Managing Miscommunication and Problematic Talk at Work
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
“Was that my misunderstanding?” Managing miscommunication and problematic talk at work by Maria Stubbe A thesis submitted to Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics Victoria University of Wellington March 2010 Table of contents Page Acknowledgements vi Abstract vii 1 Introduction The problem with workplace communication p 1 1.1 Rationale for the study p 1 1.2 Background p 3 1.3 Objectives and scope p 9 2 Literature review (a) Theoretical perspectives on workplace discourse p 13 2.1 Introduction p 13 2.2 Theoretical frameworks p 14 2.2.1 Epistemological positions p 15 2.2.2 Definitions of discourse p 17 2.3 Methodologies p 19 2.3.1 Conversation Analysis p 19 2.3.2 Pragmatics and politeness theory p 21 2.3.3 Sociolinguistics p 23 2.3.4 Social psychology p 25 2.3.5 Critical discourse theory p 26 2.3.6 Organisational theory p 29 2.4 Summary and discussion p 34 i Page 3 Literature review (b) Miscommunication and problematic talk p 37 3.1 Introduction p 37 3.2 Existing models of miscommunicative talk p 38 3.2.1 Some problems of definition p 38 3.2.2 An “integrative” model? p 44 3.3 Miscommunication in the workplace p 53 3.3.1 Interpersonal and intergroup miscommunication p 55 3.3.2 Competing and conflicting discourses p 61 3.3.3 Miscommunication in complex systems p 64 3.4 Summary and discussion p 68 3.5 Research Questions p 73 4 Methodology Analytic approach and research design p 75 4.1 Introduction p 75 4.2 Analytic approach p 76 4.2.1 Methodological framework p 76 4.2.2 Analytic focus and tools p 78 4.3 The original LWP data collection methodology p 81 4.3.1 Designing the methodology p 81 4.3.2 Basic components of the participatory model p 83 4.3.3 Original data collection and projects p 85 4.3.4 Strengths and limitations p 86 4.4 Action research with a factory team: the adapted methodology p 89 4.4.1 Developing the case study methodology p 90 4.4.2 Data collection p 91 4.5 The data: from office to production line p 94 ii Page 5 Developing a working model What exactly is miscommunication anyway? p 97 5.1 Introduction p 97 5.2 Analytic framework p 101 5.2.1 Issues of practical relevance p 101 5.2.2 Analytic process and dimensions p 106 5.3 Illustrative data analysis p 118 5.3.1 Case 1: ‘Was that my misunderstanding?’ p 119 5.3.2 Case 2: ‘A subject dear to our hearts’ p 125 5.3.3 Case 3: ‘Power plays’ p 130 5.4 Refining the analytic approach p 136 6 (Not) ‘getting the message across’? Problematic talk on the factory floor p 139 6.1 Introduction p 139 6.2 Ethnographic overview: the Power Rangers p 140 6.2.1 The team and its working environment p 140 6.2.2 Communication challenges p 143 6.2.3 Sources of miscommunication p 145 6.3 The Power Rangers team: a discursive community of practice p 148 6.3.1 Engaging in tasks p 152 6.3.2 Maintaining relationships p 155 6.3.3 Displaying group membership p 157 6.4 Conclusion p 167 iii Page 7 Managing the contradictions The discursive strategies of the team leader p 169 7.1 Introduction p 169 7.2 Ethnographic overview: the TCO p 171 7.2.1 Personal profile and role p 171 7.2.2 Management style and strategies p 172 7.3 Discursive management of a problematic incident p 174 7.4 Applying a critical lens p 181 7.4.1 Power, identity and miscommunication p 181 7.4.2 Managing the contradictions p 185 7.5 Conclusion p 203 8 Problem or paradox? The elephant in the room p 205 8.1 Introduction p 205 8.2 Summary of key findings p 208 8.3 Implications and applications p 211 8.4 Concluding remarks p 214 Appendix p 217 1 Transcription conventions p 217 2 Research documentation p 218 References p 221 iv Tables and Figures Page Table 1.1 Research objectives p 10 Table 2.1 Research questions p 73 Figure 4.1 The action research cycle p 84 Table 4.1 LWP Data Sets: Number of recorded interactions p 94 Table 5.1 Analytic framework p 109 Table 5.2: Case 2 interaction structure p 126 Table 6.1 Recurring issues p 147 Table 7.1 Types of power relationship p 184 Table 7.2 Identity positions constructed by the TCO p 187 v Acknowledgments I gratefully acknowledge the following people and organisations for their invaluable support and assistance with this doctoral project: Most especially, the members of the ‘Power Rangers’ team, the management of Unilever Australasia, and the many other individuals and organisations who participated in the Language in the Workplace Project between 1996 and 2003, for their generosity in contributing their time, their data and their insights to this study. This project would not have been possible without their active and enthusiastic participation in the research. My supervisors Derek Wallace and Paul Nation. The completion of this thesis owes much to their practical wisdom and unfailing quiet reassurance at several critical junctures that it remained both a possible and a worthwhile project. My previous colleagues and associates