Ernanda / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 9 No. 2 (2022) 80 Online version available in : http://arbitrer.fib.unand.ac.id JURNAL ARBITRER Submission Track A B S T R A C T The exercise of power in leadership may involve conflicts, especially in precarious situations. Politeness strategies come into practice to cushion the aftermath of face-threatening acts that presumably trigger tension. This study aims to shed light on female leaders’ linguistic strategies in managing problematic discourses involving older male subordinates in the Indonesian university context. The naturalistic data was obtained from recorded meetings. The study results depict that the female leader employs both direct and indirect strategies in handling problematic issues, especially when the female leader has to face up to senior subordinates. She adopts direct strategies to convey important messages that have to be obeyed by the employees. On the other hand, she adheres to the cultural norms that oblige younger people to show respect to older people by using indirect strategies. The politeness strategies employed in her utterances show how culture shapes communication approaches. In general, a female leader has to have a range of sophisticated linguistic competence in a high-rank managerial position. Keywords Women, Leadership, Linguistic, Communication, Politeness Correspondence E-mail: ernanda@unja.ac.id Article When Women Are the Bosses: Linguistic Strategies in Managing Problematic Discourses Ernanda1, Delita Sartika2 1,2Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Jambi, Indonesia 1. INTRODUCTION Leadership is favored as a masculine area in a patriarchal society, especially in the Indonesian culture. Male stereotypes (i.e., ambitious, confident, and assertive) are considered leadership qualities (Williams & Tiedens, 2016). Gender stereotypes have been discussed in a myriad of publications (Cépeda et al., 2021; Kotek et al., 2021; Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 1992; Ide, 1992, among others). Also, research on language and gender defines stereotypes of male and female language. Female speakers are more emphatic, indirect, and cooperative by using tag questions, hedges, and softeners (Crosby & Nyquist, 1977; Carli, 1990). Men are more aggressive, direct, blunt, and assertive (Case, 1995). Females tend to avoid conflict by supporting and agreeing, whereas males are more confrontational, competitive, and deal with conflict. In workplace interactions, masculine traits are characterized by domination, interruption, confrontation, and competitiveness (Burrell et al., 1992). Thus, masculine styles are valued highly and become workplace norms (Case, 1993). Other studies confirm that gender behaviors in organizations shift depending on the situation. Both females and males in positions of authority may adapt their leadership styles accordingly (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Anderson & Galinsky, 2006). Moreover, patriarchy is not a static phenomenon and can be transformed or modified over time in different mediums (Benstead, 2021). This patriarchal bargain currently endows women with opportunities to occupy leadership positions. Many women take part in leadership, which is considered a masculine spot, with greater social acceptance (Hejase et al., 2013). Leaders, who have authority over others, use language to control and constrain subordinates’ contributions (Fairclough, 1989). They employ sets of language strategies to enact leadership Received: August 15, 2022 Final Revision: October 21, 2022 Available Online: October 28, 2022 | 2339-1162 (Print) | 2550-1011 (Online) | Under License of Creative Commons Attributioni-NonCommercial 4.0 International.DOI: https://doi.org/10.25077/ar.9.2.80-93.2022 Ernanda / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 9 No. 2 (2022) 81 practices. Communication in leadership takes place in many organizational activities. One of the essential activities in an institution is meetings. Meetings can be arenas where leaders authorize their power, give instructions, and control the institution. On the other hand, subordinates, as meeting participants, can also share opinions, get information, and report problems. Strategic decisions are made in an organizational meeting, and work-related problems are solved (Asmuss & Svennevig, 2009). Problems in the workplace are diverse in urgency and complexity. Meeting participants raise issues, and communication takes place in the negotiation process. Negotiation in meetings among participants comprises various points of view and is not always palpable. Meeting members with goals and interests will likely defend their opinions. On top of that, disagreement and tension are inevitable consequences. Disagreement, disputes, and refusals in verbal communication may result in conflict (Sornig, 1977; Pearson, 1986; Brenneis, 1988). They are instances of dispreferred acts because these acts may shake social harmony and affect group solidarity. They are classified as Face-Threatening Acts (FTA). Brown and Levinson (1987) introduce the concept of ‘face’ whereby people have a positive face that needs to be enhanced by others and a negative face that needs to be maintained. Communicative acts, positive or negative, affect ‘face.’ Sets of lexicons used to disagree, dispute, and refuse are also considered FTAs. Interactions in meetings involve many FTAs. People generally tend to protect the face and avoid conflicts by indirectly expressing potentially threatening face acts and mitigating their propositions to save face, which is linguistically termed ‘politeness strategies’ (Brown-Levinson, 1987). To be polite, one has to minimize the threat to face and use more indirect methods in delivering messages, especially when the message may generate tensions. Previous studies have covered the array of social contexts where people deal with problematic discourses or controversies in interactions. Angouri and Locher (2012) study the form of disagreement (i.e., mitigated/unmitigated and explicit/implicit). Sifianou (2012) argues that disagreement is perplexing since it is a multidirectional and multifunctional act. Not only face-to-face interaction but disagreement on social media such as Twitter is also analyzed by Almutairi (2021). Refusals have also obtained growing attention. Félix-Brasdefer (2006) investigates the use of refusals in formal and informal contexts in the Mexican Spanish community. Daly et al. (2004) reveal the socio-pragmatic strategy in expressing refusals, whinges, and complaints in NZ factories. Scholars have also explored language use in light of gender differences in problematic communications. In workplace contexts, men are more aggressive than women (i.e. Holmes, 2000). Various factors have been revealed in selecting particular communication strategies in problematic discourses, such as gender, culture, age, power, distance, the weight of imposition, contexts, and so forth. Further to this, Thimm et al. (2003) claim that gender is not always the most salient factor determining linguistic strategies. The weight of imposition is one of the important factors in selecting communication strategies