IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v7y1996i5p544-556.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dominance, Deference, and Egalitarianism in Organizational Interaction: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Power and Politeness

Author

Listed:
  • David A. Morand

    (School of Business Administration, Pennsylvania State University at Harrisburg, Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057)

Abstract

Organizational literature has long presumed that power is communicated and enacted through behaviors exchanged at the level of face-to-face interaction. Little research, however, has investigated this aspect of power. The author explores how power is embedded in manners of speech exchanged in everyday interaction among superiors and subordinates. He draws upon the sociolinguistic theory of “politeness.” Politeness, linguistic behaviors used to demonstrate regard and consideration for others, is hypothesized to be sensitive to the social distribution of power. Low power actors are most likely to use linguistic politeness behaviors because such behaviors minimize the possibility of conflict with superiors. Results of a laboratory study confirm that politeness behaviors are sensitive to the distribution of formal authority in organizations. When superiors use politeness, they are more likely than subordinates to employ a subtype of politeness that demonstrates consideration by intimating social familiarity and camaraderie. The hypothesis that egalitarian values moderate the overall effect of power politeness is not supported, perhaps because of the constraints of the experimental situation.Overall, the study demonstrates how abstractions such as authority and equality can be measured in terms of the manners of comportment that actors bring to bear on one another in face-to-face contexts. Given the possibility that egalitarianism can be operationalized at a linguistic level of analysis, the findings have important ramifications for the study of the presumed status leveling associated with programs of workplace participation. The study broadly shows how sociolinguistic perspectives can contribute to our understanding of organizational phenomena.

Suggested Citation

  • David A. Morand, 1996. "Dominance, Deference, and Egalitarianism in Organizational Interaction: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Power and Politeness," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(5), pages 544-556, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:7:y:1996:i:5:p:544-556
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.7.5.544
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.7.5.544
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.7.5.544?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michele Williams & Evan Polman, 2015. "Is It Me or Her? How Gender Composition Evokes Interpersonally Sensitive Behavior on Collaborative Cross-Boundary Projects," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 334-355, April.
    2. Saeedi, Masoud H. & Sillince, John A. A., 2001. "Issues of feasibility, coherence, and robustness in a premise-to-claim model of argumentation: Results from four experiments," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 133(1), pages 94-119, August.
    3. Stephen Chen & Ronald Geluykens & Chong Ju Choi, 2006. "The importance of language in global teams: A linguistic perspective," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 679-696, December.
    4. Kaul, Asha & Brammer Charlotte, 2004. "An Analysis of Upward Influence Strategies Using Speech Act Theory and Face Threatening Acts," IIMA Working Papers WP2004-05-03, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    5. Martha Jeong & Julia Minson & Michael Yeomans & Francesca Gino, 2019. "Communicating with Warmth in Distributive Negotiations Is Surprisingly Counterproductive," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(12), pages 5813-5837, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:7:y:1996:i:5:p:544-556. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.