The workhorse

Keyton et al. (2013) identify three principal models of communication competence. The trait model associates competence with relatively enduring personal dispositions, such as empathy and attentiveness (Steffen et al., 1979, as cited in Keyton et al., 2013). The functional model considers how people produce and interpret messages, coordinate their interactions and understand social situations (Burleson, 2007, as cited in Keyton et al., 2013). The interpersonal-skill model focuses on a person’s behavioural repertoire, awareness of social norms and ability to select an effective response from several alternatives (Eisler & Fredericksen, 1980, as cited in Keyton et al., 2013).¹

These models informed the development of The Workhorse, but the series also questions whether communication competence can be considered independently of power. In the workplace, behaviour is not judged neutrally. The same qualities may be interpreted as confidence, aggression, leadership, weakness or incompetence depending on who displays them, who observes them and where each person stands within the hierarchy. Employees must therefore do more than communicate: they must continually interpret social expectations, manage how they are perceived and decide which aspects of themselves can safely be revealed.

Because these are still images, the series explores these tensions primarily through nonverbal communication. Gesture, posture, physical distance, positioning and direction of attention establish relationships between the figures. Facial expressions are sometimes deliberately neutralised or obscured, shifting attention away from individual identity and towards the roles the figures occupy. This also introduces ambiguity: the viewer can observe their outward behaviour but cannot know with certainty what they think, intend or feel.

In Dog Eat Dog, the tightly grouped central figures suggest access, affiliation and collective power, while the isolated figure at the edge of the image implies the human cost of competition. The dogs extend this tension between belonging and vulnerability. The work presents the workplace as an environment in which proximity to power can offer protection, while exclusion may remain unnoticed or be treated as an acceptable consequence.

It’s a Man’s World examines gendered divisions of influence and emotional experience. The men and women occupy separate social groupings, while the animal imagery externalises a force that cannot be contained within conventional professional behaviour. The work considers how gender shapes whose authority appears natural, whose behaviour is scrutinised and who is expected to adapt.

The three Miscommunication works approach failed communication in different ways. 

In Miscommunication I, the enlarged figures appear to occupy the same physical space without achieving mutual understanding. Their gestures suggest an exchange, yet their scale, orientation and emotional distance produce a sense of disconnection. The smaller background interaction implies that communication may continue around the protagonists while genuine understanding remains absent.

In Miscommunication II, the collective body of the workplace is separated from a solitary figure. Although she occupies the same environment, her distance from the group makes exclusion visible. The hippopotamus and lion embedded within the crowd give material form to emotional or organisational realities that remain publicly unacknowledged.

In Miscommunication III, physical distance is replaced by technological mediation. The figures are connected through screens, yet remain isolated within the office. Repeated cheetahs move between the workstations as manifestations of urgency, anxiety or unspoken tension. The work questions whether constant connectivity necessarily produces understanding, particularly when communication is fragmented across devices and filtered through professional performance.

Nonverbal behaviour also communicates power, status and hierarchy. Although these concepts are distinct, they contribute to the vertical organisation of social relationships (Carney et al., 2005, as cited in Bonaccio et al., 2016). Throughout the series, hierarchy is conveyed through scale, placement, grouping, isolation and access to the centre of the image. Some figures command space, while others are displaced, obscured or required to negotiate their position.

In Teamwork, the title is deliberately unsettled by the image. The women appear together within a shared environment, but each carries or releases a different substance while water overwhelms the office. Rather than presenting teamwork as harmonious collaboration, the work suggests uneven burdens, competing actions and the possibility that individuals may contribute to the same situation without sharing the same purpose. The smiling professional surfaces of the figures contrast with the disorder surrounding them.

The Fraud explores concealment and the instability of professional identity. Overlapping figures, reflections and office interiors make it difficult to distinguish one person or interaction from another. The layered composition evokes the hidden alliances, performances and private negotiations that operate beneath the apparent order of the workplace. It also raises the question of whether fraud lies in an individual act or in a culture that rewards the convincing performance of competence.

The Level Playing Field uses its title ironically. The formally dressed figures look down upon the dogs, which appear to compete under controlled conditions, while another group of animals occupies the boardroom table in the background. The masks locate the scene within the COVID-19 pandemic, a period that exposed existing inequalities in employees’ vulnerability, protection and ability to work safely. The work questions the claim that all participants enter workplace competition on equal terms. Rules may appear consistent, while differences in authority, access, personal circumstances and scrutiny predetermine who is protected, who is judged and who must perform for approval.

Gender further complicates the interpretation of nonverbal behaviour. Research discussed by Bonaccio et al. (2016) indicates that gender affects both what is recognised as a display of power and how such displays are evaluated. Behaviour regarded as assertive or authoritative in one person may be interpreted as hostile or inappropriate in another. These unequal expectations inform It’s a Man’s World and Teamwork, in which women navigate prescribed roles while confronting structures and pressures that are not fully visible.

The animals recurring throughout the series give form to what the human protagonists suppress. They may represent fear, aggression, competition, vulnerability, urgency or instinct. Their meaning changes between works, but they consistently expose an emotional reality that workplace conventions require the human figures to conceal. Organisations establish both formal and informal rules governing which emotions may be displayed and how they should be expressed (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1989, as cited in Bonaccio et al., 2016).² The contrast between the composed human figures and the animals therefore reflects the divide between professional performance and internal experience.

The Workhorse ultimately considers the workplace as a system of communication in which words, gestures, appearances and silences are continually interpreted. Competence is not presented as a stable or purely individual quality. Instead, it is shaped by hierarchy, gender, group membership and the ability to perform according to expectations that may never be openly stated. The series explores what becomes visible when that performance begins to fracture and what remains concealed even when everyone appears to be communicating.