1887
Volume 14, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In this article, we scrutinise how humour, and in particular, indirect mockery contributes to the construction of leader identities in talk decision-making in an organisation characterized by a distributed leadership context. So rather than focusing on decision-making episodes themselves, we tease out an aspect of the goal achievement side of the leadership influence process. Through multimodal discourse analysis, we focus on episodes in which the implementation side of decisions is discussed and in which the head of the team initiates a humorous sequence, as this turned out to be an integral part of talk about decision-making. We found that the humour was always oriented towards upper management and that it could serve various functions. Overall, we argue that indirect mockery was a crucial means to navigate the tension that emerges from the team head’s position within the complex leadership constellation, thus offering a critical perspective on distributed leadership.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00162.sal
2023-12-18
2024-10-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Acuña Ferreira, Virginia A.
    2014 “Gossip as indirect mockery in friendly conversation: The social functions of ‘sharing a laugh’ at third parties.” Discourse studies16 (5): 607–628. 10.1177/1461445614538564
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445614538564 [Google Scholar]
  2. Boden, Deirdre
    1994The Business of Talk: Organizations in Action. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bolden, Richard
    2011 “Distributed Leadership in Organizations: A Review of Theory and Research.” International Journal of Management Reviews13(3): 251–269. 10.1111/j.1468‑2370.2011.00306.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00306.x [Google Scholar]
  4. Choi, Seongsook, and Stephanie Schnurr
    2014 “Exploring distributed leadership: Solving disagreements and negotiating consensus in a ‘leaderless’ team.” Discourse Studies16(1): 3–24. 10.1177/1461445613508891
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613508891 [Google Scholar]
  5. Clifton, Jonathan
    2006 “A Conversation Analytical Approach to Business Communication: The Case of Leadership.” Journal of Business Communication43(3): 202–219. 10.1177/0021943606288190
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943606288190 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2009 “Beyond taxonimies of influence: ‘Doing’ influence and making decisions in management team meeting.” Journal of Business Communication46(1): 57–79. 10.1177/0021943608325749
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943608325749 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2012 “A discursive approach to leadership. Doing assessments and managing organizational meanings.” Journal of Business Communication49(2): 148–168. 10.1177/0021943612437762
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943612437762 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2017 “Taking the (heroic) leader out of leadership. The in situ practice of distributed leadership in decision-making talk.” InChallenging leadership stereotypes through discourse, ed. byCornelia Ilie and Stephanie Schnurr. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑4319‑2_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4319-2_3 [Google Scholar]
  9. Clifton, Jonathan, Magnus Larsson, and Stephanie Schnurr
    2020 “Leadership in interaction. An introduction to the Special Issue.” Leadership (London, England)16(5): 511–521. 10.1177/1742715020954790
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715020954790 [Google Scholar]
  10. Clifton, Jonathan, Dorien Van De Mieroop, Prachee Sehgal, and Aneet
    2018 “The multimodal enactment of deontic and epistemic authority in Indian meetings.” Pragmatics28(3): 333–360. 10.1075/prag.17011.cli
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17011.cli [Google Scholar]
  11. Coates, Jennifer
    2007 “Talk in a play frame: More on laughter and intimacy.” Journal of Pragmatics39(1): 29–49. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.05.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  12. Collinson, David
    2006 “Rethinking followership: A post-structuralist analysis of follower identities.” The Leadership Quarterly17(2): 179–189. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.12.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  13. Denis, Jean-Louis, Ann Langley, and Viviane Sergi
    2012 “Leadership in the Plural.” The Academy of Management Annals6(1): 211–283. 10.5465/19416520.2012.667612
    https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2012.667612 [Google Scholar]
  14. DeRue, D. Scott and Susan J. Ashford
    2010 “Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations.” Academy of Management Review35(4): 627–647.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Eggins, Suzanne and Diana Slade
    1997Analysing Casual Conversation. London: Cassell.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Fairhurst, Gail T.
