Wordsandactions12342078.files.wordpress.com



File name:WAA ep 8 V1 Audio Length:0:38:39Date transcribed:9 April 2019Jingle?[0:00:00 - 0:00:13]?Bernard: Hello everyone and welcome to a new episode of our Words & Actions podcast, where we look at the importance of language in business, politics and beyond, as you know by now. The topic of today's podcast is an interesting one. Leadership and the role of language and communication in establishing leadership. The first question we need to address is, "What is leadership? What does it mean to be a leader? What are the characteristics of a leader?" And as a listener, you might be wondering at this stage, "Am I a leader or not?" Answering this question does make you do a bit of soul-searching because, even if the answer is yes, then you can start asking further questions. "What type of leader am I? How do I negotiate leadership?" It's high time we introduced the other hosts of this show, Erika Darics and Veronika Koller. I will ask you the same question, Veronika, are you a leader?Veronika: Yes. I won't elaborate on it now because?this podcast is not about me, really. (Laughter)?So, I'll pass over to Erika.?Bernard: Hello, Erika.?Erika: Hi, everyone. Okay, I will avoid the answer but I will just say that, when we tend to think of leadership, we tend to think of grand personas and well-known people from the corporate world or politics. When I ask this question of my students, they often say things like, "A leader is someone who can motivate others, who can get others behind them or behind an idea." Or, "A leader is a guru. A visionary." Of course, leaders are stereotypically men.?Veronika: Yeah. I guess that's still, really, very much a cultural concept that we have, right? That leadership is really viewed as something if not male then at least masculine. Yeah.?Bernard: Erika, when you ask your students to give examples, what do you get then? Is that Elon Musk, for instance? Or Bill Gates?Erika: Steve Jobs. Yes, exactly.?Bernard: But never a woman?Erika: Some are seeping in. Angela Merkel came up.?Veronika: Oh, okay.?Erika: Yes. But I wanted to check on this and I did a quick Google Image search. So, I searched for words like, "boss." What do you think I found?Veronika: I don't know. Some guy in a pinstriped suit? Or some guy in jeans and a T-Shirt, depending on the industry.?Erika: Oh, no, no. Suit, it was. Bernard: Bruce Springsteen, the boss? (Laughter)?Veronika: The boss! That would be the jeans and T-Shirt bit, yes! (Laughter)?Erika: Yeah, no... Most of the images had the typical white male in a suit. Interestingly, there were some other images of women but these images were mostly schematic or symbolic. Very interestingly, I thought they were also reinforcing this male stereotype because?these women were helping each other. Either pulling... One woman pulling up the other on this symbolic hill or one woman pushing up the other. One of the things that also came up was an empowering campaign for International Women's Day from a brand that we've already talked about. BIC, the pen manufacturer.?Veronika: The stationery and the pens. Yeah. Oh yeah, when did we talk about them? What episode was that? Yeah, we talked about how they had these completely uselessly gendered pens, you know? Specific pens for women or something like that.?Bernard: True. True.?Veronika: I remember.?Erika: Exactly.?Veronika: What did they do this time? (Laughter)?Erika: Okay. This was a campaign which was supposed to empower women. It was an advert with a woman, arms folded, arms crossed, in a white suit, and the image had four lines next to it. So, I'll read the first two and I would like to ask you... maybe Bernard, this is going to be a good one for you to tell me what you think.?Bernard: Ooh. Okay.?Erika: Four lines. The first go, "Look like a girl, act like a lady, think like a...?"Bernard: Pro.?Erika: A pro? And what do you think, Veronika, is the last one? "Work like a..."?Veronika: Horse. (Laughter)?Erika: A horse! (Laughter)?Okay!Bernard: I had beast in mind. But yeah, a horse is?fine.Veronika: Yeah. It's not too far away, is it? So, what is it really, Erika? What is it really?Erika: It was, "Think like a man, work like a boss."Bernard: Oh.?Veronika: Oh wow. Okay.?Bernard: That's pretty bad.?Veronika: So, one thing you can... You can be a girl, a lady, a man and a boss. But you can't be a woman if you're a leader. I see. Right. So, that's the subliminal message here, right??Erika: Yes. And also, you can't do all those things at the same time. So, you can't be a lady and a boss at the same time because?you have to act like one and work like the other.?Veronika: Yes, there's that. So, perhaps... They put their foot in again, I think.?Bernard: That reminds me of leadership styles that you can find a lot about in the leadership literature. I think you also have that kind of stereotyping going on there. Male versus female. But the basic types that we have or the styles that we have are described as being transactional, on the one hand, and relational on the other hand. Both are said to have specific features when it comes to communicating in actual behaviour. So, transactional... That would be more controlled or controlling and authoritative. Perhaps even aggressive. So, the kind of things... What would you associate that with, Veronika and Erika? In terms of leadership behaviour and stereotypes? A