Scollon and Scollon (2001). The weight of imposition is the urgency level of the issue. Leaders generally hinge on the imposition’s weight and avoid taking risks that may threaten the organization. Furthermore, age and seniority are significant variables in Asian countries (Samransamruajkit & Getkham, 2015), and the same holds for the Indonesian context (Wardani & Uyun, 2017). Parents teach children to respect older people, listen to them, and be polite. From a sociolinguistic perspective, Coupland and Coupland (1988) claim that intergenerational differences may favor senior people. Older adults are considered more experienced and have more achievements. To quote Dwyer (2020: 151), “The more senior a person, the more power they have.” Therefore, senior colleagues have ‘power’ even though they are in lower rank positions. The age of the interlocutor could influence communication strategies. With gender stereotypes postulated, what discursive strategies women use in leadership communication in Indonesia remains an enigma. Hence, attempting to fill a gap in the literature, this study addresses the following question: What linguistic strategies do Indonesian female leaders utilize in managing problematic discourses that involve older male subordinates at the university Ernanda / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 9 No. 2 (2022) 82 level? This study will contribute to understanding female leaders’ communication approaches in higher-educational institutions in Indonesia. 2. METHODS This qualitative study aims at gaining insights into female leaders’ linguistic strategies. There was no attempt to generalize the information. However, the data represents a wide array of communication strategies. Linguistic strategies of the woman leader under investigation are elicited in different meetings on various academic issues with conflict potentials. This study draws on video recordings of faculty meetings at a university in Indonesia. The dataset contains more than eight hours of online meetings conducted between June 2021 and October 2021. The details of the meetings and sensitive issues are not discussed to protect confidentiality. The name of participants, places, locations, and everything that indicate the actual setting in the excerpts are pseudonyms. Participants The participants of this study are a 40-years old female faculty leader (Maia) and male heads of departments (Yannie and Edi) who are in their 50s and 60s. Maia is the meeting chair who prepares a structured agenda, topic, and goals for the meetings. She often employs a more prolonged, uninterrupted, monologic communication style associated with masculine discourse. In leading the meetings, Maia starts with a brief introductory talk on the meetings’ agenda and main points. She later allows meeting participants to ask questions and raise problems during the discussion session. She goes through each of the participants’ questions and ideas and provides recommendations and decisions for them with a brief explanation and reason. The other participants, Yannie and Edi, lead two departments under the faculty management. Both of them are more senior and older than Maia. Yannie, the head of Department X, had a long career as a headmaster in a local school before joining the faculty. Edi is the Head of Department Y. He has thirty-seven years of work experience and will retire in the next three years. Furthermore, meeting attendees were mixed-sex, with female and male heads of departments and study program coordinators. Around 25 to 30 participants attended each of the regular coordination meetings held by the faculty. Procedures The video recordings were transcribed at the initial stage using the ELAN annotation tool. Conversations containing problematic issues were selected. Then, utterances containing linguistic devices threatening the hearer’s face were identified. The utterances are produced by either the female leader or the senior male subordinates as meeting participants. The female leader under investigation was interviewed. The identified excerpts were consulted with her. The female leader commented on our linguistic analysis and recounted her intentions in considerably ambiguous utterances. Finally, the selected linguistic strategies were established and the data was interpreted. 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This study is constructed from the video recordings of the regular meetings at the faculty discussing problematic issues around the implementation of the new national educational policy called ‘Merdeka Belajar – Kampus Merdeka’ (MBKM or Independent Learning – Independent campus). This new policy allows university students to complete up to three semesters – or equal to 60 credits out of their mandatory 144 credits – through various models of off-campus learning, including research assistant, teaching assistant, internship, entrepreneurship projects, and student exchange. The discussions centered around students’ teaching-assistant fieldwork for one semester in some schools in the province. Both senior male heads of departments, Yannie and Edi are not content with the implementation of the new policy. Given their long work experience and seniority, they believe the old ways are still reliable and solid. During their discussion, Yannie and Edi express their hesitancy to accept the policy changes and negotiate ways to implement them. The data is provided in the Appendix section. Excerpt 1 Yannie expresses his disagreement against the teaching-assistant fieldwork offered to his students as a part of the implementation of MBKM. Students who join the fieldwork do not Ernanda / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 9 No. 2 (2022) 83 attend regular classes. Their 20 credits for that semester are completed through fieldwork. In Yannie’s opinion, the students will not be able to accumulate sufficient knowledge to achieve the fifth semester’s learning target through fieldwork alone. Thus, Yannie believes that students who sign up for the fieldwork will still need to attend lectures available for that semester to learn knowledge from theoretical perspectives (lines 4-5). By drawing attention to his extensive experiences as a school principal, Yannie tries to convince Maia about his authority on the issue. He asserts that not all school principals and teachers have excellent competencies in their field to qualify as competent mentors for the fieldwork students during their teaching assistant program (lines 15- 16). Students learning processes and targets may be at risk in this case Yannie highlights his superiority publicly in the meeting to demonstrate to Maia and other participants that his concern and disagreement have reasonable grounds. Yannie’s way of highlighting his status can be seen as patronizing instead of a persuasive act (line 6). He uses the expression “Ibuk yakinlah… [You have to trust me]” to further strengthen his standing. In this situation, his condescending style appears to threaten Maia as the leader of the meeting and a person of a higher status in the faculty’s managerial. To reinforce his opinion, Yannie states that he had an extensive experience as a school principal prior to his career