what is considered “acceptable behaviors” in the workplace. In this sense, it is important to analyze the culture of a workplace as a prerequisite for understanding and interpreting members’ communicative and behavioral practices.
Power relation is inherent to workplace culture as it is closely linked to every practice of a workplace - both relational and transactional. Power in the workplace can be classified into positional power and expert power. Positional power derives from the member’s formal title and position in a workplace, while expert power derives from his/ her “knowledge, aptitude, and ability” (Schnurr, 2013, p.82). The following case studies demonstrate how workplace communication can be analyzed with a focus on workplace culture.
CULTURE
AT
WORK
Theory
Application
Theory
District Councilor
Case Study 1:
District Councilor
The integration of new members in the workplace is a typical case study on CoP since it involves the learning of what ways of communication and collaboration are deemed acceptable in accordance with a particular workplace culture. We conducted a job shadowing in a district councilor (DC)’s office in which a new assistant was in his first week of work. The workplace has four members in total, including the district councilor (Adam), two full-time assistants (Bryan and Cathy) and the newly admitted part-time assistant (Donald).
At the outset, ethnographic details of the workplace are available as a prelude to understanding its culture. The DC’s office has an open layout without walls or cubicles. The open environment design encourages collaboration and open conversation. The workplace may therefore be interpreted as having an open culture which encourages a non-hierarchical power structure. Since all the members are working in the same room, they can hear each other and participate in the discussions, and co-contribute to the decision-making process. In order to have a clear picture of the workplace culture, specific daily interactions between members of the DC’s office are analyzed.
Donald (the new assistant) is assigned to take charge of his first resident-visiting project in the district. The project is sponsored by a local environmental group as a means to promote the use of energy-efficient products. The DC’s office is responsible for both management and field operation activities in helping the residents to replace their traditional lighting with greener alternatives. When Adam (the DC) wants to discuss the detailed arrangement of the project, he asks Donald “Can you come (to my seat) to talk about the arrangement of Saturday? (你可唔可以過嚟講吓星期六安排成點?)” With this utterance, Adam mitigates his directive by putting it in a question form to minimize the sense of positional difference between him and Donald. However, the utterance is still embedded with an underlying power structure. Instead of coming to Donald’s desk, Adam asks Donald to go to his seat to make a brief report on the project. It is a typical example of superior-subordinate interaction because it is usually the superior who asks the subordinate to meet him/her rather than the subordinate who makes such a request.
Also, since the interaction at hand was initiated between Adam and Donald, they are supposed to be the only interlocutors in the meeting. It is worth noting that although other members (Bryan and Cathy) have not been explicitly invited to participate in the discussion, the one-room office space enables them to be aware of the discussion and the issues raised. When Adam and Donald are talking about contacting each of the residents and reminding them of the installation time, Bryan joins the discussion by interrupting Adam. This suggests that the physical context is drawn upon in constructing workplace culture. Bryan directly expresses his opposition to Donald’s idea.
1. Adam: 依個有排打喎=
It takes a lot of time to make the calls=
2. Bryan: =唔係啊. 唔打㗎喇.
=No. don’t do that.
3. 因為係:.係我哋去唔係佢哋嚟吖嘛.
because it’s:. it’s we going to their places instead of them coming to us.
4. 咁所以你一定預唔實時間㗎, 不嬲以前都係咁.
so you can’t be sure about the time, It’s always like that in the past.
5. 你都係同佢講番上晝幾點到幾點去佢樓下屋企.
you should tell them that we will arrive during the morning time period.
6. Donald: 如果有時間. 我會建議打一打同提一提.
If there is time. I will advise to just call and remind.
7. Bryan: 但係. 因為你. 你講唔實㗎. 有時你知你=
But. because you. you can’t be sure. Sometimes you know you=
8. Donald: =唔係. 唔係講個時間. 只係提一提嘅啫(.) reminder.
=No. it’s not telling them about the time. it’s just reminding them(.) reminder.
9. Adam: Remind係都好嘅. Remind都好嘅.
To remind is good though. To remind is good.
10. 唔緊要喇, 你就reminder形式去打喇.
never mind, you just call them in a reminder format.
11. 跟住(.) 唔緊要喇. 因為我都未咁樣做過.
Then (.) never mind. because even I haven’t done this before.
12. 下次.做完睇吓下次點樣再做得好啲.
next time. when it is done let’s see how to do it better next time
In the example, both Bryan and Adam show endeavors to enact a harmonious and supportive workplace culture by taking different approaches to the project. Although Bryan overtly articulates his disagreement with Donald’s advice in line 2, his disagreement is mitigated since it is followed with a justification. By referring it to his past experience (line 4), Bryan has reduced the potential face threat to Donald. It is interesting that in a later interview, Bryan revealed that he was referring to his general experience in project arrangement when he said ‘it’s always like that in the past”. In contrast, Adam was referring to his lack of specific experience in arranging resident-visiting project which involves lighting installation. According to Pullin (2011), the integration of a new member into a workplace poses a complicated and even “contradictory” task to the superior. On the one hand, the superior needs to monitor and assess the performance of the new member. On the other hand, the superior needs to ensure a smooth integration of the new member into the team as a means for “building solidarity” (p. 266). In the example, Adam accepted Donald’s advice even though it is not practical and too time-consuming (as stated in line 1). His decision appears to be made to boost solidarity with the new member. In lines 9-12, he further gave recognition to Donald’s advice. By saying “even I haven’t done this before”, Adam implied that no one will be blamed even if things do not work well. Adam further reassures Donald that the project will turn into a valuable experience which helps him doing better in the future. In brief, Bryan and Adam have performed different communicative practices to develop a good rapport with the new member. Eventually, it encourages the new member to integrate into the workplace culture and its CoP.