man or a woman?Veronika: Culturally, in terms of the cultural stereotype, this sort of competitive and dominant behaviour is associated with masculinity, isn't it?Bernard: Yeah.?Erika: Yeah.?Veronika: You've got your typical, power-craving boss. In one episode we talked about how Walt Disney was routinely shouting at employees. Do you remember? And that's sort of the image that comes to mind.?Bernard: Yeah. So, that would still be the main perception, I think. Yes, indeed.?Veronika: Yeah. Then you get this other style that's called, "relational". There, you have, basically... In this concept, you have the opposite, then. So, you have somebody who is really people oriented, gentle and collaborative. And yes, we need to say it, nurturing.?Bernard: Oh, yeah.?Veronika: And requesting solutions rather than imposing them, etc. This would also be reflected, then, in how these people?communicate. A very transactional leader might be more prone to interrupting others and giving orders. Whereas perhaps a relational leader is more likely to ask questions of others, you know?Bernard: I see. But of course, in real life, people?will have to use the right strategy or perhaps shift between them. Nowadays, unfortunately, we have this kind of global crisis situation where you actually see examples of leadership, right?Veronika: Or lack thereof, sometimes. Yes.?Bernard: Well, indeed.?Veronika: So, you're absolutely right. That any good leader will adapt their style as the situation requires. And you're right, in a crisis situation, that's a good context to spot leadership, really.?Erika: I guess we don't have to go very far to spot these instances of leadership. The Guardian has just reported on this interesting observation that, when Boris Johnson, on 18 March, broadcast his press conference, over 10 million people?tuned in. So, people?are looking for leadership in the context of a crisis. This Coronavirus pandemic is certainly one. People even go to the traditional channels and traditional genres to listen to him.?Veronika: Yes, like radio and telly. Not just go on social media to find out about it. That's really interesting, yeah.?Erika: Right. So, another leader... This is a female leader, the Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon. Her message to the nation was very interesting. I found that quite reassuring. She was very clearly telling people?what to do. She said things like, "Older people, we are asking you to stay away from your grandkids and the people?who you love. Children, please study and do your homework but also don't forget to have fun." She says, "Let's all look out for each other at times of crisis." So, her message was very clear and, because?of that clarity, seemed to be easier to follow.Veronika: She had three requests in there, right? "We're asking you to do this". And then you have very clear directives. "Wash your hands, do your homework" etc., so that it couldn't be clearer, really, in terms of language.?Erika: Yes. And if you translate it to what we just said earlier about leadership styles, this is a very good example of transactional leadership style because?it's a command. It's a directive.?Bernard: Picking up on that, the Belgian health minister has a very interesting profile because?she's not just a politician, she's also a general practitioner. So, a doctor. What we notice on TV is that politicians... The way they tell people?to stay at home is very different?from the way scientists do it. Scientists just say, "If you want to bring your grandparents in danger, go and visit them." They're just basically saying, "Stay at home." This health minister said,?blijf in je kot, which is actually a very colloquial way of saying, "Stay in your shacks." So, that is the scientist in her talking, no longer the politician. This is a clear command and people?did start to listen to her after that.?Veronika: It's very different?from what the British Prime Minister did, Boris Johnson. Lots and lots of people—as Erika said, 10 million—tuned in. He's giving daily press briefings, now. But lots of his language is a bit obscure. What makes it a bit obscure is because?he uses an awful lot of metaphor. He talks about, "Turning the tide on the Coronavirus" and "We need to beat the virus" and "The virus can go packing in this country." I mean, what does that mean? It's a bit of a lack of clarity, really, there.?Bernard: People need a clear message. This is not what he is doing. You get things like ‘advice’. Then, later on they're ‘urging’ people. I'm not sure what stage you are at now, Veronika.?Veronika: Warning, I think. The latest was, ‘warning’. But what you also see is... So, first people?were advised, then urged, now warned. But he talks quite differently to businesses. For instance, pubs and restaurants etc. in Britain were actually... The government told them to. He actually emphasised that. "We are telling businesses to do that." But citizens, people, haven't been told anything yet. They have just been advised, urged or warned.?Bernard: Yeah. Is he kind of adopting a relational style, then? And if that is the case, then we'd say it's not very appropriate here.?Veronika: Yeah. It's something that has been described in the literature as double-voicing. A way where he is a bit defensive and uses language in a way to avoid criticism. So, he says, "Yeah, we urge everybody to stay at home. As far as possible, we want