at the university (line 6). Malang melintang is an Indonesian phrase commonly used to emphasize one’s well-established reputation in a field. Yannie further expresses his disagreement against Maia’s concern that lecturers may use their authority to force fieldwork students to do the same amount of classroom work as non-fieldwork students if they are required to join regular classrooms. This circumstance may unfairly create an extended study load as the students must also satisfy the fieldwork’s learning requirements (lines 10-12). Yannie accuses Maia of placing negative assumptions or, in Yannie’s words, “prasangka buruk” (line 10) on their fellow lecturers. According to Rees-Miller (2000), the use of accusatory force is a part of the aggravated disagreement. In expressing an accusation, a speaker usually uses indexical second-person pronouns. However, Yannie’s typical use of the inclusive pronoun “Kita” [we] actually helps soften his critique of Maia’s decision (line 11). This helps displace the pressure from Maia as the target of the critique to ‘all of us’. Composing age and seniority factors, excerpt 1 displays that power is negotiable. People with lower institutional rank may exercise their power by expressing their disagreement in a blunt and direct way to their superiors. Excerpt 1 provides some evidence that age and seniority may outweigh hierarchical power. Different from theories on language and power suggesting that lower-status individuals use a more indirect and polite style (Holmes, 1995), our data demonstrate that the speakers of a lower rank but older choose not to soften their arguments when speaking to their younger superior. Even further, they utter a form of accusation toward their superior. In this situation, defending one’s point of view is more crucial than saving the addressee’s face and the speaker does not mitigate disagreement (Kotthoff, 1993). Maia responds in several steps before finalizing her decision regarding Yannie’s request to instruct fieldwork students to learn theories by joining regular classes during their fieldwork. Firstly, Maia thanks Yannie for raising his opinions (line 17). Secondly, Maia expresses reciprocity as an involvement strategy to proclaim that she is on the interlocutor’s side. She expresses her agreement with Yannie’s points regarding the necessity of theoretical knowledge for fieldwork students (lines 18-19). Despite being directly ‘attacked’ by her older subordinate, Maia chooses to maintain politeness and saves the interlocutor’s face by using the two strategies. Furthermore, Maia’s choice to use the word ‘pembekalan’ (line 20) depicts another strategy to avoid direct opposition to Yannie’s ideas. The word ‘pembekalan’ means ‘orientation’, or in other words, pre-fieldwork sessions, which is different from requiring the students to attend conventional classroom learning during their fieldwork, as suggested by Yannie. This word choice reflects Maia’s strategy to avoid conflict. In this case, she facilitates Yannie’s opinion about students’ need to learn the theories. However, she suggests that the theory should not be taught by requiring fieldwork students to sit in regular classes but in specific pre-fieldwork orientation classes Ernanda / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 9 No. 2 (2022) 84 (lines 18-20). Even though Maia assiduously avoids direct confrontation with the senior subordinate, she enhances her face by defending her position and carefully rejecting Yannies accusation. Maia straightforwardly repudiated Yannie’s claim that her decision was based on negative assumptions. Maia says, “…Saya tidak berasumsi jelek sebenarnya…” [I didn’t make a negative assumption actually] (line 21). She repeats this statement by saying, “jadi tidak e atas asumsi e saya…” [So it is not based on my own assumption…] (line 25). She further explains that her concern came from students’ complaints (lines 21-24). Maia uses a clear directive style when communicating non-negotiable matters, such as ensuring students’ safety, “Nah dosen pengampu itu juga harus direm… [And the lecturers must also be controlled…]” (line 27) and “…Tidak ada panggilan-pangggilan harus datang ke tempat… [There must not be any requirement (for the students) to be physically present in classes]” (line 37). Meanwhile, when doing the authority sharing, she uses the conditional clause “jika [if]” several times as in “Kalo memang itu dipikir perlu oleh Prodi… [If the department considers it necessary] (line 19), “Kalo memang mereka pengen mahasiswa ikut dalam perkuliahan… [If they (the lecturers) want the students to join classes…” (line 28), and “(if) Jurusan dan prodi itu berkeputusan bahwa itu wajib… [(if) the department and the program consider it compulsory…” (line 39). By doing this, Maia seeks a compromise by resorting to the flexibility of the policy and giving the departments the opportunity to examine their situations and decide what is best for the students. However, these are only allowed by obeying non-negotiable conditions that she mentioned before, such as the necessity to run the sessions online to prevent students from traveling from fieldwork to their campus, which may risk their safety. Maia also reminds Yannie about the necessity to use a flexible approach in dealing with potential problems that may occur if they run online sessions, such as a bad internet connection, as fieldwork sites are mostly in remote areas. As she points out, “…tapi kan kalo di lapangan ya seperti itu. Nanti mahasiswa lapor sinyalnya tidak bagus itu memang harus banyak peng pemakluman… [… but that’s the reality in the field. If later the students report they have a bad internet connection, it must be understood…]” (lines 30-32). Maia questions how the theory sessions will be organized (lines 34-41). This includes how many sessions are required and what learning model is going to be implemented. These questions prepped her to continue pointing out the complexity of that situation. Maia implies several cautions for departments that want to run theory sessions for the fieldwork students. She demands that a straightforward procedure on how the sessions will be run must be carefully drawn and agreed upon by all relevant parties to guarantee students’ focus on the fieldwork and their safety. In this part of the response, Maia tries to balance using her authority to give direct instructions on non-negotiable matters, such as prioritising safety, ensuring the meetings are run online, and sharing the authority with Yannie and other department heads as well as lecturers. Running the meetings online is important as the fieldwork is part of the national program where university students are sent to underprivileged schools mostly located in remote areas to allow them to experience learning from real problems in the diversity of Indonesian educational situations. Using normatively feminine linguistic strategies, Maia involves meeting participants to maintain social harmony in the team. In particular, she observes that Yannie raises a number of complaints that she needs to address directly but tactfully, as any decision in the meeting would significantly affect the students’ situation. Maia is