Law Firm
Case Study 2:
Law Firm
Another workplace we visited is a law firm. The firm is a small-size office with a total of six employees: two senior lawyers, two trainees, one office administrator and one accountant. Other than the two senior lawyers, all the employees are local. According to one of the senior lawyers, the office is hierarchically structured, with senior lawyers assigning jobs for the trainees and the trainees would assist them in documentation drafting and researches.
In a workplace with employees from multiple language backgrounds, the firm adopted English as the lingua-franca. All written documents are drafted in English yet communication between employees may vary from Cantonese to English. Since the two senior lawyers do not speak Cantonese, there is a lot of code-switching involved in the communication. We notice a pattern that in practice, if the conversation only involves Cantonese-speaking employees, the communication will be in Cantonese but if it involves either of the two English-speaking senior lawyers, the lingua-franca English will be used. Often, it involves the process of translating from English to Cantonese or vice-versa. For instance, when the office administrator (Grace) delivered the senior lawyer’s message to one of the junior lawyer, she made use of reported speech, “Derreck問你搞店份野未(translated into English: Derreck (the senior lawyer) asked if you’ve finished drafting the document)”. As the clientele of the firm is mostly English-speaking foreigners. When a client is present, all the conversation will be in English, even if it is a private conversation between two local employees such as a discussion on how to make a skimmed milk coffee for the client. The use of English in the presence of a client contributes to the showing of respect. Since only the two seniors will handle meetings with clients, the client meetings are also conducted in English. The code switching between English to Cantonese also shows a change in the purpose of communication. Since it is a workplace with minimal communication, most of the conversation is purely transactional. However, the use of Cantonese in relational talk is more common than that of English. While the users of Cantonese are mostly employees in the lower-level of the office hierarchy, i.e. they are to take orders from the English-speaking senior lawyers, the use of Cantonese contributes to the feeling of an insider and they are more likely to involve in small talks. For example, after the meeting with a client where the accountant of the firm is first introduced to the client, a junior lawyer (Joyce) engages in a small talk with the accountant (Peter) using Cantonese. Here we notice a difference in the conversation as there are more relational talk. Joyce started the conversation with “頭先見client OK呀可？(How is the meeting with the client?)” and other causal talks such as “我見到你笑左 (I saw you smiling)” as to mock Peter for being too nervous. Yet, in their English conversation with their superior, they only gave minimal responses such as “OK”, “Yes”, etc. The switch of codes also indicates the different types of communication.
Regarding the communication between senior lawyers and their trainees, they are mostly transactional. A senior lawyer would give instruction to their subordinates. The senior would employ the form of questions such as “Can I get all the documents in a file?” or the positive-face strategy “I suggest you do that” to avoid the use of directives. In one case, a junior lawyer (Shelly) forgot to make one call to client. Derreck first started with a question, “Have you called [the client’s name] yet?” After knowing that she has yet to make the call, he replied by “I suggest you do that”. When noticed that Shelly was still not making the call, Derreck added, “I know you’re doing this. But maybe you should call him first. There’s another case coming so I’m just asking you to call him first.” This time more direct and with more emphasis on the importance of the call. Noticing the possible tension, Derreck then also employed the use of humor, “Hey I should’ve mentioned that earlier. That’s the priority” and ended it with a chuckle. This contributes to the maintenance of collegiality at work. The use of humor can be seen as an indirect strategy for enacting leadership and to attenuate the effect of an unpalatable decision.
Reflection
Culture determines the hidden work protocol in a workplace. It is a crucial element on how we should behave, especially under the hierarchical structure of a workplace, or we will be deemed unsociable or impolite. As illustrated in the above examples, workplace culture is dynamically negotiated in the interactions between members of a workplace. There are no general guidelines for how we should behave in all workplaces for each workplace has its unique culture and usual communicative practice. Therefore, newcomers in the office are advised to attempt observing and learning the distinctive communication and behaviour patterns in order to truly assimilate into a new workplace culture.
Case Study 3:
Company X, A Student-Led
Apps Developer at HKU
Introduction to Analytical Framework
SPEAKING model (Hymes, 1974) and Community of Practice (CoP) are used as the major analytical framework of this ethnographic research. SPEAKING model studies the interaction of setting and scene, participants, ends, acts sequence, key, instrumentalities, norms, & genre of the field. Application of the SPEAKING model enables better understanding of conversations in unique settings and enables comprehensive investigation on the interplay between culture and language (Moerman, 1988). CoP studies how the mutual engagement of member shape the shared repertoire of certain community (Wenger, 1998). Application of the CoP will enable deeper discussion of the sociolinguistic background of each participant and how norms of the communication practices are formed.
