Deborah Tannen-The Power of Talk: Who Gets Heard and Why.

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW Sept-Oct Issue. Pp. 138-148.

Reading Summary and Discussion

Deborah Tannen received her Ph.D. in linguistics from the University of California, Berkeley in 1979. An internationally recognized scholar, she is professor of linguistics at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. She is probably best known as the author of You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. Her book spent four years on the New York Times Best Seller List including the No. 1 position for eight months. The follow up to this book is Talking 9 to 5: Women and Men in the Workplace: Language Sex and Power (Avon Books) upon which our article is based. Subjects she has addressed in her writings include spoken and written language, doctor-patient communication, and cross-cultural communication among others. Her most recent and sixteenth book is The Argument Culture .She has made numerous television and radio appearances ranging from Oprah to NPR. In addition to linguistics she has also published poetry, plays, short stories, and personal essays.

Tannen opens her article with a scenario from the corporate business world. Essentially senior managers (males) review their staff and make a report to the head of a senior division of a multinational corporation. During this verbal report they recommend individuals for promotions. The division head cannot believe ‘his ears’ as each one indicates that the women in their work force lack the self-confidence to move ahead. This scenario frames focus of Tannen’s article: "Judgments about confidence can be inferred only from the way people present themselves and much of that presentation is in the form of talk…Communication isn’t as simple as saying what you mean." Are their women who have the self- confidence to move ahead? Tannen asserts yes but the signals each gender conveys is different in male and female interpretation and communication. "The senior managers were judging women in their groups by their own linguistic norms but women like people who have grown up in a different culture-have often learned a different way of speaking than men, which can make them seem less competent and self-assured than they are."

Tannen then describes linguistic style and cites several examples. One example is conversation that is influenced by many factors such as culture and functions at two levels. One the first level, "language communicates ideas." The second almost invisible level is to "negotiate relationships." One example is the manner in which someone is told or asked to "Sit Down!" Tannen describes a common phenomenon known to most linguists in observations in nearly every type of community. Early in our lives as children at play we learn certain rituals and negotiating tactics to communicate. Tannen cites that females tend to focus on building rapport with one another whereas males learn to communicate based on status. I believe this ‘playground’ example forms the foundation or at the very least the jumping off point for most the articles discussion. In other words girls tend to build a team relationship with no person singled out except for exclusion. Boys on the other hand appear to be hierarchical where it is expected one male will dominate and give direction to others. I would say there is a lot to be unpacked in this discussion. Are women more flock/herd oriented and men more wolf pack/lion pride oriented? Tannen readily concedes that not all individuals fit neatly into the model. However, Tannen’s research indicates this is the prevalent framework within which we grow up. It is the template that provides the rituals and communication skills we carry into our adult lives and into our professional lives. She continues by citing examples of how men and women use language, how they hear one another in the same group meeting with differing interpretations. Men will use the pronoun I and women tend toward the pronoun "we." In the conclusion of this section Tannen refers to the pitfall of "asking questions." She cites the example of a female intern who was graded lower than her male counterparts because she asked too many questions. I found this example questionable due to its anecdotal nature rather than empirical incorporation.

Tannen continues with conversational rituals. There are cultural realities that exist as mere exchanges of platitudes rather than obtaining or providing accurate information. Tannen states again examples of gender differences in these rituals. A woman tends to downplay her certainty in a situation although a man in a similar situation where he is clearly at fault will assert his lack of responsibility for the situation or in a case of success will affirm his accomplishment. These conversational rituals provide the basis for miscommunication between men and women in different levels of power. Men are less likely to yield their position in the hierarchy by assuming fault whereas women tend to create ‘face-saving’ situations for their subordinates and co-workers. She concludes this section with an observation on ‘ritual fighting’ that segues to the negotiation of authority.

Whether male or female, a subordinate is less likely to assert their position in the face of higher authority. Citing a "black box" study done by Charlotte Linde, this scenario is serious enough to have tragic consequences. The example of the Air Florida crash at National Airport in icy weather supports this hypothesis. The co-pilot (subordinate) clearly understood the gravity of the situation but failed to press the matter with the pilot (his superior). Sixty-nine people died as a result. Tannen later refers to the other end of negotiating authority relationship based on a Japanese graduate student’s question in her class. Tannen maintains that there is an assumption of communication style from a given culture e.g. Should the pilot not have been responsible for picking up on the "hints" given by the co-pilot?

In the final section Tannen poses the question "What to Do?" How do we overcome the communication gap between these differing gender/authority levels of communication? Her answer not surprisingly is "there is no one best way." But she does assert that instead of one mode of communication (e.g. the board meeting) a manager aware of these diverse linguistic and communication dynamics might develop various modes to communicate ideas in a variety of formats to ensure everyone is heard and has an opportunity to demonstrate her/his strengths. Thus Tannen concludes in the global multicultural business world it will be essential for managers to become astute readers of social interaction and flexible in their own styles of approach.

I found Tannen’s observation of the ‘playground scenario’ in which children learn their styles for adult interaction intriguing and likely to be the most controversial. I wondered about how ‘most linguists’ have observed this in nearly ‘all communities.’ How well documented is this phenomenon of team/female vs. hierarchical/male (my own terms here) interaction? This is an important assumption for her article because most of the following discussion derives from this scenario.

Also, how influential are the various cultural, ethnic and familial influences as well as socio-economic class in these interactions? The article depicts to me at least a homogenous group of females and a homogenous group of males. Yet references are made to the multicultural workplace? Tannen has done research in these areas but very little surfaces here to support or possibly undercut her arguments. I do find her observations on negotiating relationships dead on. Being ‘nice’ does not always communicate or fix the problem to be solved.