directive about making students’ safety a priority but allows room for the departments and lecturers to draw detailed procedures. What concerns her more is the importance of making the procedures clear to all parties, as she asserts, “…silakan dibuatkan di dalam dokumen kesepakatan [please put all these in the fieldwork contractual agreement]” (lines 39- 40). In this excerpt, a senior male subordinate, despite his lower status, is not concerned with face-saving. Without softening his utterance, he directly expresses his disagreement and accuses his superior. On the other hand, Maia, as the superior, with the attack from her subordinate, utilizes a more polite style. She respects Yannie as an older Ernanda / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 9 No. 2 (2022) 85 subordinate. Even though the issue discussed has a high weight of imposition, she appreciates the good intentions and shows considerable flexibility regarding Yannie’s proposal but facilitates the borderline. She avoids showing aggression even toward her subordinates. Excerpt 2 Excerpt 2 comprises a discussion on the 20-credit Teaching Assistant Program. Edi sends 13 of his fifth-semester students to do the program for one semester. According to the new policy, the maximum number of credits for fieldwork, such as the teaching assistant program, is 20 credits per semester. In this excerpt, Edi negotiates if the 13 students can be allowed to register for another 2-credit course because the regular credit load for semester 5 is 22 credits. This means Edi asks for discretion to allow students to combine the 20-credit teaching assistant program and the 2-credit course of regular classroom learning. Edi delivers his inquiry in a confrontational way. Throughout the exchange, he repeatedly asks Maia to confirm that some regulations regarding how MBKM is carried out are a follow-up of her previous statements. Edi uses the statement “Kata Ibu tadi… [As you said, Maam]” and emphasizes, “Kan itu [Correct?]”. With this emphasis, “Correct?”, Edi places Maia at a point to directly respond and acknowledge her statements. Edi actually waits until Maia says “Yes” before continuing his talk, as seen in lines 1 to 5. Aiming to confront Maia’s initial idea, Edi escalates the tension by using the word kasar ‘blunt/rude’ (line 1). In the context of this meeting, where people involved are not only seeking clarification about the implementation of the new policy but also negotiating flexibility in that implementation, Edi’s use of the tag question “kan itu… [correct/right/ Isn’t it so?]” at the end of his statements can be understood in multiple ways. A tag question can be used to confront an addressee to accept the speaker’s proposition (Heritage, 2002). Heritage (2002) adds that speakers can use this type of question to articulate their points of view or positions. The tag question may also mean clarification seeking or one’s intention to verify his/her understanding of the policy. Nevertheless, the exchange between Edi and Maia may also reflect Edi’s strategy to lead Maia into a decision that favours his situation. This intention can be identified from the way Edi built his proposition by firstly highlighting how the obligation to obey the policy has placed him with minimal choice. As he says in lines 4-5, “we’re no longer free”. Here, Edi points out that the word “merdeka”, which means independence or freedom, in the policy’s name contradicts the situation where Edi and other department heads actually do not have an option other than obeying the policy even though some aspects of its implementation appear to disadvantage their students. In accordance with Muntigl and Turnbull (1998), the strategy of disagreement displayed in the data falls into Contradiction (i.e., if A utters P, then B utters ~P). Here, Maia is placed in a difficult position as she needs to mitigate the situation and admit the weakness of the proposed implementation scheme. It is understandable if she will need to allow room for Edi’s negotiation. The way Edi challenges Maia’s proposition is a face-threatening act. To counter it, Maia has some options; carrying out an “offensive” or “defensive” strategy (Culpeper et al., 2003). Maia responds to each of Edi’s question tags with a brief answer, “Yes”. This simple ‘Yes’ shows that Maia is careful not to add a further explanation and chooses to let Edi complete his statement. Considering what Edi’s inquiry may mean, further explanation from Maia may appear defensive or even trigger a debate. In this case, her simple “Yes” can be seen as an intention to lead Edi to move to his actual inquiry, which he does. In this part of their exchange, Edi continues to discuss the disadvantage on the students’ side if they are asked to strictly follow the maximum 20-credit regulation. Edi explains in lines 10 to 11 that students who choose to join the Teaching Assistant Program will have to wait for one year until the 2-credit course X is offered again in the next odd semester. The students will also miss an opportunity to attend a national seminar with their classmates, which is one of the course’s requirements. In this context, Edi’s disagreement is cloaked in the guise of an unfavorable impact on Maia’s agenda. Edi expresses his actual inquiry in lines 20 to 24. Edi asks what he has to do if the thirteen Ernanda / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 9 No. 2 (2022) 86 students interested in registering for the Teaching Assistant Program also want to register for the X course. This means Maia has to make an exception and allows the students to register for 22 credits for the semester. Edi repeats the question in line 26. In lines 21-24, he also explains a strategy he had used for students who signed up for another MBKM program in the previous semester. While the students were allowed to do the extra two credits in addition to their 20-credit program, the two credits’ registration and grade were not formally recorded that semester but were delayed until the next semester. So the study load they formally reported for the semester still met the MBKM regulation of a maximum of 20 credits. In lines 25 to 26, Edi asks if Maia allows him to use the same strategy for the thirteen students joining the MBKM’s Teaching Assistant Program. Again in this part, he proposes the request by highlighting that he does not have many options because MBKM is mandatory. This last statement is a strategy to place more weight on his proposition. After listening to Edi’s complete inquiry, Maia responds by firstly saying thank you. She does not directly respond to the inquiry but leads Edi to answer her questions as she seeks more clarity on the situation (lines 28-29). Maia also seeks clarification on the course structure for fifth- semester students in Edi’s department. Then Maia seeks clarification about the national seminar that Edi mentioned as a part of the X course. She asks whether the course requires students to prepare for the seminar before attending it or if they still need to attend weekly lecture meetings, which are usually run for 16 sessions per semester (lines 35- 37). Edi confirms that in their curriculum, semester 5 offers 22 credits (line 42). After