The Psycholinguistic Foundations of Responding to Stakeholder Pressures:
Linking Individual and Group Language to Social Performance
Donal Crilly — London Business School
1. INTRODUCTION
What can executives’ language tell us about effective organization when faced with
stakeholders with divergent interests?
Recent advances at the interface of linguistics and cognitive science (Jackendoff, 2007)
reveal consistent relationships between linguistic style – how people speak (as opposed to
what they say) – and psychological and social processes. Linguistic style provides
information about the mental models that underpin decisions and actions.
2. WORDS THAT MATTER
Focus of most studies of
language in firms
Disproportionately reveal
thought processes
Word Type
Content
words
words that carry
meaning
Function
words
words that carry no
semantic meaning
Examples
nouns, adjectives,
some adverbs, and
most verbs)
pronouns, and particles
(conjunctions, some
prepositions, and
adverbs)
The core linguistic markers of psychological states and processes are function words (Tausczik &
Pennebaker, 2010). These words are usually overlooked in the analysis of organizations that prioritizes
content. Among function words, particles – especially conjunctions (e.g. and, but, because, so) - are crucial
because they connect units of speech and act as the “glue” in discourse (Fraser, 1990). They routinely
indicate the relationships that speakers identify between distinct ideas or concepts and provide insight into
how people categorize issues.
1
3. LANGUAGE AND MENTAL MODELS
Which specific function words are the best indicators of how people categorize salient issues?
Word Category
Examples
Function
Causal
Because,
since
Except,
only
Specifies causal relationship between concepts; linked to
analytical reasoning
Specifies focus of attention and – often - opposition between
concepts; linked to nuanced, analytical reasoning
Additive/ inclusive
Additionally
, and
Specifies equivalence between concepts and broadens focus of
attention; linked to holistic reasoning
Negation
Not, never
Specifies opposition between concepts
Exclusive
Low analytic reasoning;
broad attention focus
“We have a responsibility to our shareholders and our employees. Additionally, we have to care
for the planet as well as be profitable.”
Highly analytic; narrow
focus
“We have a responsibility exclusively to our shareholders, but not to society except where
profits are at stake. We have no duty to care for the planet.”
4. LINGUISTIC COORDINATION
Language is not only the product of individual psychology. It is also an outcome - and facilitator - of
social interaction. When people meet, they routinely converge on patterns of communication.
Interpersonal alignment in language is important when common ground is required for decisionmaking.
Alignment does not mean that individuals have to
converge on similar content (codes, vocabulary, etc.).
Individuals who work effectively together can converge
on a common linguistic style. Irrespective of what they
say, they structure their sentences in similar ways, using
key parts of speech (verbs, prepositions, conjunctions,
etc.) to a similar extent (Ireland et al., 2011).
Common linguistic style has been linked to success speeddating success. Similarly, the quality of Wikipedia pages is
positively associated with common linguistic style amongst
collaborators - even when they disagree about the content
that belongs there (Pennebaker & Chung, 2013).
2
5. CONTEXT AND METHODS
Context: Firms must respond to stakeholders with divergent interests. There is no unanimous definition of
responsibilities towards stakeholders, and executives can conceive of the firm’s role in society in different ways.
Prior research has linked what executives think to how successfully they manage stakeholder relationships. This
study uses linguistic analysis to identify whether how executives think predicts their firms’ social performance.
Data: 88 interview excerpts with senior executives from nine MNCs, matched in four pairs and triads on the basis
of industry, HQ location, and size but differing in their corporate social performance (CSP)
Linguistic measures: analysis of responses to question “What do you think are the responsibilities of
multinational corporations towards society?” using the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count dictionary, which
identifies 1) parts of speech, 2) words relevant to psychological processes, and 3) salient dimensions of content.
6. RESULTS
Logistic Regression1
DV: Member of High CSP Firm
Social content
Money content
Exclusive particles
Inclusive particles
Negations
Causal words
Observations
0.021 (0.056)
-0.208 (0.229)
0.886*** (0.308)
-0.140*** (0.051)
0.300 (0.538)
0.397** (0.175)
88
Executives from high CSP firms share a
more similar (p < 0.05) linguistic style –
measured by the rates at which they use
nine basic categories of speech when
defining CSR - with their colleagues than
do peers from low CSP firms with their
respective colleagues. Those based
outside of the HQ and newcomers share a
less similar (p < 0.05) style with colleagues.
Executives from high CSP firms use more (p < 0.01) exclusive
and fewer inclusive (p < 0.01) particles than peers from low CSP
firms. This relationship holds even after controlling for salient
content (e.g. references to society, references to money).
1. Cluster robust standard errors in brackets; controls for demographics (sex, native
English speaker, tenure), industry, and linguistic complexity (total number of words,
words per sentence) included
3
7. CONCLUSION
1.
2.
3.
At the individual level, focused attention – which is reflected in exclusive language and negations – is
associated with high CSP. This suggests (cognitive) specialization within the firm as a potential way
to address diverse environmental pressures.
However, though executives in high-CSP firms might individually attend to very specific - and
divergent - parts of the environment, their similar linguistic style might implies a common lens through
which they view the issue of social responsibility and, thus, greater capacity for coordination.
Broadly, the study proposes language as a distinct microfoundation of organizing. As language is
both individual and social, linguistic analysis can contribute to bridging the micro-meso divide in
organization studies.
8. FOLLOW-UP
This study posits no causal relationship between language and the decisions that people take.
Rather, language reflects underlying mental structures. However, what would happen if we primed
people to attend to different kinds of words before making a strategic decision?
Setting: 45 Executive-MBA participants were randomly
assigned to two groups. Both were given the same letter to
shareholders to study. Group 1 members were asked to
underline inclusive words (e.g. and, additionally). Group 2
members were asked to underline exclusive words (e.g. but,
except).
Decision scenario: Both groups read a short article about
Microsoft’s acquisition of Skype and were asked to imagine
themselves as consultants to Microsoft. Would they
recommend Microsoft to take an equity stake in Skype or not?
4