from the Language in the Workplace Project team, including especially Janet Holmes, Bernadette Vine, Deborah Jones, Pascal Brown, Chris Lane, Megan Ingle, Tina Chiles, George Major, Louise Burns, Meredith Marra, Nicola Daly and all the many research assistants who have contributed over the years. This thesis project grew out of this wider programme of research into workplace communication and as such has built on the combined efforts and teamwork of many others. Fellow members and associates of my current research team, the Applied Research on Communication in Health (ARCH) Group, in particular Tony Dowell, Lindsay Macdonald, Kevin Dew and Rachel Tester, as well as my other colleagues in the Department of Primary Health Care and General Practice at the University of Otago, Wellington. The thesis has benefitted greatly from the free exchange and cross- fertilisation of ideas in this multidisciplinary setting, and the unstinting practical and moral support provided to me in the closing stages of the research and writing was particularly helpful. The School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Victoria University of Wellington and the Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Otago University for between them providing my academic base and resources throughout the course of this project. The Foundation for Research, Science and Technology and Victoria University of Wellington for funding support between 1996 and 2003. The Victoria University of Wellington Alumni Association for the award of a Postgraduate Scholarship in 2003. Finally, my deepest thanks must go to my wonderful family and friends who have so patiently tolerated my preoccupation with this work over many years, and most especially during the final six months. I could not have completed this thesis without your continued and generous encouragement and support. vi Abstract Where workplace communication is ineffective or problematic there will often be negative outcomes for individuals, teams or organisations as a whole. This thesis examines these issues using data from a variety of New Zealand workplaces, including most importantly an in depth case study of problematic communication in a multicultural factory team. The thesis provides an illustrative analysis of the communication issues that typically arise in these workplaces and the discursive strategies used to manage miscommunication and problematic talk, as well as exploring some of the analytic and theoretical issues which emerge when we attempt to identify instances of miscommunication and diagnose how they came about. The practical implications for workplaces are also discussed. After evaluating previous approaches, the author proposes a comprehensive working model for analysing miscommunication or problematic discourse in workplace interaction which is based on a flexible multi-layered theoretical and methodological framework. The analytic approach taken is to apply the tools of sociolinguistic discourse analysis to data from actual interactions along with associated ethnographic information, in conjunction with a critical analysis of organisational communication practices and processes as seen from a community of practice perspective. A multi-dimensional intertextual approach such as this allows analysis of miscommunication and problematic talk at a number of different levels in order to relate what is happening sequentially and ‘on-line’ during particular interactions or sequences of interaction to factors such as social identity, group membership, team culture and other aspects of the wider communicative and socio-cultural context. vii 1 Introduction The problem with workplace communication Resolving a possible misunderstanding: Jan: what- what happened to Marama? + was- I presumed that Marama was going was that MY misunderstanding? + Heke: [drawls] OH Jan: to the + //ministry\ Heke: /ministry\\ + I presumed she was going as well 1.1 Rationale for the study Miscommunication is generally regarded as an ‘occupational hazard’ by people working in organisations. From a sociolinguistic perspective this is hardly surprising given the complexity of language and interpersonal communication in any social context. Moreover, in workplace settings, there is often a greater risk than elsewhere that ineffective or problematic communication will have visible and/or costly negative outcomes, for the individuals concerned or for the organisation; even in instances where communicative trouble or mishaps pass unnoticed, they may still resurface to create problems later. The potential consequences range from relatively minor and easily repairable interruptions to the smooth flow of work or communication between colleagues, as in the opening example above, through to more serious disruptions of productivity or workplace relations such as a case described in chapter 6 where a simple failure to clarify a verbal message led to a major production line outage in a factory.