the clarifications, Maia decides that Edi’s students should be offered the X course in semester 6. In making this decision, Maia firmly guarantees that the faculty will take care of potential problems that may occur, including if they need to communicate and coordinate with the finance and IT departments. She guarantees that the academic and finance system will allow a class to be run for thirteen students, so they do not have to wait for one year until the course is offered again in the odd semester. In refusing Edi’s request to let students sign up for 22 credits, Maia shows that she is careful about the situation’s details. Her long exchange with Edi mostly involves clarification seeking of students’ actual needs and situations and the study requirements according to the department’s curriculum. She wants to ensure that students really focus on their teaching assistant program without the extra study load they need to attend the campus. The long exchange between her and Edi also reflects that her decision is well-thought, and she has considered multiple factors. The data shows that Edi, disregarding the asymmetrical power, expresses his dispute without politeness devices attached. Edi’s interaction with Maia reflects that age and working experience overweight institutionalized power. On the other hand, given the institutionalized power, Maia goes in the opposite direction and does not apply aggravated forms. The data displays that a woman leader still perceives that maintaining respectful communication with subordinates is important even in situations that involve face-threatening acts. Her strategies lessen the potential of confrontational situations and drive the discussion towards achieving agreement and solutions. This practice is in line with Goldberg et al. (2009). Unlike her subordinates, she avoids using linguistic devices that may insult the interlocutor. However, she is being direct in giving clear solutions to an issue that exhibits a high weight of imposition. In general, both excerpts showed that the participant’s age contributes more crucially to determining their politeness strategies in communicating ideas. This happened despite the asymmetrical power system between them as the heads of departments and the female leader representing the faculty’s top management. The older the participants are, the more direct they can communicate with people, including those of a higher rank. Their seniority enhances their competitive approach toward the female leader. Their work experiences boost their self-confidence to challenge the institution’s hierarchy without considering face-saving. On receiving tactless critiques in front of other meeting members, the female leader does not use her authority to respond with equal bluntness. Instead, she remains tactful and polite Ernanda / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 9 No. 2 (2022) 87 in her responses, reflecting her respect for the older subordinate. The cultural norms require younger people to respect older people regardless of their lower status in the hierarchy. She behaves in a way that saves both parties’ faces. She even utilizes partial agreement to minimize the tension that might trigger conflict. She utilizes direct strategies to make instructions clear for everyone, particular ones concerning students’ safety and the clarity of the program’s procedures. However, in a facilitative manner, she also prioritizes cooperation and compromises with the subordinates regarding the details of the implementation of the institution’s agenda. Flexibility is acceptable if it is executed with proper and legitimate methods. In short, the female leader applies direct and indirect strategies and alternates between both in dealing with the problematic discourse that involves senior male subordinates. Direct strategies make her messages unambiguous to achieve institutional goals. In defending the institution’s agenda, which exhibits a high weight of imposition, the female leader uses a more instructive style that reflects her higher authority. The findings of this study reflect those of Baxter & Al A’ali (2016) who also found that female leaders utilize mixed strategies, both feminine stereotype strategies and masculine styles, in their communication. This study is also in line with Marra et al. (2006), who presented that skilful female leaders use direct masculine ways to achieve the organization’s goals and indirect feminine styles to cooperate with people. The present study provides additional evidence to enhance our understanding of female leaders’ communication strategies in higher-educational institutions in Indonesia. 4. CONCLUSION This study demonstrates the linguistic strategies used by Indonesian female leaders in managing problematic discourses during meetings in the university context. Theories of language and power suggest that people of a lower rank tend to communicate more indirectly (Steffen & Eagly, 1985; Lee, 2002). However, this study found that older male subordinates are more likely to use direct style (i.e., being blunt, accusing, patronizing, challenging, disputing, aggravating). In responding to the senior male subordinates, the female leader adopts indirect strategies as signals of solidarity to maintain the older participants’ faces to gain support and engage all parties in accomplishing the tasks. In this case, she compensates for her directness by offering choices at the implementation level. The seniors can decide which one is more suitable for their conditions. In this way, she shares authority and saves the faces of the seniors. This study presents evidence that women leaders demonstrate their ability to manage problematic issues, which require tactful use of a range of discursive competence and politeness strategies. The flexibility in building communication is the strength of women’s leadership quality, particularly in the Indonesian context that adheres to the cultural value which places respect on older colleagues. Foremost, although this study represents a wide array of communication strategies, all possible alternative linguistic practices employed by female leaders in broader contexts might not have been examined. Further research could explore the female leader’s linguistic approaches in other social domains. REFERENCES Almutairi, S. (2021). Disagreement strategies and (im)politeness in Saudis’ twitter communication. Journal of Languages, Texts, and Society, 5, pp.1-40. Anderson, C. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and the proclivity for risk. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, pp. 511–536. Angouri. J., & Locher, M. (2012). Theorizing disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 4, pp. 1549-1553. Asmuss, B., & Svennevig. J. (2009). Meeting talk: An introduction. Journal of Business Communication, 46, pp. 3–22. Baxter, J., & Al A’ali, H. (2016). Speaking as women leaders: Meetings in Middle Eastern and Western contexts. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Benstead, L. J. (2021). Conceptualizing and measuring patriarchy: The importance of feminist theory. Ernanda / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 9 No. 2 (2022) 88 Mediterranean Politics, 26(2), pp.234-246. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brenneis, D. (1988). Language and disputing. Annual review of Anthropology 17, pp. 221-237. Burrell, N. A., Buzzanell, P. M., & Mcmillan, J. J. (1992). Feminine tensions in conflict situations as revealed by metaphoric analyses. Management Communication Quarterly, 6(2), pp. 115-149. Carli, L. (1990). Gender, language and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59, pp. 941-51. Case, S.S., (1993). Wide-verbal-repertoire speech: Gender, language, and managerial influence. Women’s Studies International Forum, 16(3), pp. 271-290. Case, S. S. (1995). Gender, language and the professions: Recognition of wide-verbal-repertoire speech. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 25(2), pp. 149-92. Cépeda, P., Kotek, H., Pabst, K., & Syrett, K. (2021). Gender bias in linguistics textbooks: Has anything changed since Macaulay & Brice 1997? Language, 97(4), pp. 678–702. Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (1988). Accommodating the elderly: Invoking and extending a theory. Lang. Soc, 17, pp. 1-41. Crosby, F., & Nyquist, L. (1977). The female register: An empirical study of Lakoff’s hypotheses. Language in Society, 6, pp. 313-22. Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., & Wichmann, A. (2003). Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, pp. 1545-1579. Daly, N., Holmes, J., Newton, J., & Stubbe, M. (2004). Expletives as solidarity signals in FTAs on the factory floor. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, pp. 945–964. Dwyer, J. (2020). The business communication handbook 11E. Cengage Learning Australia. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), pp. 573-598. Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annu. Rev. Anthropol, 21, pp. 461–490. . Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. UK: Longman Group. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C.. (2006). Linguistic politeness in Mexico: Refusal strategies among male speakers of Mexican Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, pp. 2158–2187. Goldberg, S. B., Shaw, M. L., & Brett, J. M. (2009). What difference does a robe make? Comparing mediators with and without prior judicial experience. Negotiation Journal, 25, pp. 277–305. Hejase, H., Haddad, Z., Hamdar, B., Massoud, R., & Farha, G. (2013). Female leadership: An exploratory research from Lebanon. American Journal of Scientific Research, 86, pp. 28-52. Heritage, J. (2002). The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, pp. 1427–1446. Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. Essex: Addison Wesley Longman Ltd. Holmes, J. (2000). Women at work: Analysing women’s talk in New Zealand workplaces. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics (ARAL), 22(2), pp. 1-17. Ide, S. (1992). Gender and function of language use: Quantitative and qualitative evidence from Japanese. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 3, pp. 117–129. Kotek, H., Dockum, R., Babinski, S., & Geissler, C. (2021). Gender bias and stereotypes in linguistic example sentences. Language, 97(4), pp. 653-677. Ernanda / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 9 No. 2 (2022) 89 Kotthoff, H. (1993). Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society, 22, pp.193-216. Lee, C. W. (2002). Referent role and styles of handing interpersonal conflict: Evidence from a national sample of Korean local government employees. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(2), pp. 127-141. Marra, M., Schnurr, S., & Holmes, J. (2006). Effective leadership in New Zealand workplaces: Balancing gender and role. In J. Baxter (ed.), Speaking out: The female voice in public contexts (pp. 240–260). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Muntigl, P., & Turnbull, W. (1998). Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics, 29(3), pp.225–256. Pearson, E. (1986). Agreement/disagreement an example of results of discourse analysis applied to the oral english classroom. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 74(1), pp. 47-61. Rees-Miller, J. (2000). Power, severity, and context in disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, pp. 1087–1111. Samransamruajkit, J., & Getkham, K. (2015). Factor analysis of polite refusal strategies in multicultural corporations. NIDA Journal of Language and Communication, 20(25), pp.1-30. Scollon, R. & Scollon, S. W. (2001). Intercultural communication a discourse approach, 2nd Edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Sifianou, M. (2012). Disagreements, face and politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, pp.1554–1564. Sornig, K. (1977). Disagreement and contradiction as communicative Acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 1(4), pp. 347-373. Steffen, V. J., & Eagly, A. H. (1985). Implicit theories about influence of style: The effects of status and sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11(2), pp. 191-205. Thimm, C., Koch, S. C., & Schey, S. (2003). Communicating gendered professional identity: Competence, cooperation, and conflict in the workplace. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.)., The handbook of language and gender (pp.528-549). UK: Blackweel Publishing. Wardani, F. L. R., & Uyun, Z. (2017). “Ngajeni wong liyo”: Menghormati orang yang lebih tua pada remaja etnis Jawa. Indigenous: Jurnal Ilmiah Psikologi, 2(2), pp.176-183. Williams, M. J., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2016). The subtle suspension of backlash: A meta-analysis of penalties for women’s implicit and explicit dominance behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 142(2), pp.165-197. BIOGRAPHY Ernanda holds a PhD in Linguistics from Leiden University, The Netherlands and an M.A in Linguistics from Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands. She was formerly a research associate at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, and is currently an assistant professor in the Faculty of Teacher Training and Education at Universitas Jambi, Indonesia. She received an ELDP grant from SOAS London. Her documentary collections can be accessed through the digital Endangered Languages Archive (ELAR). Her research interests include micro linguistics, language and gender, and Critical Discourse Analysis. Delita Sartika is an assistant professor at English Education Department at Universitas Jambi, Indonesia. She received a master’s degree in Translation Studies and a PhD in Literary and Cultural Studies from Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. She is interested in women and language in culture, society, and literary works. Ernanda / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 9 No. 2 (2022) 90 APPENDIX Excerpt 1 Yannie 1 Hmm… gini Bu Maia, kita harus tahu bahwa mahasiswa kita yang semester 5 ikut 2 KM ini sesunguhnya dia tu ingin kuliah kita itu hanya 1 semester yang tatap muka 3 selanjutnya daring, ya. [Hmm… So Bu Maia, we have to understand that our fifth-semester students who joined the teaching assistant program only had offline classroom learning for one semester. The rest were carried out online]. 