Background Information of Company X
Company X is a student-led apps developer which rents a coworking space in iDendron at The University of Hong Kong. Located on 1/F Knowles Building, iDendron is the HKU Innovation and Entrepreneurship Hub which serves as a co-working space, event space, and collaborative community for HKU students and alumni.
The daily business activities of Company X include (1) developing and maintain the app which is only open for university students (2) solving users’ privacy issues. There are 5 people (ie. apps administrators) in the company and they work closely in a team. Below is a brief introduction of the background of the 5 apps administrators.
A: Female, HKU master student, content creator of the apps, local Hong Kong student
B: Male, HKU final year undergraduate student, content creator, local Hong Kong student
C: Male, HKU final year computer science undergraduate student, programmer of the app, local Hong Kong
student
D: Male, recent graduate of HKU, programmer of the app, local Hong Kong student
E: Male, HKU final year business student, local Hong Kong student, operator of who assists colleague A to D
Settings
At the outset, the openness and inclusiveness culture of the workplace is revealed by the ethnographic details. As mentioned, the workplace is a co-working space, where all members of the team sit closely at the long desk to work. Dolls and snacks ae placed on the desk, and above the working desk, there are memos, calendars and targeted tasks of the app. These indicate the developers treasure work-life balance. There are other startups sharing the same coworking space. They are located at the next desk of the apps developer, there are no walls or boards to separate different startups. Therefore, different startups can overhear others’ discussion if they speak loudly.
Daily interaction
The open environment design encourages collaboration and open conversation. In the ethnographic observation, they have frequent daily interaction with other startups. For instance, the apps developers joined other teams’ casual chat and take others’ references in solving some technical problems of the apps. They even discussed the afterwork happy hour with other startups. Therefore, the workplace is interpreted as having an open culture which encourages a collegial collaboration within the team and with other companies within the coworking space.
In the middle of the observation, the team had a meeting regarding users’ data privacy. Then they moved into the meeting room to discuss a confidential issue. Given the confidentiality of the meeting, only the beginning of the meeting is captured.
1. E: 今日我地會討論最近個privacy issue (.) 唔知大家有咩suggestion呢
Today we will discuss the privacy issue of the app (.) Do you have any suggestion
2. A: 不如係白板道寫低今日要傾嘅野先
Let’s write down our agenda in the whiteboard
3. C: 我地都可以睇下最近d人 嘅comment 先
We can also read the comments by our users
4. D: 好呀
Ok
5. (all of participants take out mobile to scroll the comments in the app)
6. A: 頂, 有人不斷係個app 道post 條 on 9 link 同相
Shit, some people keep posting stupid photos and links in the app
7. E: = 條友係咪路呀 (.) 睇下點改下個setting唔比人亂send 野
= Is that guy crazy (.) Change the setting so that people won’t post things irresponsibly
8. D: 好, 我溫下CS d 書
Ok, let me revise the books of CS (Computer Science)
9. C: 再唔係就集思廣益,問下其他startups點改個code
Otherwise, we can ask other startups to modify the code
10. E: Ok. 呢個問題都係最迫切,要快d 搞掂
Ok. This problem is urgent so we have to fix it as soon as possible
In the meeting, the interaction mode is different from the daily interaction mentioned above. The meeting is more formal than the daily interaction in the coworking space. When E initiates the discussion, A suggests writing the agenda of the meeting on the blackboard so that the whole team will have a clearer flow of the meeting as well as better time management. This practice is also employed in meetings and presentations in the traditional business settings.
Despite the opening of the meeting, Company X’s meeting adopts a different style when compared to meetings in the traditional business settings. Regarding address terms, they directly call each other’s name or do not even address the precipitants in the meeting. Nevertheless, each participant they are addressed as they are assigned with responsibility within the firm. For instance, on line 7 and 8, although E does not address D, the programmer of the app to change the privacy setting, D knows what to do and says he will read computer science textbook. The meeting is regarded to be a direct, non-hierarchical which aims to efficiently solve the data privacy issue, the goal of the meeting.
Besides, swear words are used in the meeting, which rarely happen in other business meetings. Even though A shouted a swear word on line 6, the participants are not shocked and E even replies A within a short time. The swear word is not regarded as offensive but rather maybe used as an intensifier to express emotion in the conversation. The practice is common among teenagers within their close friend’s group, so their acceptance to swearwords is higher than using swearwords in formal business setting. In short, the meeting of Company X differs from the formal meetings in the business setting, with the iconic feature of not addressing participants and using swear words.
Community of Practice in the Communication Practice
After the meeting, I conducted an interview with A and E regarding the communication mode employed in their company. As advised, the style of the above meeting is common within their company. Considering of the sociolinguistic background of the people of Company X, the unique communication style can be analyzed with Community of Practice.
There are three major criterion of CoP. First, mutual engagement must emerge among the members such that they need to get together in order to engage in their shared practices (Wenger, 1998). In this case, the mutual engagement is harmonious as shown in the setting of the workplace with snacks and dolls, as well as the constructive content in the discussion.
