Work concepts and applications

Workplace Rituals

Conversational rituals take place in everyday conversation and they also take place at work. Of course, across cultures many of the conversational rituals that we think nothing of in our ordinary conversations are taken literally, because the implicit meaning behind them is lost. The result is often confusion and sometimes offense. Yet this result is not only the result of cross-cultural misunderstanding; it often arises simply through misidentified conversational rituals. Essentially, people may not recognize a conversational technique of the person with whom they are speaking. Ineffectual communication is the general consequence, and this inhibits productivity at the workplace.

One common ritual, discussed at length by Tannen, is uttering the words "I'm sorry," in instances when no apology is necessary. This is often viewed as a self-deprecating type of saying because it pins blame on oneself in an attempt to make the other person feel better. Tannen points out studies that have indicated that women and men tend to use this conversational ritual differently: "Holmes found that women uttered the most apologies to other women and far fewer to men, while men uttered very few to other men and slightly more to women," (Tannen 47). This is a clue into the different ways that men and women actually function within the workplace, and a hint that the workplace of the future, presuming it becomes more diverse, will continue to experience differences in how each subset of individuals operates within it.

Clearly, this ritual can take many forms, but the general trend is that people routinely assess blame to themselves when it is unwarranted. Tannen also points out differences in the way men and women tend to criticize work: "Whether criticism is best given 'straight' or best tempered to avoid seeming too harsh is also a matter of convention," (Tannen 53). Yet depending upon the subject of the criticism, directly criticizing someone could be counterproductive, since feelings are involved. If the criticized person is hurt by the direct manner of criticism - if it is not softened by moderate amounts of congratulatory remarks - then the person may be less than willing to change their work, and become more defensive of the work they have already completed.

Another common conversational ritual is thanking people when, truly, there is no real need for a "thank you" remark. Tannen uses the end of phone conversations as examples of how people often to this without even thinking about what they are thanking the other individual for. "Thank you" is, in some ways, a throwaway statement; however, it usually lets the other person know that their cooperation, regardless of how effortless, was appreciated by the speaker.

Ritualistic fighting can be another manifestation of conversational rituals. Commonly, people misunderstand fighting over workplace issues as genuine interpersonal disagreements. Tannen, once again, points out that men tend to engage in this sort of activity more than women tend to.

Another phenomenon that Tannen discusses is the emergence of cliques within the workplace. Several of the conversational rituals she discusses either help to consolidate cliques or are consequences of them. Men often gather together for "man talk," which routinely excludes the participation of women, since it is often about women. Another line along with cliques form is levels of power. Tannen identifies this as a form of kinship forming along a discourse of complaint. Yet again, men and women often interpret the meaning of this ritualistic kinship differently, with men commonly accepting the more literal interpretation of the conversation.

The workforce of 2020 is likely to become increasingly diverse at the same time as it faces new problems associated with this diversity and associated with the new technologies that are constantly finding themselves into the workplace. Judy identifies this as a "skills gap" currently emerging in the workforce, which is likely to continue to emerge as a major trend (Judy). Yet as emphasized by both Tannen and Judy, the increasing mix of workers of different genders and backgrounds will introduce new problems to the workforce at the same time as it will introduce new solutions.

Traditionally, many careers have been subject to gender specific designations. Obviously, numerous broad fields of work like medicine and law have historically been dominated by men, while women have been relegated to secretarial, nursing, or other subordinate positions. In recent decades this trend has come under fire and gender is no-longer widely accepted as an appropriate way to designate workers to specific realms. However, although these stereotypical roles are not formally endorsed anymore, women are still struggling to break into male dominated spheres while men appear relatively uninterested in careers dominated by females. Improvement in achieving a more diverse and evenly distributed workforce has been observed in numerous lines of work, but opportunities for women to reach positions of power and leadership remain limited. Not surprisingly, nontraditional career roles, like female mechanics and male nurses, remain the areas most lagging in this gradual trend of change.

Although numerous fields are seeing more equal amounts of men and women holding careers, the upper levels of power continue to be predominantly inhabited by men. A recent study by Marie Byrd-Blake revealed that, "There are current inequalities in the representation of females in higher administrative positions in public schools that are a product of historical and societal patterns," (Byrd-Blake). Essentially, even in fields with as large a base of female workers as public education, the typical male position of authority is generally maintained. "The patriarchal values of white males still permeate throughout public school administration despite the gains women and minorities have made in recent years," (Byrd-Blake). This fact makes it difficult to explicitly define lines of work as either traditionally male or traditionally female; although many may argue that education is traditionally female, men still dominate the upper echelons of administration. Accordingly, if one wished to define nontraditional workers they would be presented with numerous grey areas in which women dominate the field but men dominate the system.