you to stay at home." Then he does things like, "Some people?may, of course, be tempted to go out tonight"—that was when the pubs closed—"...and I say to you, please don't." So, on the one hand, you are asked not to do something but, at the same time, he feels understanding if you go ahead and do it anyway. That really muddies the message, here.?It’s a kind of relational leadership. But really, in these sorts of situations, it's not appropriate.?Bernard: True. This is the kind of situation where, as a leader, you have to accept the fact that people?will not like what you're saying.?Veronika: Yeah. It's interesting. Keith Grint has looked at that and says, in a crisis, you need a command style of leadership. You need somebody to give orders. If you're in a train crash, you need somebody to give orders. Which is not the same as coming up with a long-term strategy for something, which would be more of a leadership thing. Again, it's about adjusting to the context, isn't it?Erika: Yes. Have you guys noticed that we started to talk about how leaders talk when we are discussing leadership?Veronika: Yeah, well we would, wouldn't we? We're linguists, really. (Laughter)?But seriously, it's not just us. Lots of people?talk about government and other communications because, you know, it is important. Especially in these kinds of situations.?Bernard: Yeah. That's true. What we should also probably not focus on too much is those typical leadership genres that you get in the carefully crafted CEO letter or, indeed, nowadays, politicians addressing the public during a pandemic. But also, in daily interactions on the work floor, at the coffee machine and in small meetings. This is where leadership actually emerges. It becomes obvious that employees can be leaders as well, in their own right. So, without this hierarchical position. Of course, we also know that you can have really bad leadership skills by people?who do have a hierarchical position that is associated with a kind of "boss" function.?Veronika: True. Yeah.?Bernard: In fact, actually I had a look at Forbes magazine the other day. What do you think is the most important skill a leader should have? They have a list of six very important skills. You might think there are a couple of very important skills as a leader but they list being a very good communicator as the first one.?Erika: Why am I not surprised?Bernard: And the second one is being an expert. But fortunately, people?are aware of that fact, now. Because?it used to be a lot about expertise but now it's all about communication, and rightly so.?Erika: Yes. And we need to be mindful of the fact that it's not just these grand genres and big CEO speeches, as you said before, but all the small instances. The everyday emails. We're all getting all these emails from our line managers and our institutions now. People are reading messages on a daily basis.?Bernard: And I think we all feel it. It's a heavy burden. I think a leader should also feel that. That sometimes, you do need a moment to lighten up the mood a bit. This is what our?Head of University, did. He actually retweeted a post where someone listed the most expensive streaming sites in Belgium. Of course, what happened is that we have to do all of our teaching online now. So, there's a lot of streaming going on. In that list, you could see Netflix, of course, and other streaming services. But you could also see—and it was the most expensive one—Ghent University. (Laughter)?Veronika: Oh, because?you pay tuition fees in order to watch your lecture talking to a webcam. I see. Yes.?Bernard: Yes. That's it. The tuition fees, I would say are?very low but, of course, compared to the other streaming services it's extremely, extremely high. But you know, this is the kind of self-banter. He had the right timing in sharing all of that with us and with the students.?Veronika: Yeah, that's a good one and I think it was probably really much needed. But in general, humour is really an important leadership tool because?it can have various functions. You can express solidarity with it but you can also do power plays with it. So, you can be both relational or transactional. [Jingle 0:15:04 - 0:15:09]?Erika: I may know just the right person who can tell us more about the role and function of humour. She is a professor of sociolinguistics but she is also the founder of linguistic profiling for professionals, Professor Louise Mullaney. Hi, Louise.?Louise: Hi everyone.?Veronika: Hello. Hi.?Bernard: Hi, Louise. Hi.?Erika: Louise, we were talking about humour in leadership. You ran a very popular online course called, "How to Read Your Boss". Did your students learn about bosses’ successful or unsuccessful attempts at humour?Louise: Yes, they did. As part of "How to Read Your Boss", we focused on it. It's one of those features of speech which is very underrepresented in normal business training textbooks. We wanted to give a special linguistic angle to it, to say that this is actually something that we do very, very frequently when we talk, when we're leaders, when we're in the workplace. It's something that's really quite subtle and has got multiple layers to it. It's quite a complex phenomenon but something that's really, really interesting and important to look at linguistically. On "How to Read Your Boss", what we did was to teach people how to profile their boss using some linguistic tool