Secondly, members should share some jointly negotiated enterprise (Wenger, 1998). In Company X’s case, all members of the team sit together to solve the recent user privacy issue, which is one of the most important elements of the apps. Pursuing the same organizational goal, relationships of mutual accountability among the participants are created among the enterprise. For instance, C and D know their responsibilities of maintaining the privacy settings of the apps such that they do not need to be called out names to inform what to do for the next steps.
Finally, in Company X, members have a shared repertoire. Since the Company X and even the entire coworking space of iDendron are used by HKU recent graduates and students, their communication style is less formal or business-alike. The coworking space is entrepreneurial, so the workstyle is causal and innovative. Linguistically, the communication style is closer to the style that HKU students use in group discussion, such as using swear words and addressing each other’s name with titles. Non-linguistically, the setting of Company X, such as snacks and dolls on the desk are similar to the settings in the rooms of student societies, such as English Society, Chinese Society at HKU. The above resources are the cumulative result of their communication practice in undergraduate studies and among the teenagers.
In short, the workplace culture of Company X is unique linguistically and non-linguistically. By applying Hymes’ SPEAKING model and Wenger’s community of practice as the analytical framework, the stylistic features of daily interaction and meetings are studied.
Golf Club
Case Study 4:
Golf Club
Introduction
Multilingual workplaces, especially English and Cantonese bilingual workplace, are ubiquitous in Hong Kong. Problems arising in such workplaces, such as language clustering (Ahmad & Widén 2015) and managerial problems (Marschan-Piekkari et al. 1999, as cited by Tange & Lauring 2009) are often discussed. They are often detrimental to the productivity of a company because language is a powerful tool, it includes and excludes people. People with similar linguistic repertoire and cultural background tend to form a stronger bond, or form a “cluster" in Ahmad & Widén's words, which may lead to communicational problems and can be detrimental to the team morale and productivity. Adopting the research framework from Lüdi et al. (2010), this study discusses a few observations made in a Hong Kong workplace and attempts to answer the following questions:
1. What language policies are in place? Are there any discrepancies with the actual practices adopted by staff members?
2. Are there any internal communication problems caused by the multilingual environment and cultural differences?
3. What is the preferred language of external communication and why?
To answer these questions, a video-recorded interview with the general manager and a site visit were conducted. All participants consented to be involved in the study and they were anonymised and represented by a code to preserve their identity. During the site visit, both internal and external communications were observed. This study then compares the company’s language policies and the actual practices employed by the staff, followed by discussions on observations made in the site visit.
Background of the Workplace
The ethnographic study was conducted in an indoor golf club located on Hong Kong Island. The workplace divides into three areas, the reception counter, the indoor mini golf area, and the dining area. The dining area further divides into front-stage, where customers eat and drink, and backstage that consists of a bar and a kitchen. The language requirements vary across areas which are discussed in later sections.
As the manager stated in a video-recorded interview, their target customers were everyone who would like to chill and play in their place, though their customer base happens to be mostly foreigners in Hong Kong. This influences the language policies in this workplace, since staff members, especially for those from the front stage, were expected to have a higher English proficiency.
The workplace has a team of around 20-30 staff members in total, about half of them were present during the site visit. Table 1 in the appendix summarises their sex, positions, responsibilities, language repertoires, and other relevant information. The classification of language proficiencies based on their experience in languages (e.g. years of education in a language, overseas experience) and their own evaluation.
Table 1. Staff members’ information
Language policies in place
Employees from the reception are expected to be bilingual in English and Cantonese with a native-like or at least a high proficiency. In the interview, the manager said, “for the front of [the] house, we hope that everyone is bilingual. They don’t need to be native but they need to be able to communicate with customers…”. The observations made during the site visit were therefore, focused on the language use among the receptionists. On the other hand, there was no specific English language requirement for the kitchen and the indoor golf area, staff are employed based on their skills and abilities. Other than that, there were no further guidelines regulating which and how languages are used in the workplace, as the manager stated in the interview.
The language policy is formulated according to their customer base, which is mostly English-speaking. The receptionists, as the first line of contact with customers, must create a courteous and professional impression. Language proficiency would be an important indicator for customers to evaluate their services. Conversely, staff from the kitchen seldom have direct contact with customers and, therefore, there were no specific language requirements.
Internal communication (Between waiters and kitchen staff)
Waiter's responsibility is taking orders from customers, serving food, and handling the bills where all tasks require excellent coordination and frequent communication with both the reception and the kitchen. Among the three areas, English is a lingua franca as it is shared by all the staff and therefore, communication in English was mostly transactional as it ensures everyone understands the instructions. Cantonese, on the other hand, was mostly relational and dominated communication among local staff from the kitchen. Since the staff from the reception and the waiters were native speakers of English while the Cantonese dominant staff from the kitchen were not very fluent at it, one may expect that communication problems would arise between waiters and the kitchen due to the language barrier and cultural difference, such that staff with English as their only language would be marginalised.
