2. Face Negotiation Theory
Explains that the root of
conflict amid intercultural
communication is based on
identity management on an
individual and cultural level.
Stella Ting-Toomey
3. Definition
face
“The public self-image, that each member in
society claims for themselves” based on
cultural norms and values.
4. Facework
“Specific verbal and nonverbal messages
that help to maintain and restore face
loss, and to uphold and honour face gain.”
5. Importance
• Understand dynamics
of cross-cultural
communication
• Mediate potential
difficulties
6. Purpose of paper
1. Study the development
of the Face Negotiation
theory
2. Relation to notions such as
– facework,
– individualistic-collectivist
culture,
– and conflict management
7. Conception of theory
• Politeness theory:
Brown and Levinson (1978)
• Author’s dissatisfaction with mainstream
communication literature
• Western ideas prevalent while Asian ignored
• Incorporate a stronger Asian cultural lens
8. Development
• Revisions from years
1985 to 2005
• Effectively intersected
face, culture, and conflict
– Clearer scope and boundaries set
• Theory is made heuristic
9. Assumptions
1. People try to maintain and negotiate face in
all communication situations
2. Especially so in emotionally threatening or
identity-vulnerable situations
10. Assumptions
3. Individualism and collectivism value patterns
– Self-oriented face concern/other-oriented face
concern
4. Small and large power distance value patterns
– Horizontal-based face-work
– Vertical-based face-work
11. Assumptions
5. These value patterns are further influenced by
individual, relational, topical, and situational
factors
6. Intercultural face-work competence
– Optimal integration of
culture-sensitive knowledge mindfulness
– Flexible communication skills
in managing conflict
12. Other theories
1. Facework and mediation (Ng, 2011)
– Based on the “Four faces of face”
framework, first introduced by Ting-Toomey
– Studies the impact of face in mediation
13. Other theories
2. Communication as low-
context or high-context
(Gudykunst, 1996)
– Members of the group
camouflage their true
feelings when
communicating
– To preserve harmony of
the group and to save
face
14. Other theories
3. Politeness in Chinese
face-to-face interaction
(Pan, 2000)
– Conducted research to
find out why Chinese
seem to be inconsistent
in their politeness
behaviour
– Different settings require
different “faces”
15. Business application
• Often used in situations involving business
conflicts
• Individualist culture values autonomy
• Importance of verbal and non-verbal cues
16. Business application
• Face negotiation theory
is separated by low and
high context cultures
• Low context culture:
straightforwardness
• High context cultures:
pay attention to details
17. Case Study: United States & Japan
• Americans see
negotiation as a
competition
• Japanese sees
negotiation as a
process that will
lead to a consensus
18. Case Study: United States & Japan
• United States believes in disclosing information
• Japan has the practice of withholding information
19. Case Study: United States & Japan
• Americans use “ door in the face” technique
• Japanese places collective needs and goals in
high regard
20. Case Study: United States & Japan
When faced with having to issue a rejection:
• Japanese values “face-saving”
• Americans prefer to be straight forward
21. Conclusion
• Theory will continue to intrigue communication
researchers
• Especially since culture pervades all aspects of life
• Theory has lasting appeal
Notas do Editor
Face-negotiation theory is often used in situations involving business conflicts. Lawson (2011) emphasizes on how various cultures resolve conflicts in a bid to ‘save face’. individualist culture values autonomy, likes privacy, and personal space. They would place saving their own face above anything else. , face negotiation theory encapsulates the importance of verbal and non-verbal cues in coming to an agreement in a business context.
In the business context, face negotiation theory is separated into two categories namely low and high context cultureslow context culture prefers straightforwardness, being assertive, and handling situations with honesty. high context cultures pay attention to every actions and decisions as they believe that it will affect the group as a whole
Another notable difference between a collectivist and individualist culture lies in the way they negotiate. Americans see negotiation as a competition that determines winners and losers.On the other hand, the Japanese sees negotiation as a process that will eventually lead to a consensus for both parties. Americans have the habit of using ‘door in the face’ technique that will be deemed as unacceptable by the Japanese. Hence, this would diminish their trust in the Americans.
In our research, we are using a case study to further understand how theory is applied in the business context. The two major parties that we are looking at are the United States and Japan. United States believes in disclosing informationas it results to them having control over the situation. On the contrary, Japan, a collectivist country, has the practice of hiding information from their business partners. They believe that by doing so, they have power over the other party
the Japanese places collective needs and goals in high regard and would often prioritise collective needs over individual needs. In addition, when faced with the circumstance of having to issue a rejection, the Japanese would rather not reply in the hope of saving one’s face. In contrast, Americans do not believe in face-saving and would choose to be straight forward in delivering the news of rejection.