Download files
Abstract
'Battling with Words' - a battle of communicating new messages of acceptance and empathy in an organisation that desires cultural change.
Australia is a diverse nation. The people of Australia speak many different languages, profess different beliefs, follow different social practices, possess different abilities, skills and knowledge and live in different kinds of families. The Australian Department of Defence is responsible for the security and defence of this nation a diverse nation of multicultural and multilingual people. Yet, the demographic makeup of Defence does not reflect the demography of the Australian community which it serves. Compared to the wider community, Defence is an Anglo-Australian, male-dominated organisation. Such a demographic profile is no longer desirable or sustainable. Importantly Defence realises the need to reflect adequately the composition of society particularly if the population is to have confidence in the armed forces (Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, 2006). Further, a more diverse Defence Force is now considered a capability issue; that is, a force multiplier for mission success (Defence Committee 2012). Therefore a major challenge facing Defence is how to create a workplace culture that shifts the institution away from an exclusive, homogeneous culture to an inclusive heterogeneous one (Silk et.al. 2000).
While numerous reports of recent years have tried to address this issue of homogeneity, none have specifically addressed the role language plays in maintaining and perpetuating cultural norms. This thesis puts forward a number of reasons for needing language change, arguing that unless the language practices of the institution change in concert with other social inclusion policy changes, it will be difficult for leadership to 'walk the talk' of change, as demanded by a number of reports (Silk et.al. 2000; McGregor 2011; Defence Committee 2012; Department of Defence 2013b).
The thesis demonstrates how language and culture are inextricably linked and investigates how language is used to rally and bond Defence personnel in three main ways: 1) around a limited set of officially endorsed Values of the three uniformed Services, of the Australian Public Service (APS), and of Defence; 2) around a preferred idealised Defence identity presented as iconic in key Defence documents; and 3) around the everyday talk at work which supports and maintains the dominant position of the Anglo-Australian male in Defence culture. A focus on language is the next piece of the mosaic needed to create and maintain a culture of social inclusion. If Defence wants to increase diversity, then it needs to turn its attention and considerable strength to battling with words, so that it can create a Department of Defence characterised by the highest possible degree of sustainable diversity and social inclusion, and ultimately the greatest capability.