From the category archives:

Authenticity Dilemma

Exclamation Points: An Authenticity Issue

Last week, I got a bit of crap from I was chided by one of my colleagues for sending a 4-line email with three (three!!) exclamation points. This colleague also pointed out that I occasionally sprinkle my tweets with exclamation points.

This is a problem. These exclamation points, s/he explained, are simply “not professional”.

“Not professional.”

Those are fighting words, are they not?

We who write about business, critique organizations, advocate social change, etc. are supposed to be professional, whether we’re using e-mail, or Twitter, or any other medium. Otherwise, you all “they” don’t take us seriously.

201001201251.jpg[Note, in just the last week, my tweets have included the terms "Foucault", "Saussure", and "capitalism-enhancing". But apparently those words don't detract from my professionalism. ]

Do exclamation points really dilute my authority as an expert?

Tarnish my PhD? Make me seem more like a mom blogger than a business blogger?

I know that we have gendered definitions of what it means to be “professional”. Women are held to different standards than are men when it comes to demonstrating our professionalism, because people have different expectations of men and women. So, I can appreciate that there may be some behaviors that are ‘unprofessional’, and might seem even more “unprofessional” when they come from women. Or me.

But are exclamation points one of these unprofessional behaviors?

For me, it’s important to be authentic in my communication – to be as direct, as clear, and as “me” as possible. Frankly, I am occasionally bemused by my own use of exclamation points, emoticons, emotional words inside brackets, cr*&sed out cuss words, and some occasional lolspeak [ e.g., I can haz paradimz!]. But yo, that’s how I roll. For real.

[Still, despite my fondness for Hello Kitty, I am not a smiley-face kind of gal. Not really. So I do see a contradiction there.]

But what is really going on with the critique of my use of exclamation points?

Let’s look at the research on gender and exclamation points!

[Of COURSE there is research on this! I found it in November when I was researching how we create social presence online through social media! And since I bookmarked it, I can go straight back there!]

Past research has reported that females use exclamation points more frequently than do males.

Such research often characterizes exclamation points as “markers of excitability,” a term that suggests instability and emotional randomness [emphasis mine] …

The present study uses a 16-category coding frame in a content analysis of 200 exclamations posted to two electronic discussion groups… The results indicate that exclamation points rarely function as markers of excitability in these professional forums, but may function as markers of friendly interaction, a finding with implications for understanding gender styles in email and other forms of computer-mediated communication. — Waseleski, C. (2006)

201001201254.jpg

Hmm… exclamation points suggest instability and emotional randomness.

And they are used more often by men than women.

I start to see the problem… Instability and emotional randomness are obviously not professional characteristics — and these characteristics are particularly damning for female professionals.

But what did this research actually find?

  • Females use exclamations significantly more than do males
  • People use exclamation points to express thanks and friendliness (32%), and to emphasize facts (29%) more often than they do to reflect excitability (9%)
  • “Thanking, whether of the friendly or effusive type, was also a predominantly female behavior (in this study). These findings are consistent with Herring’s (1994) observation that female online discourse style is characterized by “supportiveness,” which includes “expressions of appreciation, thanking, and community building activities that make other participants feel accepted and welcome” (p. 4). “

The results of this study do not support the notion that exclamation points function solely or even primarily as markers of excitability.

So apparently our generalized perception of how exclamation points are used online is different from what the data actually tell us what we think exclamation points from women are saying is different from what women who use exclamation points are actually trying to say.     Looks like we have to listen to what women are actually saying.

Thus, I conclude that while exclamation points are often seen as ‘markers of excitability’ when used by women, in fact:

Exclamation points are tools for communicating thanks, friendliness and warmth!

I refuse to equate appreciativeness, friendliness and warmth with being “unprofessional”. So there!!.

If you get a tweet from me with an exclamation point, just imagine it as this: :-)

I can’t wait for Waseleski’s study of emoticons!

Waseleski, C. (2006). Gender and the use of exclamation points in computer-mediated communication: An analysis of exclamations posted to two electronic discussion lists. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), article 6. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue4/waseleski.html

Image from Trenton Garden of Sculpture by bobjagendorf on Flickr
A print of “Exclamation Point” by AndreaDaquino can be purchased on his site.

If you're interested in this issue, please subscribe to my RSS feed. Or, use the blue box (upper right) to get an emailed update. Join the conversation below...

{ 10 comments }

200912021714.jpgI have been struggling to write a (scholarly) book chapter on Corporate Reputation, social media and authenticity. As I have been writing myself around and around the issue(s), there is one thing that I cannot get my finger on, and that is:

Why does having interacted with an organization through social media make us feel more partial towards that organization?

Why are we more likely to like and even to defend an organization, once we have interacted online with that organization’s representative?

I’ve been playing with ideas about social presence, about scripted vs. context-specific interaction, about individual connections vs. ‘corporate’ ones, but I know that I haven’t found the psychological mechanism(s) yet.

It could be that I’m looking in the wrong places (e.g., CMI (computer mediated interaction) vs. social psychology’s Contact Hypothesis), or that I don’t have the right language, or maybe that the research has not actually been conducted.

But I do know that the phenomenon is real.