    2007Discursive Leadership. In Conversation with Leadership Psychology. London, England: Sage. 10.4135/9781452231051
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452231051 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fairhurst, Gail T., Brad Jackson, Erica Gabrielle Foldy, and Sonia M. Ospina
    2020 “Studying collective leadership: The road ahead.” Human Relations73(4): 598–614. 10.1177/0018726719898736
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726719898736 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ford, Cecilia A. and Barbara E. Fox
    2010 “Multiple practices for constructing laughables.” InProsody in Interaction, ed. byDagmar Barth-Weingarten, Elisabeth Reder and Margret Selting, 339–368. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.23.27for
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.23.27for [Google Scholar]
  19. Gee, James Paul, Glynda Hull, and Colin Lankshear
    1996The New Work Order. London: Saint Leonards Allen and Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Glenn, Philip
    2003Laughter in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519888
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519888 [Google Scholar]
  21. Gumperz, John J.
    1992 “Contextualization and understanding.” InRethinking Context. Language as an interactive phenomenon, ed. byAlessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin, 230–252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Haakana, Markku and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
    2011 “Invoking another context: Playfulness in buying lottery tickets at convenience stores.” Journal of Pragmatics43(5): 1288–1302. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.029
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.029 [Google Scholar]
  23. Holmes, Janet
    2006 “Sharing a laugh: Pragmatic aspects of humor and gender in the workplace.” Journal of Pragmatics38(1): 26–50. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.007 [Google Scholar]
  24. Holmes, Janet and Meredith Marra
    2006 “Humor and leadership style.” Humor – International Journal of Humor Research19(2): 119–138. 10.1515/HUMOR.2006.006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMOR.2006.006 [Google Scholar]
  25. Holmes, Janet, Meredith Marra, and Bernadette Vine
    2011Leadership, Discourse and Ethnicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730759.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730759.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Holt, Elizabeth
    2011 “On the nature of “laughables”: Laughter as a response to overdone figurative phrases.” Pragmatics: Quarterly publication of the International Pragmatics Association21(3): 393–410.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Honkanen, Suvi and Riikka Nissi
    2014 “Managing organizational change through joint vision building: an analysis of practices of recontextualization” InAnalysing Text AND Talk: Att analysera texter OCH samtal, ed. byAnna-Malin Karlsson and Henna Makkonen-Craig, 28–43. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hosking, Dian Marie
    1988 “Organizing, leadership and skilful process.” Journal of Management Studies25 (2): 147–166. 10.1111/j.1467‑6486.1988.tb00029.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1988.tb00029.x [Google Scholar]
  29. Huisman, Marjan
    2001 “Decision-Making in Meetings as Talk-in-Interaction.” International Studies of Management & Organization31(3): 69–90. 10.1080/00208825.2001.11656821
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2001.11656821 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kangasharju, Helena and Tuija Nikko
    2009 “Emotions in Organizations: Joint Laughter in Workplace Meetings.” The Journal of Business Communication (1973)46(1): 100–119. 10.1177/0021943608325750
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943608325750 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kelly, Simon
    2008 “Leadership: A categorical mistake?” Human Relations61(6): 763–782. 10.1177/0018726708092403
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726708092403 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2014 “Towards a negative ontology of leadership.” Human Relations67(8): 905–922. 10.1177/0018726713503177
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713503177 [Google Scholar]
  33. Larsson, Magnus
    2017 “Leadership in Interaction.” InRoutledge Companion to Leadership, ed. byJohn Storey, Jean Hartley, Jean-Louis Denis, Paul ‘t Hart and Dave Ulrich, 173–193. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Larsson, Magnus, Jonathan Clifton, and Stephanie Schnurr
    2021 “The fallacy of discrete authentic leader behaviours: Locating authentic leadership in interaction.” Leadership17(4): 421–440. 10.1177/17427150211015845
    https://doi.org/10.1177/17427150211015845 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lehtinen, Marjukka