4 Jadi, pengalaman-pengalaman penelitian yang didapat itu masih minim sekali 5 kalo tidak ada dibekali dengan teori-teori. [So, students’ experiences gained through the fieldwork will be very insufficient if they are not taught from a theoretical perspective as well.] 6 Ibuk yakin lah, kami sudah malang melintang di kepala sekolah. [You have to trust me. I have extensive experience as a school principal] 7 Biasa kepala sekolah itu banyak bantuan dari para managerial lo. Bagaimana dia 8 akan memberikan informasi pada siswa mahasiswa sementara mahasiswa kita juga 9 tidak tahu. Nah, ini nantik akan menjadi permasalahan. [It is very common that the school principals were helped by others in carrying out managerial tasks. How are they going to provide knowledge for our students while the students know nothing about it? So, this is going to be a problem later.] 10 Alangkah baiknya kita jangan berpasangka buruk deh kalo dosen menggunakan 11 otoritas begini-begini saya kira tidak saya kira nantik kita lebih lebih e lebih anu aja 12 lebih enjoy aja. [It is better that we don’t use a negative assumption that lecturers will use their authority in such a way. I don’t think they will do that. I believe we will do this in an enjoyable way.] 13 Memberikan apa teori-teori memberikan teori-teori apa nya sebelum pembekalan 14 kepada mahasiswa atau memang benar-benar mahasiswa tu tetep bagus gitu lo 15 karna tidak semua kepala sekolah atau guru itu dalam tanda petik memahami 16 tugas yang fungsinya sangat maksimal begitu bu. [Providing the students with theories as preparation so they can be more knowledgeable because not all principals or teachers have a good understanding of their jobs and responsibility, Ma’am.] Maia 17 Baik Pak Yannie, terima kasih ini nya hmm apa gambaran pandangannnya. 18 Saya sepakat sebenarnya, Pak Yannie bahwa ada beberapa hal mungkin yang perlu 19 dibekali. Nah, kalo memang itu dipikir perlu oleh prodi silahkan dibuat dalam 20 prosedurnya seperti apa pembekalannya seperti apa kegiatannya. [Okay, Pak Yannie, e.. thank you for sharing your perspective. I actually agree, Pak Yannie, that the (fieldwork) students need orientation regarding some matters. So, if the department considers it (the orientation) necessary, please draw up what the procedure is and what kind of orientation is going to be given.] 21 Saya tidak berasumsi jelek sebenarnya. Tapi memang sudah ada mahasiswa yang 22 mengadukan seperti itu, "Buk, gimana caranya saya ikut kampus mengajar 2 tapi 23 dosen saya masih berharap kami melakukan mata kuliah", seperti itu. 24 Jadi laporan seperti itu tu ada. 25 Jadi tidak hmm... atas asumsi hmm... saya yang berpraduga bersalah 26 terhadap dosen yang menggunakan otoritas gitu. [I didn’t make a negative assumption. However, some students have reported their problems like this: “Maam, how am I supposed to join Kampus Mengajar (the name of the fieldwork program) while my lecturers still expected us to attend lectures.” So there are real complaints in this case, not only me assuming that lecturers will use their power authoritatively.] 27 Nah, dosen pengampu itu juga harus direm. 28 Kalo memang mereka pengen mahasiswa ikut dalam perkuliahan daring, 29 kalo bisa daring. 30 Tapi kan kalo di lapangan, ya seperti itu. 31 Nanti mahasiswa lapor sinyalnya tidak bagus. Itu memang harus banyak 32 pemakluman. 33 Nah, itu dimasukan silahkan di dalam dokumen kesepakatan Ernanda / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 9 No. 2 (2022) 91 [And the lecturers must also be controlled. If they (the lecturers) want the students to join online classes, do it online if possible. But that’s the reality in the field. If the students later report having a bad internet connection, it must be understood. It must be included in the program contract.] 34 Apakah memang mahasiswa di jurusan Pak Yannie itu harus diwajibkan misalnya 35 bertemu dengan dosen pengampunya selama 3 kali misalnya, dalam model apa. 36 Yang penting keselamatan mahasiswa itu harus di nomor satu kan. 37 Tidak ada panggilan-pangggilan harus datang ke tempat seperti itu. 38 Jadi biar dia fokus kalo memang bisa difasilitasi daring. 39 Dan hmm... jurusan dan prodi itu berkeputusan bahwa itu wajib silahkan dibuatkan 40 di dalam dokumen kesepakatan. 41 Jadi itu diketahui oleh semua gitu. [Do we really need to require the (fieldwork) students from your department to meet with the course lecturers, for example, for three sessions, but how will the meetings be run? It is important to prioritize students’ safety. There must not be any requirement for them to be physically present in classes so they can focus (on their fieldwork). So, if the department believes the sessions are important and is able to run them online, please proceed with drawing up the procedures to be agreed upon by all the parties involved.] Excerpt 2 Edi 1 2 Kata Ibu tadi kita tidak.. sebenarnya kita e udah diwajibkan. Itu aja kasarnya tidak e udah diwajibkan untuk melakukan ini, kan itu? [You said we don’t.. We’re obliged to do that. That’s a blunt way to express it... we.. e.. have been instructed to do this, correct?] Maia 3 Iya. [Yes]. Edi 4 5 Nah, apa pun alasan kita kayak Pak Yannie tadi kalok kita sudah terikat ndak bisa lagi kita, ndak bisa lagi merdeka yang ada di dalam ini, kan itu? Kan itu kan? [So, whatever the reason as Yannie said just now we’re obliged, we’re no longer, no longer free here, right? Correct?] Maia 6 Iya, Pak. Yes, Sir. Edi 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Nah sekarang. Mahasiswa Prodi X yang 13 orang yang ngambil KM2 itu adalah semester 5. Mereka itu pada semester 5 ini ada 22 sks. Kalo Bu Maia mengatakan tadi memang diwajibkan 20, mereka tinggal 1 mata kuliah wajib prodi yaitu X yang mana outputnya nanti kalau keluarannya adalah melaksanakan seminar nasional. Nah sedangkan mereka hanya 13 orang berarti mereka akan ditunda untuk mengontrak mata kuliah X ini pada semester 7 nanti. Kan itu jadinya? Kalo memang diwajibkan hanya 20. Kata Bu Maia tadi, mereka tidak dibolehkan keluar dari arena KM dia takut dia terjadi permasalahan- permasalahan, kan itu? Edi [OK. Now about the 13 students who registered for the Teaching Assistant Program. They are now in semester 5. There are 22 credits offered for that semester. If you said they could sign up only for a maximum of 20 credits, they have to leave out two credits of the compulsory course, the X course. At the end of this course, the students will be registered to attend a national seminar. If they cannot register for the course in semester 5, they have to wait for Semester 7 as the course is only offered in odd semesters. So because they can only register for the 20 credits. As you said, they cannot commute between the school where they do teaching assistant and their campus to join the 2-credit class.] Maia 14 Iya, Pak Edi. Maia [Yes, Sir.] Edi 15 16 17 18 Haa sekarang bagaimana kalau mahasiswanya mau juga yang 13 orang ini mengontrak mata kuliah X tersebut. Apa yang mau kita lakukan? Karena dia nanti ndak mungkin dia akan melakukan seminar propoo… nasional dengan adeknya di bawah. Karena komunikasinya lagi lain lagi. Kan itu? [OK now what if these thirteen students want to register for the X course? What shall