For example, earlier this week Robbin Phillips wrote a lovely post, Keeping Promises, at the BrainsOnFire blog, where she describes how her connection with Scott Monty leads her to protect Ford’s reputation.

Something about “knowing” someone at Ford has made me a sincere fan. I’ve even found myself defending them on occasion, in one on one conversations and even to large groups. I have just grown – well — fond of them.

Robbin attributes her feelings about “Ford” as an organization to her feelings about @ScottMonty as a person… recognizing that Ford has managed to “humanize the brand” by using a very personable person and skilled communicator and natural Zen-PR guy) to represent them.

While I do think that Robbin’s reaction is unique to her and her connection with Scott, I also think that there is something more general and more common in the phenomenon…

Could it be that:

  1. The person-to-representative connection just like the connection between touching an object and creating a preference for it? (1)
  2. Ford has shown something about itself as an organization by choosing Scott as a particular/specific person? (org identity reflected in choice)
  3. Ford has shown something about itself as an organization by ‘allowing’ the social media folks (like Scott and his team) the freedom to interact as they see fit? (org identity reflected in process choice)
  4. People transfer to Ford the qualities of what they feel about Scott (simple attribute transfer)?
    As Colby Gergen says “I trust Ford because they are associated with Scott, not the other way around.
    ” Is it that social media give us a person first, rather than a ‘corporation’, making it easier to transfer feelings about a person to the organization than it otherwise would be to transfer feelings about an organization to a person?

200912021715.jpgI’ve seen a lot of words bandied about that describe this phenomenon, but not any proposed ‘mechanisms’—

I’d love your thoughts on what makes us like and maybe even defend organizations once we have interacted with their representatives online… What do you think explains this?

(1) Wolf, Arkes & Muhanna (2008) The power of touch: An examination of the effect of duration of physical contact on the valuation of objects. Judgment and Decision Making, 3 (6): 476-482.

Gentle Touch by cindy47452 on Flickr
Touch Me by jjjohn
on Flickr

{ 4 comments }

Which is preferable, Layoffs or Alternatives to Layoffs?

May 4, 2009

My esteemed colleague and fellow Michigan PhD alum, Aneil Mishra, is a well-known expert on the ’softer’ organizational affects of downsizing and layoffs: morale, commitment and trust. Writing today about furloughs at GM on his blog Total Trust, Aneil mentions that
"In our research on downsizing, we’ve found that across-the-board cost cutting like this (specifically, pay [...]

Read the full article →

Reputation, Beyond Authenticity

February 1, 2009

We’re delighted to feature a guest post from Mignon van Halderen, an expert on Organizational Reputation Management. Mignon is Assistant Professor at the Rotterdam School of Management (RSM), Erasmus University. At RSM, Mignon works in the Corporate Communication Centre where she combines teaching and applied research projects [...]

Read the full article →

Employee Branding in Reverse: Satyam Scandal turns employees into Untouchables?

January 22, 2009

(photo of Satyam colleagues by Tony George)
When the organization you work for is involved in a major ethics scandal– does this mean that you and all other members are ‘marked’ too?
And does this make sense?
Yes.

When the organization that you are part of becomes tainted by a public scandal, you and other [...]

Read the full article →

The Case Against a Marriott Boycott: Marriott is not a Mormon organization

November 25, 2008

Many GLBT-rights and marriage equality rights activists are up in arms in protest against individuals, business and institutions that supported California’s Proposition 8 to ban same-sex marriage. Letters to prominent individual contributors, protests in front of churches, and calls for boycotts figure prominently in these activists’ efforts both to punish the individual, businesses and [...]

Read the full article →

What Do Sarah Palin, Bill Marriott and John Templeton, Jr. Have In Common?

November 17, 2008

They are all damaging some organization’s reputation, by causing "collateral reputation damage ® ".
Sarah Palin is causing collateral reputation damage to Palin Wine.
Bill Marriott is causing collateral reputation damage to The Marriott Hotels & Resorts Corporation.
John Templeton Jr., MD, is causing collateral reputation [...]

Read the full article →

Can Organizations Regain Authenticity by Bringing Back Their Original Visionaries?: Where to, Starbucks?

October 30, 2008

Too many organizations feel inauthentic. Some organizations never had authenticity, and they feel empty. Other organizations had authenticity once but have since lost it. These organizations feel hollow.

In an effort to address its own hollowness, Starbucks has over the last year brought back not one but two of its original visionaries, Howard Schultz and now [...]

Read the full article →

4 Ways Palin Creates a Fake “Reality”

October 3, 2008

In my earlier post, Use Real Authenticity to Establish Fake Authenticity: Sarah Palin shows organizations how , I argue that Palin is a useful role model for organizations in the way that she has gone about creating "Fake Authenticity."
Establishing Fake Authenticity has two steps, and in this post I’ll discuss Step 1: Creating [...]

Read the full article →

Use Real Authenticity to Establish Fake Authenticity: Sarah Palin shows organizations how

October 2, 2008

Almost anywhere we look at this election season there’s something to learn about authenticity.  This is especially true when we’re able to draw analogies between individuals and organizations. Watching the ways that individuals work to present themselves as authentic , we can learn tactics that organizations can use.
Sarah Palin has been very effective at [...]

Read the full article →