Using systemic functional linguistic metafunction as a tool in identifying Agency in organizational change in cross-cultural management contexts

Introduction – Types of language inquiry in international business studies and cross-cultural management contexts

This contribution addresses an echoing sentiment in the field of international business (IB) studies, whose activities occur in cross-cultural management (CCM) contexts, of the observation that human language where meanings are negotiated within and across cultures, and where reality is created and bounded, is ‘management’s lost continent’ (Entwistle, 1974; Holden, 2008, 2002). The insight that human social organization is based almost entirely on the use of meanings goes as far back the foregrounding use of signs in Mesopotamian divinatory tablets from the third millennium BCE (Manetti, 2009; Teevan and Hewitt, 2001). It was from here that the human race inherited a scheme of inferential reasoning that allowed particular conclusions to be drawn from particular facts and that modern language had inherited its broad bi-dimensions of inquiry – as (i) object/phenomenon (nature of language) and as (ii) process/function (nature of meaning from language). Inquiries into the latter, functional nature of language can be further defined as (iia) metafunctional or (iib) non-metafunctional studies of language in use. Type iia refers specifically to using language itself as a tool of analysis for language in use.

Language is involved with almost every aspect of human interaction. It is the medium in which thoughts are organized and communication proceeds (Hodge and Kress, 1979, 1993). But even as it is acknowledged, ‘language lies at the heart of international business (IB) activities’, where in the context of globalization and international management, organizations find themselves increasingly having to navigate the different language environments (Brannen et al., 2014: 495) across cultures, few studies outside the field of applied linguistics, specifically that of discourse analysis, have used language as an instrumental tool in understanding the workings of organizations (Alvesson and Karreman, 2000a, 2000b; Cordeiro-Nilsson, 2009; Fairclough, 2005; Leitch and Palmer, 2009).

Current language in management (IB and CCM) studies tend to view language as an object/phenomenon. This includes that an overwhelming percentage (more than 90%) of language in management is being published in English language journals (Terjesen et al., 2014) and that initial language in management research began in with scholars in Scandinavia (Marschan et al., 1997, Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999a, 1999b). Language has been studied as a barrier (object) in firm internalization (Lohmann, 2011; Welch et al., 2005). As an object/phenomenon, language contains properties that enable it to be transferred from one context to another or its use can be moulded by corporate language policies and guidelines (Brannen, 2004, Brannen and Doz, 2012). Language has desirable properties of being a ‘cultural resource’ (Duranti, 1997; SanAntonio, 1987) and a person’s career capital (Piekkari, 2008). Like an object, language can be labelled ‘a corporate language’, it can be acquired as a second language or coexist alongside other languages (Fredriksson et al., 2006; Kozlowski et al., 2013; Vaara et al., 2005; Steyaert et al., 2011). It can also be categorized, belonging to an internal ‘hierarchy of languages’, an entity shifting between in-house corporate groups to being the official corporate language across nations (Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999a). Language is also seen as an individual- or team-level property (Boxenbaum, 2006), the diversity of which can be quantified and measured (Tenzer et al, 2014).

Less common in the field of IB and CCM is the study of language in its functional aspect, specifically, studies reflecting the application of linguistic metafunction as a tool of qualitative data analysis as defined by type iia studies (Cordeiro-Nilsson, 2009).

The term ‘functional’ applied to language is derived from the systemic functional theory/linguistics (SFL), a coherent theory and framework of language as a social semiotic. Its theoretical development and practical applications have its foundations in the work of Michael Halliday (1975, 1985) whose work was influenced by the Prague School of the 1920s. The underlying assumption to a functional view of language is that the form of language responds to its corresponding functions. It recognizes that humans use language as a social semiotic system to construct meanings in different contexts for different purposes, including that of managing across cultures. In this study, systemic functional theory is used as instrumental linguistics, which is ‘the study of language for understanding something else’ (Fowler, 1991: 481).

Language in management studies that focus on the functional aspects of language defined as type iib (non-metafunctional studies) includes aspects of social cohesion and as a lingua franca (Luo and Shankar, 2006, Mäkelä et al., 2007, Wu, 2013); language as facilitative in trade (Ku and Zussman, 2010; Brannen and Salk, 2000; Beyene et al., 2009; Crick, 1999); language as facilitative in knowledge sharing (Cordeiro-Nilsson and Hawamdeh, 2011; Holden, 2002, Welch and Welch, 2008); language as function of cognition, context (culture), and situation (Brannen and Doz, 2012; Cutler, 2012; Du-Babcock, 2006; Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004); and language as ideology (Boussebaa et al., 2014; Hofstede, 1984; Tietze and Dick, 2013).

This article addresses the gap in IB and CCM literature in studies of type iia. Set within the broader context of discourse analysis studies in the field of management science, it uses SFL and the study of language metafunctions in order to explain the workings of management and organization. This contribution can be seen as an applied methodology illustration, in answer to the (pedagogical as well as practical) question, how can the SFL metafunctions of language be used to explain Agency in organization change?

The case of illustration here is that of top Swedish managers working in Swedish owned/managed Singapore offices, putting into effect an organizational change. This study shows how SFL metafunctions can be used in identifying Agency in organization management and change.

Discourse analysis as a tool

If ‘cross cultural management…is a branch of international management whose task is to facilitate and direct synergistic interaction and learning at interfaces where knowledge, values and experience are transferred into multicultural domains of implementation’ (Holden, 2002: 316), and that a CCM context is inherently dynamic, fluid with complexities of power or influence dynamics (Primecz et al., 2016), then discourse can be seen as the socio-semiotic linguascape within which the processes of CCM are constantly negotiated.

Discourse analysis refers to all studies within the field of applied linguistics that focus on the units of language beyond the sentence level. It highlights language as text (written and spoken), situated in a context. It is used in order to comprehend the production, dissemination and interpretation of texts in the process of communication in a systematic manner.