However, during the site visit, English speakers were able to communicate with their Cantonese-dominant colleagues effectively, in spite of the presence of language barrier and cultural differences. The reason is that, the goal-oriented or transactional communication between the kitchen and the waiters was in English and made use of written notes, which would avoid confusions and mishearing. Moreover, during breaks where relational conversations were conducted, there were balanced bilingual staff members, playing the role of mediator, helping English speakers to integrate with the Cantonese-dominant community. Sometimes, bilingual staff would interpret the conversation simultaneously so that English speakers would not "lag behind". In other instances, the mediator would teach them colloquial and untranslatable Cantonese phrase, such as "港女" (referring to Hong Kong female with undesirable traits) and "公主病" (the "princess syndrome", referring to the traits of being spoiled and self-centred). The teach-and-learn process of interesting colloquial terms was enjoyable for both community; it even became an effective way for English speakers to form a stronger bond with the Cantonese-dominant speakers.
External communication (Between customers and receptionists)
The receptionists were responsible for general enquiries and ushering the customers. Whenever a customer came in, both receptionists used English to initiate a conversation, regardless of what ethnicity the customers appeared to be and what languages they spoke. Their greetings were English and lack code-mixing between Cantonese and English, the expression was approximately “Good morning/afternoon (customers’ name). How are you?”.
There are two reasons behind the use of English in this context. First, the receptionists were unsure about what language the customer spoke. Since most of the younger generations in Hong Kong have received a minimum of 5 years of English education, English would be a language understood by the most customers. Second, and more importantly, the English language has been perceived as an indicator of the educational level; a person with a better English proficiency would be considered as more educated. As receptionist R1 claimed, they would use English when they greet the customers intentionally. The motivation is that it would create a professional and credible image; Customers would, thus, have a greater confidence in their services if English is used. Moreover, consistent with what the manager claimed, using English is also part of their “brand”, the receptionists mentioned. The use of English helps to build a consistent “brand image” as they serve Western food and decorated the place with a nostalgic 80s style.
Besides from ushering and handling general enquiries, receptionists are also responsible for event planning and having meetings with customers. During the site visit, two Hong Kong locals arranged a meeting with receptionist R1. The initiation of the conversation was also English. Later, they sat around a table in the dining area, discussing the details of their event, using mostly Cantonese with rare use of English phrases like “venue” and “function”. The change of language used, according to R1, was intentional. The reason for using English at first was same as the one mentioned earlier, which is to create a professional image. Their customers were Hong Kong locals and English was not their mother tongue. Using English in the meeting would risk the danger of confusion and misunderstanding, which is inefficient for the subject matter. Moreover, according to receptionist R1, when customers were making decisions, expressing feelings or concerns, they were not comfortable in using English. Instead, customers were more open to express subjective feelings and ideas when they were using Cantonese. For example, in my observation, when the two locals were discussing “hard facts” about their event such as time, date, or number of guests, they tended to use English; but when they were expressing their concerns about the décor of venue, they used mostly Cantonese. The observation fitted well with the receptionist’s view. The table below sums up the impressions created by English and Cantonese, as well as the circumstances which promote the use of English/Cantonese, according to the receptionist and based on the examples drawn from the observation:
However, this table does not intend to generalise the role of languages in all circumstances and workplaces as it would suffer from over-simplification. Instead, it intends to show how receptionists exploit their bilingual abilities and summarise the “division of labour” between languages in this specific workplace, which provide some insights into the use of language in the service sector within a multilingual workplace.
As a section summary, the receptionists’ language use did not deviate from the language policies and they were making the best use of their languages, to fulfil their responsibilities by switching from one language to another intentionally. Moreover, English is preferred when the staff intend to show formality and build a professional image.
Reflection
Communication in multilingual workplaces is often considered “problematic” and whenever problems arise, one would be tempted to think that the cultural differences are the causes. However, this study demonstrates that, under the right circumstances, cultural differences do not necessarily lead to communication problems. Instead, there are “mechanisms” helping the language-minority workers to assimilate with their colleagues and eventually, creating a harmonious workplace culture. Moreover, in the service sector, English is preferred when speaker intends to create a professional and credible image. Further studies may investigate the use of English in other sectors, such as the use of English in emergency medical services.
Start-up NGO
Case Study 5:
Start-up NGO
The culture within a workplace is comprised of different factors. Elements like business nature, office setting, leadership style are all part of the composition of the workplace culture. We conducted a job shadowing at a start-up NGO which aims at increasing the social mobility of underprivileged youth in Hong Kong through sports training and activities. The team consists of five full time employees, which includes Jody (the Chief Campaigner), Tin Lok, Bosco, Rainie and Mary . A strong hierarchical structure could not be observed, partly due to its status as an start-up NGO and partly because of Jody’s leadership style. In order to get a clear picture of the organization’s workplace culture, in this case study we will look closely into the details of the workplace, the mode of communication, the language used and the leadership style employed, and explore how these elements shape the workplace culture.
The physical environment is undoubtedly one key component in shaping the workplace culture as the scope of activities are largely confined by the office setting. The workplace adopted an open office design with minimal partitions, unlike the traditional cubicle design which separates one working space from another. The open office design encourages communication and reduces isolation among employees, besides, such design allows the flow of information among colleagues so that they can ensure everyone is on the same page. Jody, the Chief Campaigner, also sat with the other staff in this open office setting. This arrangement greatly reduces the sense of hierarchy and facilitates verbal exchange between the leader and the subordinates. In fact, a number of open discussions that members of the team freely participated in were observed. Example 1 illustrates the conversations of the team members who gathered in front of the laptop to watch an edited video to be uploaded on YouTube. They were discussing whether the position of the subtitles is appropriate.