    2012Episteemisen auktoriteetin ja yhteisen ymmärryksen konstruointi kokouskeskustelussa. Fokuksessa -hAn-lausumat. [Constructing Epistemic Authority and Shared Understanding in Meeting Talk: A Focus on Utterances Containing the Finnish Clitic Particle -hAn.] Helsinki: Aalto University publication series.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Mondada, Lorenza
    2016 “Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction.” Journal of Sociolinguistics20(3): 336–366. 10.1111/josl.1_12177
    https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.1_12177 [Google Scholar]
  37. Northouse, Peter
    2016Leadership: theory and practice, 7th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Sarangi, Srikant and Celia Roberts
    1999 “Introduction.” InTalk, work and institutional order; discourse in medical, mediation and management settings, ed. bySrikant Sarangi and Celia Roberts, 61–74. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110208375.2.61
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208375.2.61 [Google Scholar]
  39. Schnurr, Stephanie
    2009a “Constructing leader identities through teasing at work.” Journal of Pragmatics41(6): 1125–1138. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2009bLeadership Discourse at Work: Interactions of humour, gender and workplace culture. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230594692
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230594692 [Google Scholar]
  41. Schnurr, Stephanie, and Angela Chan
    2011 “Exploring another side of co-leadership: Negotiating professional identities through face-work in disagreements.” Language in Society40 (2):187–209. 10.1017/S0047404511000030
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404511000030 [Google Scholar]
  42. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
    2018 “Reformulating prior speaker’s turn in Finnish: Turn-initial “siis”, “eli(kkä)”, and “nii(n) et(tä)”.” InBetween turn and sequence: Turn-initial particles across languages, ed. byJohn Heritage and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 251–286. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.31.09sor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.09sor [Google Scholar]
  43. Stogdill, Ralph M.
    1950 “Leadership, membership and organisation.” Psychological Bulletin471: 1–14. 10.1037/h0053857
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0053857 [Google Scholar]
  44. Thornborrow, Joanna and Deborah Morris
    2004 “Gossip as strategy: The management of talk about others on reality TV show ‘Big Brother’.” Journal of Sociolinguistics8(2): 246–271. 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2004.00260.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2004.00260.x [Google Scholar]
  45. Van De Mieroop, Dorien
    2020 “A deontic perspective on the collaborative, multimodal accomplishment of leadership.” Leadership16 (5): 592–619. 10.1177/1742715019893824
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715019893824 [Google Scholar]
  46. Van De Mieroop, Dorien and Jonathan Clifton
    2017 “Corporate settings.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language in the Workplace, ed. byBernadette Vine, 127–137. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315690001‑12
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315690001-12 [Google Scholar]
  47. Van De Mieroop, Dorien, Jonathan Clifton, and Avril Verhelst
    2020 “Investigating the interplay between formal and informal leaders in a shared leadership configuration: A multimodal conversation analytical study.” Human Relations73(4): 490–515. 10.1177/0018726719895077
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726719895077 [Google Scholar]
  48. Van De Mieroop, Dorien and Jolien Wouters
    2020 “Co-leiderschap in vergaderingen.” Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing42(3): 249–277. 10.5117/TVT2020.3.002.VAND
    https://doi.org/10.5117/TVT2020.3.002.VAND [Google Scholar]
  49. Vine, Bernadette, Janet Holmes, Meredith Marra, Dale Pfeifer, and Brad Jackson
    2008 “Exploring Co-leadership Talk Through Interactional Sociolinguistics.” Leadership4(3): 339–360. 10.1177/1742715008092389
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715008092389 [Google Scholar]
  50. Vöge, Monika
    2010 “Local identity processes in business meetings displayed through laughter in complaint sequences.” Journal of Pragmatics42(6): 1556–1576. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.01.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.01.016 [Google Scholar]
  51. Watson, Cate and Valerie Drew
    2017 “Humour and laughter in meetings: Influence, decision-making and the emergence of leadership.” Discourse & Communication11(3): 314–329. 10.1177/1750481317699432
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481317699432 [Google Scholar]
  52. Yukl, Gary
    1989 “Managerial Leadership: A Review of Theory and Research.” Journal of management15 (2): 251–289. 10.1177/014920638901500207
    https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638901500207 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00162.sal
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error