kits. Humour was a key part of this. But then we also enabled people?to profile themselves and to think about how they use humour and how their teams use humour, as well. One of the aspects that we looked at was the multi-functionality of humour. So, how it can fulfil lots and lots of different?functions. We looked at how it mostly maintains solidarity and collegiality. That it's something that is an in-group identity marker that makes us feel part of a community. That makes us feel that we can share knowledge and share our norms about other people?within the business. We look at how there can be identity categories that are associated with humour. For example, most workplaces will be able to identify the joker, the person that's always telling jokes. This can be a positive. It can be a negative, depending upon how frequently they take place. But one of the key things to look out for. Then we talk about how different?groups of people?at work develop their own humour norms over time. The more you get to know one another through what we call a "communities of practice" lens, what ends up happening here is that you will develop and grow the way in which you use humour. So, some workplaces that we've worked with use a lot of irony and sarcasm. That's very standard. It's used every day. It's used to release tension; it's used to express solidarity and collegiality. It's also used to critique, as well, which is another key function of humour. Particularly when we're thinking about leadership discourse. There can be some really quite subtle and complex elements that go on with humour in this particular space. For example, a subordinate can critique a leader. You have to be very careful when you do this but it can take place through the guise of humour. You've always got that little adage that you can say, "Oh, I didn't mean it. I wasn't..."Veronika: "I was just joking."Louise: "I was just joking. I was just pulling your leg." In the large data set that we've got at the University of Nottingham, we see this quite a lot. That you get this idiomatic language, metaphorical language use. "I was only pulling your leg." Just to say... Well, it gives people?a fallback position to say, "I wasn't really being serious." But there's always that ambiguity about it. People can never really be 100% certain whether it was a little dig or whether it was criticism. There are a few areas of our data collection where we've seen this used by individuals to critique upwards. It can also be used to critique downwards by leaders who want to issue criticisms, say, or they want to issue something that can be negatively perceived, but they don't want to do it directly. They don't want to do it openly. So, it enables different?opportunities for leaders to be opened up. I've mentioned already that it can be used to release tension. So, quite frequently in business meeting discourse, where there's been a very difficult subject matter that's been discussed or a very difficult decision that's been taken, you might get humour inflected throughout this difficult conversation just to kind of pull people?back and say, "We're on the same page. We're all together with this." Then it can be used at the end of that to signal that the decision has been made and they can all move on. So, again, it's doing multiple things. It's establishing collegiality but it's also releasing tension. Signalling, also, like a discourse marker, that you can move on to the next phase of the meeting or the next agenda item because?humour has taken place. It's used quite a lot to signal these transitions and adjustments that in made in leadership talk.?Veronika: That's fascinating, how much humour can really do and different?forms of humour. Thanks for giving us a bit of the background about humour in the workplace. I just want to briefly ask you to switch your hats, as it were. Because, apart from doing the linguistic profiling for professionals and running this online course and doing a million other things, you have also started a network on language, leadership and gender across various countries in Africa. Could you tell us a bit about what that is about?Louise: Yeah. This network started up with a grant from the Arts and Humanities Research Council in 2018. What we've been doing is pulling together researchers, NGOs, charities. So, it's a really multi-disciplinary effort involving people?both inside and outside of academia. We've started off in East Africa, which is where we had a group of researchers that had been set up already, where we were already looking at gender and communication in the field of leadership. We're taking a very, very broad definition of leadership with the network, so it can be anything from leaders within very small community groups in rural locations through to people?that are MPs or people?that are CEOs of large, multinational organisations. So, looking at urban and rural locations. What we've been doing here is capturing narrative reports. So, capturing life histories about people?that have succeeded. And a lot of the cases are totally against the odds. How they have managed to pursue a career that was always their dream, what obstacles they've overcome and what communication challenges they've had, particularly from the perspective of gender. We're looking at gender very much from an intersectional perspective. So, it's gender in relation to age, in relation to