1. Jody: Let’s, let’s let’s watch it again.
(睇多次睇多次睇多次。)
2. See? The subtitles.
(係咪呀？嗰啲字幕。)
3. Tin Lok: Yeah I can see them. Can’t you?
(睇到啊。睇唔到咩？)
4. Rainie: Too… Too fast.
(太......太快啊。)
5. Jody: But can the subtitles not block the logo…
(但係個字幕可唔可以唔好係度遮住個Logo......)
6. Tin Lok: I’d rather place them here.
(我寧願喺呢度囉。)
7. Rainie: Where would you rather place them?
(寧願係邊呀？)
8. Jody: No, no… It makes sense that they should be here. But when the words turn black they will…
[inaudible]
(唔係唔係。佢係呢度係正常啊。但係個字變返黑色就會.....[inaudible])
9. Tin Lok: Now they are not covering anything.
(佢而家無遮呀。)
10. Jody: They are! See? They should be placed here. Those two lines should be placed here or they can even be…
(咪遮咗囉！係咪呀，係應該擺呢度吖嘛。呢兩行擺呢度吖嘛。甚至乎佢可以再...)
11. Rainie: I told him to place them behind this but he said it’s better to place them here.
(我本身就叫佢擺呢度之後嘅，咁佢就話擺呢度好啲。)
12. Jody: It’s better to place them there… [inaudible] Just don’t cover the logo.
(擺呢度好啲嘅...[inaudible]總之唔好遮住個logo。)
[Avery talking on the phone]
The above exchange shows that the team members participated in the decision-making process by contributing their own opinion in discussion. It is interesting to note that Rainie is the one who was responsible for reviewing the video but she voluntarily invited the team to give their comments on the edited video. This is another indicator that individual opinion is valued in the workplace and that communication among colleagues is keen. In lines 3 and 9, Tin Lok overtly expressed her disagreement with Jody’s claim that the logo was covered by the subtitles. The two utterances are rather blunt and can be considered as face-threatening remarks. However, instead of feeling offended or further displaying her authority in the decision-making process, Jody only attempted to show Tin Lok how the position of the subtitles covered the logo. Jody established herself as an approachable equal instead of a superior. It appears that there is not a distinct hierarchical structure in the workplace and that discussions are solely based on and supported by facts and context. Despite the freedom given to her fellow subordinates, Jody eventually took up the responsibility as a leader by giving guidance and instruction – she concluded the discussion by saying “just don’t cover the logo”.
Apart from Example 1, they also engaged in conversations unrelated to work. In general, the working environment was harmonious with the presence of laughter. The sense of in-group solidarity was maintained. A subsequent interview with Jody reveals that there is a team meeting every two weeks which lasts for three hours. In the meeting, they share what they have learnt in the activities, report the progress of the key projects and the major events that have taken place. In short, she has taken an open approach which reinforces growth and development of the subordinates by encouraging active participation and reflection. Unlike structured corporates, the start-up organization provides opportunities for the employees to realize the proposed projects. The design of the office space provides a friendly environment and is in itself complementary to her leadership approach.
In a meeting with an external party, however, the communication dynamics change. In the meeting where only Jody, Tin Lok and the representative from the potential partnering organization were present, Jody had taken up a distinctive leadership role.
1. Tin Lok: It was founded in year 2012, and our first class was in year 2013.
2. So we have been operating for around five years already…
[Representative handing out business cards ]
3. Jody: Oh…Thank you. Oh I like how you have different colors.
4. Representative: It’s all the colors under the organization.
5. Jody: Yeah…So we have two student interns here. And if you don’t mind, they just…
6. Representative: Oh no no...
7. Jody: Oh and feel free to offer your views or ideas. [addressing us]
8. So thank you so much for coming to our office. I hope it’s not too far…
9. Representative: Nah nah nah that’s fine that’s okay.
10. Jody: We think it’s better to have a proper meeting, to show you everything.
11. And then uh, uh, we can know more about how we can answer your organization. So
we can know more about…
Identities are co-constructed between interlocutors, however, the “multiple and overlapping identities” may be compatible or may contradict each other (Schnurr and Zayts, 2011, p. 2). Therefore, professional identities and leader identities are not necessarily consistent (Schnurr and Zayts, 2011, p. 2). In this example, one can observe how leadership style changes in different settings and how the leader identity is constructed in the interactions between the three people in the meeting. As shown in the transcript, Tin Lok tried to answer the representative’s enquiry by introducing the organization while Jody was getting the brochures and leaflets for the meeting. Upon Jody’s return, Tin Lok’s introduction was interrupted and cut off by Jody’s utterances (line 3). Here, Jody displayed her dominance by commenting on the colors of the business cards and thus shifting the focus of the conversation. Jody portrayed herself as the leader by introducing us, the student interns, to the visiting representative (line 7). She further extended her gratitude to the representative and explained why the organization thought it was necessary to set up a meeting (line 10). By introducing a new topic, driving the discussion, and speaking on behalf of a group (“we”), she associated herself with the leadership role, thus showing power and authority at the meeting. At the same time, by using “we”, which is an all-inclusive pronoun, she also indicated her status as a member of a group. Tin Lok’s introduction was neglected and she took up a relatively marginal role throughout the meeting. She was responsible of introducing several activities that the organization had previously hold. Yet she was in a rather passive position, whereas Jody clearly asserted power and authority by actively answering the representative’s enquiries, summarizing key points and closing the meeting.