we do? Because it’s impossible for them to join the national seminar with junior students (the next year). Because the communication will be different.] Maia 19 Oke [Okay] Ernanda / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 9 No. 2 (2022) 92 Edi 20 21 22 23 24 Nah, kalo mereka mau mengikutin, bagaimana? Ini yang pertama. Kedua sebenarnya PHP2D tadi, itu ada anak saya ikut sama rombongan dengan Bu Yanti dulu. Saya kalok dikatakan di… di… tam… Itulah yang dikatakan oleh teman tadi dari ilmu sejarah, dia menabung. Saya akan mengeluarkan nilainya baru semester ini. Karna dia saya konversi kepada PPL di luar sekolah. Seperti Iwan yang yang nomer e juara 3 di tingkat nasiol se universitas ni kemaren. [So, if they want to join, how? This is the first question. The second one is regarding PHP2D Program. One of my students joined that program with Madam Yanti’s (another lecturer) students. So in my situation, as one of our colleagues from the History Department just said, we used a strategy of delaying the grade. I will submit their grade this semester because their program is recognized as an Off-School Teaching Internship. The case is like Iwan’s, who won third place in a competition last year.] Edi 25 26 27 Nah jadi ini yang saya mintak ke Ibu Maia karna ini sudah merupakan wajib. Ndak ada musta mustas nabi ila ndak ada pengecualinya lagi. Kalo ya saya keluarkan 13 atau bagaimana. Haa gitu kira-kira Bu Maia. [So, this is what I request from you because this is an obligation. No excuses. If you agree, then I will let these thirteen students register for the program.] Maia 28 29 Ya makasih Pak Edi. Ee tadi pertanyaan pertama e semester 5 itu punya 22 sks ya Pak ya? [Yes, thank you, Edi. Eee, the first question, in semester 5, your students are offered 22 credits, is that right?] Edi 30 Iya ya ya. [Yes yes yes.] Maia 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Kalo misalnya Prodi memang sudah bisa memastikan 22 sksnya itu bisa dikonversi dari semester 5 saja bagus lah berarti kan tidak tidak mengganggu semester 6 dan 7. Sementara prodi-prodi lain mungkin tadi e akhirnya terpaksa membuka itu kayak jalur tol 5 6 dan 7 itu biasa dikontrak oleh mahasiswa KM 2 gitu. Kalok di di prodi bapak itu sudah menjaminkan bisa konversinya hanya ke mata kuliah semester 5 sebanyak 20 sks silahkan. Yang pertanyaan saya yang kedua itu mata kuliah yang luarannya seminar nasional tadi itu mungkin perlu penjelasan dikit Pak Edi apakah memang cukup mahasiswa itu melakukan seminar saja di di e akhir apakah dia hmm ada ngikutin perkuliahan reguler lagi. [If your department has made sure that the 22 credits can be fully converted from semester 5, that is great. That means we don’t have to touch courses for semesters 6 and 7. In other departments, they will need to open like a toll road for fifth-semester students to select courses from semesters 5, 6, and 7. If your department can make the conversion of the Teaching Assistant Program into courses available in semester five only, go ahead. My second question is regarding the X course. The output is students’ attendance at a national seminar. I need more explanation on that. During the course, do students only need to make preparation for attending the seminar? Or do they follow a typical class structure, meaning they must attend the weekly lectures? Edi 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Ee begini bu e mata kuliah X itu luarannya nantik dia akan melaksanakan dengan mungkin dia semua peserta seminar itu akan melakukan seminar tingkat nasional maka mendatangkan narasumber- narasumber dari nasional tentang X itu sendiri. Nah itu setiap semester ganjil kami lakukan. Nah sekarang karena tadi itu mata kuliah itu kami tawarkan pada semester 5 ini. Kalo semester 5 kata Ibu Maia tadi wajibnya hanya 20 sedangkan di kami sekarang ini hanya 22 sks. Salah satunya mata kuliah X tadi itu yang saya tanya karna kata ibuk tadi ada kalimat usahakan anak- anak tidak keluar dari KM kan itu. [Ee here the X course will require students to attend a national seminar in which we invite speakers at a national level to deliver a talk about issues in X. We run the seminar every odd semester. The course is offered in the 5th semester. So, you said that students are only allowed to sign up for 20 credits, while in our curriculum, we offer 22 credits, including the X course. That is what I asked because you said students could not be allowed to commute between the schools where they do teaching assistant and campus to attend lectures.] Maia 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Oke Pak. Kalok memang dilaksanakan mata kuliahnya itu ada kewajiban seperti biasa 16 kali pertemuan di kelas dan sebagainya mohon coba prodi cermati kembali bisa ndak itu dipindahkan karna ada 13 orang kan udah cukup 1 kelas. Sebenarnya tu Pak dengan sistem remun ini kan tidak lagi di diberatkan dengan bahwa 1 kelas itu harus sekian sekian sekian gitu kan asal dia terdaftar terverifikasi apalagi ini MBKM nanti Kalo memang ada masalah silahkan dilapor saja ke ke dekan nah kita coba e diskusi dengan sistem di LPTIK dan dan Warek 1 mungkin gitu. Jadi e artinya gini jadi untuk 13 anak semester 5 tadi ke e rekomendasi saya sama biarkan mereka fokus dengan kampus mengajar untuk mata kuliah sisa yang 2 sks itu boleh Pak Edi pindahkan nanti ke semester 6 kalok memang load-nya masih cukup 24 sks karna semester 6 dia balek lagi ndak ke kampus gitu kan KM 2 nya sudah selesai. Nah itu pindahkan saja ke Ernanda / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 9 No. 2 (2022) 93 54 55 56 57 58 59 semester 6 cukup dia satu satu kelas itu 13 orang kalo mungkin itu diakomodir. Jadi e itu adalah rambu- rambu rekomendasi dari fakultas. Fakultas bisa memberikan pola tapi seperti saya bilang juga ke Pak Yannie tadi kalo memang ada kekhususan sekali di prodi bapak ibuk silahkan dibuatkan e apa namanya skema sendiri yang tidak keluar dari rambu-rambu utama tapi kem kemudian tolong didokumentasikan di dalam kesepakatan dengan mahasiswa atau da dalam prosedur yang dibuat prodi dengan mahasiswa gitu Pak Edi. [Okay Sir. If the course is run per a regular structure, students are required to attend 16 lecture meetings, please see if the 13 students can be asked to register for the course in the next semester. Thirteen students are a large enough number to run one class. Actually with our new payment system, we no longer have to meet the minimum number of students to run one class as long as students register. In the MBKM case, if a problem occurs, we can report to our Dean, and we will discuss the system with the IT department and the Vice Chancellor. So, for your thirteen students, I recommend they must focus on doing their teaching assistant activities. For the 2-credit course they need to leave out, you can offer the course to these 13 students in semester 6, so they don’t have to commute between school and campus. So that is the procedure from our faculty. Faculties can decide their procedures to run MBKM. As I told Yannie, the department can also design their procedures as long as they don’t contradict the general procedures and must be stated in students’ contracts between the programs.] Edi 60 Oke Bu Okay, Ma’am.