ethnicity, a lot of the time. Looking at a range of different?factors that come together, alongside religion, as well, and other variables that participants have drawn attention to themselves. So, different?cultural backgrounds or different?tribal backgrounds, as well. What we're basically aiming to do is to build an online resource, which we've launched now. There's a website that's attached to the project that's running on the University of Nottingham's website. What we're looking at doing, here, is growing the membership and using the stories to give an exchange of information. So, to share stories so stories can act as tools of inspiration, so people?can feel that they're being mentored by somebody that's been there already. But we're also looking at the stories of people?who are just starting out. The people?that want to be community leaders. Looking at the kind of challenges that they face.?Veronika: Yeah. That's really fascinating. We'll make sure that we include a link to that website.?Louise: Thank you.?Veronika: It also deals quite nicely with a recent episode on storytelling.?Louise: Oh, brilliant.?Veronika: I asked you specifically about this language, leadership and gender network because our next guest—we have two, today—is actually a member of that network. So, Louise, thank you very much for giving us the background on this, as well. Good luck with all your various projects.?Louise: Thank you very much. It's been great to talk to you.?Veronika: Okay, bye. Bye bye.?Bernard:Thank you, bye.?Erika: Bye.?[Jingle 0:22:53 - 0:22:59]?Veronika: Good. We're very pleased to welcome our interview guest for today, Roshni Moneeram. She has had a very varied and interesting career. She has a background in literature, in English literature, but also applied linguistics. She has worked for the University of Nottingham, running the English programme on their campus in China. But currently, Roshni is a consultant with special expertise in equality, diversity and inclusion. Also, and interestingly, she founded a political party in her home country of Mauritius and stood in the general elections of 2014. I would like, though, Roshni, to start talking about your current work. Your consultancy work on leadership and equality. Can you tell us a little bit about who you typically work with and what your clients' goals are? And, of course, we're particularly interested in how your background as an applied linguist influences your consultancy work.?Roshni: Well, first of all, thank you very much for inviting me on this platform. I'm delighted to be talking about something that I'm very passionate about. This consultancy that I've created for myself brings together the things that I'm the most passionate about, which is language and the true power of language, which I think we don't always understand and sometimes, as linguists, we forget. I'll come back to that as my starting point in a minute. Consultancy brings together my passion about language, my passion about equality, diversity, inclusion and leadership. So, to start with language... As linguists, we know, obviously, that it is the most powerful of human technologies. It is something that I took with me to the workplace and I explain the history of the evolution of language to give context to how powerful words are. I go back to 70,000 years ago.?Veronika: Wow.?Roshni: Yes! (Laughter)?Homo sapiens in East Africa were just one species amongst many other species and co-habited with other species but we were not superior to them. The one thing that triggers everything for homo sapiens is that our brains evolve language. Because?our brains evolve language, it is a language that doesn't just allow us to describe the things that are around us—for example, "Danger here because?a lion is coming. Run away or kill it"—but language also allows us to imagine things that don't yet exist. So, language allows us to bring into being the unseen and the undreamt. I start with that before I do anything else when I'm working as a consultant.?Erika: That's brilliant. Beautiful.?Roshni: Because?it's only there... It remains our most powerful technology because?it is through language that we are then able to organise ourselves and create everything else that we have created, including the internet.?Veronika: Yes. And making sense of it all, you know, so important.?Roshni: Absolutely. This always works a treat with... I work in industries... The banking industry, I work with software engineers and highly technical people like scientists. So, it's really quite marvellous for them to be able to see that everything they do actually depends on language.?Veronika: Yeah. I sometimes freelance a bit as a consultant and it's... You know, when they have that moment when they really... "God, yeah! We do talk like that. Oh yeah, that actually does make a difference." This lightbulb moment. I think that's very rewarding, isn't it??Roshni: Absolutely.?Bernard:Earlier in the episode, we talked about humour and leadership in workplace conversations. Now, in these consultancies that you do, or even perhaps in the project that you have on the women leaders in Africa, which was huge as well and very interesting... We might talk about that a bit later. The notion or the aspect of humour is very important as well. Do you see that in the client organisations you work with or do you incorporate that in what you tell