There is a stark contrast between the interactions in the meeting with the external party and the daily operation within the organization. It can be observed that a more liberal approach is taken when it comes to discussions among team members. A sense of collegiality and solidarity is reinforced with the equal and cooperative working environment. During the meeting, the power dynamics became conspicuous as Jody assumed the position of a leader and the chief campaigner of the organization. Ultimately, Jody has the responsibility to represent the organization when dealing with outside parties.
As mentioned earlier, the NGO targets local underprivileged youth. However, they do not want to establish themselves as a pure local organization as they would also like to attract foreign donors and international corporations to cooperate with them. Most of the conversations among the employees are conducted in Cantonese as they are all native Cantonese speakers. Within the workplace, three languages—Cantonese, Chinese and English are employed to facilitate communications with different parties. All the promotional materials, including the website, YouTube videos, leaflets, Facebook page and Impact Report Booklet are bilingual. The organization does not favor the use of any language or see one language as the “official language”. In fact, there is a strategic use of bilingual materials – local NGOs in Hong Kong do not usually offer bilingual promotional materials, and by being one of the few NGOs that offer them, they are putting themselves in a more advantageous position. In the context of this start-up NGO, languages are used to broaden their reach to potential donors, partnering organizations and the local underprivileged communities. Besides, they also think it is a good practice to provide bilingual materials in order to promote social inclusion. The language employed largely depends on the person or group they are addressing. Whilst established corporations may see language as a tool for exclusion, this start-up NGO sees language as a tool for inclusion and outreach.
Workplace culture can vary greatly as it is affected by many factors. Ultimately, these contributing factors are interrelated and complementary to each other in making up the unique workplace culture. It is, therefore, important to observe the discursive patterns, as well as other non-verbal factors, to get the full picture of the workplace.
Theme Park
Case Study 6:
Theme park in Hong Kong
The workplace chosen in the fieldwork is a shop in a theme park in Hong Kong. Workplaces are communities that have a common and shared culture and language within their own circle. During the fieldwork, I noticed that the most significant feature of the culture in this community is that there is a lack of politeness and a less hierarchical power or structure among coworkers in the workplace. In the following, I would like to explore how such culture is constructed in the workplace by analyzing the environment and the language use. As the language used in the workplace is mainly Cantonese and sometimes code-mixing of Cantonese and English words, transcripts below will be translated to English.
Regarding the environment of the workplace, it is very different from a normal office setting. In a typical office workplace, coworkers sit in a cubical with other colleagues of the same or similar level and the boss sits far away in her or his own office. In the workplace that I analyze, there is no fixed sitting arrangement for each employee. The workplace consists of two areas which are onstage and backstage. The former is the shop for customers to purchase souvenirs while the latter is a stock room and office room where stock of goods, computers and stacks of documents are located. There is a computer desk in the stock room, the senior staff use the computer most of the time, but all the staff can use the computer to check stock, sign up for company activities, update roster, etc. In this shop, all co-workers share the workplace and they can access the whole place. As there are no walls between the coworkers in a team just like a cubical setting in an office, coworkers in the shop have more chances to interact with each other. During the fieldwork, all the staff chatted, interacted, and laughed a lot within themselves a lot in the workplace. This is distinctive when compared to a typical office setting as the coworkers may not be able to chat with the boss during office hours. Except for different costumes to indicate different positions of the staff, it is not easy to notice the different titles or positions among them by simply observing how they talk to each other. Also, there is a shared breakroom for all the staff of this shop to take a break or have lunch, so communications between coworkers of lower level and higher position are frequent. Due to the environment of the workplace that allows free access and provides a freer space for staff to communicate, there is not a huge disparity of power and hierarchy among the co-workers. This as an exclusive culture in this community due to environment factor as this constructs a relatively hierarchy-free working environment that allows frequent interactions among the team in workplace.
Apart from environment, language is another vital tool to build a culture in a community. In every workplace, there must be terms and jargons that are only exclusive to a particular group of workers but staff in other departments or teams may find difficulties to comprehend the meaning of all the terms. The shop that I am analyzing in the fieldwork is no exception to this culture. First, there are many examples of code-mixed jargons of Cantonese and English in the workplace. The following example is a briefing in the morning held by the leader of the team before the shop opens and it demonstrates the specific terms in the workplace.