Developed first within the field of linguistics, anthropology and philosophy, interest in discourse analysis as a tool in the study of organization and management has increased markedly in the last two decades. As such, scholars from a wide variety of disciplines from anthropology to artificial intelligence have expressed interest in studies framed in a discursive perspective (Jaworski and Coupland, 1999; Schiffrin et al., 2001). It is also due to this breadth of scholarly interest that has given rise to a variety of definitions to the terms ‘discourse’ and what constitutes ‘discourse analysis’. For the purposes of this study, discourse is defined in its broadest sense as any written or spoken text and discourse analysis is the analysis of language in use where language is viewed as a functional type of social practice (Fairclough, 1992; Halliday, 1994).

While not without criticism of being both poorly defined and trying to encompass too many aspects as the same time (Reed, 2000) and being myopically focused on just language at the expense of context (Deetz, 2003), the past few decades have nonetheless seen discourse analysis emerge as a prominent tool used in the field of organization and management studies (Alvesson and Karreman, 2000a).

There are many tools for discourse analysis, the appropriacy of choice of tool will depend on the researcher perspective and the phenomenon of study. For example, critical discourse analysis can be used to investigate organizational power and social hegemonic structures (Chouliaraki, 1998; van Dijk, 1997; Fairclough and Wodak, 1997; Mumby and Clair, 1997; Richardson, 1998; Wodak et al., 1999), speech acts in argumentation and politeness (Austin, 1962; Grünberg, 2014; Jacobs, 1989; Searle, 1969; Wight, 1976), conversation analysis for group dynamics and identify formation (Atkinson and Heritage, 1984; Fairclough, 1992; Potter, 1997; Potter and Wetherell, 1987; Schegloff, 1997; Watson, 1997; Wooffitt, 2001), register and genre analysis for negotiation (Bahktin, 1986; Fowler et al., 1979; Fairclough, 1993, 1995; van Leeuwen, 1993), and SFL in mapping the landscape of human experience and thoughts as expressed in language use (Bloor and Bloor, 1995; Halliday, 1975, 1978, 1994; Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004).

Using SFL as tool in analysing language in use in a cross-cultural context: The case of Swedish managers based in Singapore

Findings and discussion

As uncovered in the analysis from text example 1, Agency in organization change is expressed mostly in the ideational and interpersonal metafunctions. Data from the interviews indicated that at both ideational and interpersonal levels of meaning, the Swedes in Singapore found themselves to have main Agency (also illustrated in text example 1 with $M). The Swedish managers saw themselves as having a responsibility for bringing over and grounding what they considered to be Swedish values in the Singapore subsidiary. Most attribute themselves as personally responsible for the carrying over of culture by the use of the constructs (text example 1, lines 1–5), ‘we also have the responsibility to transfer or carry over the culture’.

As managing directors, the Swedes tended to view themselves as the key individuals to make changes. This idea is reflected in text example 1 when respondent $M talks about how it was she who had taken on the initiative to flatten the hierarchy of the organization and create something of a semblance to what she recognized as ‘Swedish’ with less tiers (in lines 9, 10, 13, 15, 20, 22 and 24).

However, more than being simply implementers of change or change catalysts by action, top Swedish managers see themselves as bringing ideology from Sweden to Singapore, as a way of seeing/visioning and thus doing/being. For example, the ideology of egalitarianism and the value of individual empowerment are implemented slowly, by first creating a flatter organizational structure and decentralizing decision-making (in lines 22 to 26, 29, 30 and 31).

Supported by ideational metafunctions, the processes of thinking reflected in the mental schemas of individuals (line 2, the idea of ‘culture carrying’), organizational change is most often marked by the interpersonal metafunctions such as tearing down the existing organizational structure and erecting a different one in its place (line 9 and in line 11, the ideational metafunction reflects a certain mental focus of intent on making this happen). The material act of rewriting the organization handbook (lines 16 and 17) and of taking the decision as top manager to not interfere (lines 24–27) and let mistakes happen, deciding too, to take full responsibility when mistakes do happen (lines 29). Incorporating ‘education’ and ‘training’ are also concrete actions reflected in the interpersonal and textual metafunctions (line 28) that characterize organizational change.

There seems to be two types of organizational change reflected in the metafunctions of language found in the data in general. The first is the new administrative processes that are usually initiated by the top manager of the organization. This consisted of decentralization, consensus seeking and a flattening of the organization structure. The second is when employees begin to transition into this new routine with new behaviour and attitudes. The ‘opening up’ and taking on greater responsibility and even consulting with each other more, as there was no longer an intermediate ‘boss’ to turn to (lines 22–27), mark the beginning of a new type of organization environment and a new way of doing things (line 32).

Conclusion

Managing across cultures in a context of uncertainty and change is today, the most likely scenario in many IB settings. While organizational change might be a difficult process to study, this contribution addresses the type iia gap in the growing interest in language in IB studies in illustrating how instrumental linguistics can be used as both theory and method in the growing interest of language in management (IB and CCM) studies to systematically uncover Agency and influence in a CCM context. To that effect, using a single text excerpt, text example 1, from the data base of 23 transcribed interviews, the three metafunctions – the ideational, interpersonal and textual – levels of meaning were investigated that showed how the actions of key individuals in the organization are important Agents in organization change. Due to the nature of SFL as theory and framework, this contribution has both pedagogical and practical value for use as examples in either a classroom context or else, in an applied practice context where practitioners can use this as a reference example for their own purposes. In line with more recent works by Primecz, Mahadevan and Romani (2016), a discourse analysis framework applying SFL metafunctions can also be used in the study of power/influence dynamics within organizations in a multinational setting.