them?Roshni: Absolutely. There is so much about humour. There is so much intelligence in humour that it is a capital that absolutely must be used in the workplace. You can also teach people?to leverage it, as well. I think humour is something that is one of those things that makes us human. The distinction between whatever we're going to be able to do with robots and AI etc. and who we are as human beings. Humour is such an important part of us. Humour is important to us when we are happy. Humour is particularly important to us in the darkest of times, as we are experiencing at the moment with Coronavirus.?Erika: Exactly.?Veronika: We've seen so much of people?putting out humorous memes on Twitter or sharing jokes and what have you to get us through.?Bernard:Or changing the lyrics of songs and things like that. And you do feel that kind of relief, don't you, in these circumstances? And in?companies I guess it's the same thing. We've all been in long meetings, perhaps sometimes a bit tedious meetings, and then you're happy to have the joker around to provide some kind of relief then, in these workplace settings. Indeed.?Roshni: Absolutely. That's why I come back to the idea of how much intelligence there is behind humour. Because?it goes back to the fact that it's a survival strategy. It's a "diffusion of tension" strategy. It also propels when there is stalemate and people?are at loggerheads. This is the one thing that propels us out of that stalemate to recreate and to start again with a different?conversation floor. So, it is really, really crucial to the workplace. To meetings, especially difficult meetings. One other thing that humour does is that it creates a level playing field. When you are working precisely in the corporate, when you have strong hierarchy systems, then humour comes in to create that level playing field, allowing space for more voices.?Bernard:That's true, yes. Humour is a kind of social cohesion device, on the one hand, but also as a way, in hierarchical situations, to flatten that hierarchy a bit. For instance, a leader engaging in self-mockery can create that social cohesion, too. You're absolutely right.?Veronika: But, of course, you almost have the opposite where you have this power function of humour. Where humour is used in rather destructive ways, perhaps to poke fun at somebody or put somebody down etc. So, where would you come in there, Roshni, with your background?Roshni: Yes. Interesting. It can happen and obviously it does happen. I haven't been in situations where that has happened. But if somebody were using their authority and their position of power to use humour to cause distress to someone or diminish someone, then obviously you would have to intervene there and say that this wasn't quite right. More difficult to do than to say, especially when you're working with people?in positions of power. Humour does have a very, very destructive component, as well.?Erika: Yes. I was going to ask this question about how you balance the power and the friendliness and collegiality. Especially in the light of the very impressive line-up of your training programmes. There is one in particular which really interests me. It's called, "Getting to a positive 'No'". Can you tell us a bit more about that training that you do?Roshni: Absolutely. This is where you have to look at language and leadership in context and in cultural context. I was working with Accenture, which is a global company reaching half a million people across the world. I was working in the context of Mauritius, at their Accenture office there, on a project where 50 people?were providing service delivery to a really big, impressive client in Holland. The was a discrepancy between the KPIs, which were all being met... But the client was not satisfied with what was going on. It was one of those wicked problems because?it was very difficult to put your finger on what it was. Because?it was not a technical issue, it was not to do with processes and procedures. I think this is when consultants with a background in the arts, the humanities and the social sciences come in with sometimes intangible tools and qualitative tools that are used to try to understand what the wicked problem is. In this case, it was simply that... It was two things. One of them was the idea of excellence for the Dutch client was very different... was a little different—but important nuances—from the excellence in the minds of the team in Mauritius. So, there was a disconnect there between different?ideas of excellence. That was one. The second issue was that, in Holland—from what I understand—the culture of the company?in particular was, "If you cannot deliver something, you really, really must tell the client. This might annoy them. This might be not the thing that they want to hear. But it is so crucial that you tell them, "No". Because?the, "No" is actually protecting a bigger "Yes". The bigger "Yes" might be your integrity, it might be the trust that you have been building with a client for 10 years, it might be honesty." That's where politeness comes in, as well. What does politeness mean and how is it manifested in different?cultures? Whereas the team in Mauritius wanted to be as polite as possible... and occasionally, quite often, they would say yes to something that wasn't quite feasible.?Bernard:That's very interesting because, before, we were talking about a