1. Leader: 大家好 貨架上既貨都要拆左紙先go back 嫁
2. Hello everyone, all papers that come with the stock have to be removed before “go back”.
3. 所謂方便fill貨 快捷有效
4. This can facilitate efficiently when we “fill” stock
5. 加上拆定我地可以追趕stock take prepack時候既進度
6. In addition, we can catch up the progress of “stock take prepack”
7. 如有update再通知大家
8. I will “inform” everyone if there are any updates
9. Cars以前己cut min/max既item 可pull down拉
10. Tin cookie or consumable已入pull down link
11. “Tin cookie or consumable” already in “pull down link”
English terms are underlined in the Cantonese text and in quotation mark in English text. The example shows that there are many terms that are only used in this workplace and people from other departments in the theme park may find it difficult to understand the meaning of the terms. Since this company is an international company and bilingual environment has long been a well-established culture in Hong Kong, the official corporate languages of this company is English and Chinese. English is used for official and internal documents as well as linguistic landscape throughout the entire company as English is always regarded as a formal and official language in Hong Kong, but Cantonese is considered a language of communication among local Hong Kong people. Therefore, English words are used for mainly nouns and terms that are about work, such as “go back” (returning the stocks from shop to stock room), “stock take prepack” (preparation of packing the stock for counting the inventory), “pull down” (products that cannot be sold anymore). In this case, English terms that cannot be understood by people who are not involved in the workplace are main features that are practiced by the community in the shop. The use of the English terms also implies who are the insiders and outsiders of the community. In this case, people who are working in the shop are the insiders of the community and others who cannot understand the jargons utterly and be engaged in the group are excluded from the community.
Second, language use in communication in the workplace is relatively casual and informal. In normal office setting, use of language may alter depending on whom you are talking to. For example, you may talk to the colleagues of same level in a friendlier and less formal way, but you may change your intonation and are cautious about word choice when talking to your boss. However, in this workplace, how people talk is rather unconstrained and straightforward. People in this workplace refer to or address each other by using their English names or nicknames. People of lower level also call the people of higher level their nicknames. This may construct a rather friendly working situation as this can reduce the gap among people and friendship between high position and low position can be built. Also, there are almost no politeness markers in their conversation. Most of the conversations I heard have no indications that show a hierarchy among staff in the shop. The following conversation illustrates why I think the workplace is rather causal. Staff A is a Part-time worker, while Staff B is the leader of the shop.
1. Staff A: 好嬲囉！個條友過黎cashier 個陣，先喺度揀要邊樣
2. I am pissed! That jerk was choosing what he wanted when he came to cashier
3. 佢係咪盲呀？見吾到後面有人龍係咪？
4. Was he blind? Couldn’t he see the long queue behind him?
5. 要揀吾該佢就諗好先埋單啦
6. He should have chosen what he wanted before coming to cashier
7. Staff B: 咁你有無叫佢揀好先再黎俾錢？
8. Did you ask him to select what he wanted first before settling the payment?
9. Staff A: 有呀！屌佢，佢吾理我，仲問啲貨有無新
10. I did ! Fuck him, he ignored me and even asked me if there were new ones
11. 我答左無，佢黑臉，又問點解無
12. I replied no, but he pulled a long face and asked why
13. Staff B: 吓，特價貨係咁架啦，仲expect 有新？
14. What, how could he expect new ones for on sale items?
In the conversation, there are not politeness markers. However, how staff A speaks is rude, informal, and insulting, such as “pissed” (line2 ), “fXXX” (line 12). Also, the tone and intonation of staff A is extraordinarily informal. This is not common in a workplace as staff in junior level normally do not speak in a rude and blunt way like staff A when talking to a senior. Even though staff A is impolite, staff B who is a senior does not care the way how staff A speaks to her as she is not surprised at how she talks and does not require staff A to speak decently. From my observations and examples of conversation, the language use in the workplace is completely informal that allows the staff to grumble out. In this workplace, the coworkers talk to each other just like when they talk to their friends, so it seems to me that speaking in a casual way is one of the significant cultures in this workplace. Also, this contributes to a less hierarchical relationship among coworkers in the shop.
This workplace has a shared and common practice and cultures that help construct a rather friendly, carefree and casual working environment. As all the staff share and work in the same space, this allows more communication and interaction among the team. Also, using casual language is another culture in the community that forms a structure in the workplace that is less restricted by order and ranks of positions of staff in the team.
References
References
Ahmed, F., & Widén G. (2015). “Language clustering and knowledge sharing in multilingual organizations: A social
perspective on language.” Journal of Information Science, 14(4). 430-443.
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). “Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-
based practice.” Annual review of anthropology, 21: 461-490.
Holmes, J. and Marra, M. (2002). “Having a laugh at work: How humour contributes to workplace culture.” Journal
of Pragmatics, 34: 1683-1710.
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations of sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press. https://blogonlinguistics.wordpress.com/2013/09/07/speaking-model-d-hymes/
Li, D. C. S. (2017). Multilingual Hong Kong: Languages, Literacies and Identities. Springer International Publishing.
Miller, K. (1999). Organizational communication: Approaches and processes. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth.
Moerman, M. (1988). Talking Culture: Ethnography and Conversational Analysis. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Pullin, P. (2011). Humour and the integration of new staff into the workplace: An interactional study. In M. Dynel
(ed.), The pragmatics of humour across discourse domains, pp.265-287. Amsterdam: John Benjamins BV.
Schnurr, S. (2013). Exploring professional communication: Language in action. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon:
Routledge.
Tange, H., & Lauring J. (2009). “Language management and social interaction within the multilingual workplace.”
Journal of Communication Management, 13(3). 218-232.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education.
bottom of page