transactional approach to leadership and a more interactional or relational approach to leadership. The Holland approach, it seems, is more transactional. That also corroborates what our general notion of doing business with people?from the Netherlands is, here in Belgium. It's very direct. It's to the point. It's just business and "get things done." But we also have to get used to the way they talk, in way, because?that can indeed be very direct. If you're not aware of that cultural background, it can be seen as somewhat impolite at times, it's true.?Roshni: Absolutely. It can cause unnecessary stress to people and, therefore, dramatically reduce wellbeing at work and productivity.?Bernard:There's something else I would like to talk about a bit more. Because?you were talking about the power of language before and, actually, you tap into the very core of our podcast. The importance of language. Now, in the conversation that we're having, when we're talking about leadership and language, we're kind of assuming that the language proficiency is... that it has a certain standard, so that in using language as a tool, it actually works. But I was wondering—because?you've done a lot of work on global Englishes—how important that level of proficiency is to establish leadership. Are people?more lenient towards, for instance, lower levels of proficiency in these contexts or do you actually see that the lack of proficiency can be a hurdle in view of the other features that a leader should have?Roshni: A very interesting question. I think, for sure, that the lack of proficiency is an issue from the perspective of the speaker in terms of self-awareness and confidence. But again, it is linked to that self-awareness and confidence. So, the confidence can sometimes override the lack of proficiency, to a certain extent. Then there is also how the speaker is viewed by the audience. Their own prejudices and their own capacity for inclusion and acceptance. The capacity to hear the message and not judge on the basis of perceived or real lack of proficiency. So, it's complex. There is no single answer to this. But I think one thing that is really changing—and I've seen that over the last 10 years—is... precisely because?English is so global a language and nobody owns the English language anymore, because?you have these established world Englishes in India, in Africa, in?various parts of China, and because?you have... When I was in China in particular, I noticed there was a very strong strand of what we call, "Traveller's English". People from Europe, from Asia, from various parts of the world, travel and work together globally. It's not just a traveller's English, it's kind of an international English for business as well. So, there are different?strands of English being created, co-created, by a number of different?people. I think we're getting away from that idea of what standard English, the Queen's English, Anglo-Saxon, American might be. That those might be the standards by which we're judged. I think that's going away now.?Veronika: So, the point is becoming much more to actually be proficient in that English that is most relevant in a particular context?Roshni: Yes, and to get your point across.?Veronika: Yes, indeed. Roshni, I'm afraid we have to come to a close with this. There are lots more thing we could ask you. There's lots more things we would like to know. But for now, we would like to thank you very much for being with us today. It's been a fascinating insight into somebody with a very interesting background. So, thanks a lot for being with us.?Roshni: Thank you very much. I've enjoyed talking to you, too. Thank you.?[Jingle 0:36:35 - 0:36:40]?Erika: Right. That was fascinating. I was really impressed by Roshni's range of trainings and courses that she offers for businesses. I really would have liked to hear a bit more about her techniques. Maybe at another time.?Bernard:And we also... It would be nice to learn more about the things she did with the women in leadership positions in Africa as well. Well, to be honest with you, listeners, we had two interviews already. Most of you know that humour and analysing humour... It requires a lot of context. Things like, "You should have been there," is what we often say. So, we won't do an actual analysis during the podcast but I think, Veronika, you have something up your sleeve, right?Veronika: Yes. We have collected examples of humour, especially in workplace meetings etc. But we thought it might be a bit tedious to listen to us giving all the context. So, what we'll do is we'll put one, with the context, in the blog post to go with this episode. We'll also do a bit of analysis between us. So, you will get it in written form this time because we think, for humour, that will work better. So, something to look forward to on the blog, as well.?Bernard:Yeah. And, I think, a link to Roshni's work, right? A project that she had with the women in leadership positions in Africa??Veronika: Oh, absolutely. Yes.?Bernard:Great.?Veronika: As ever, the blog post will have lots of extra materials for the readers and listeners to use. Yeah. So, we hope that you will join us again for the next episode. For now, it's goodbye from us. Okay. Bye bye.?Bernard:Bye bye, everyone.?Erika: Goodbye.?Veronika: Bye.?[Jingle 0:38:11 - 0:38:39]?END OF AUDIO ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download