Simon Fraser University at Harbour Centre

"Cross-Cultural Face-Negotiation: An Analytical Overview"

Summary by Beverly Matsu and Stella Ting-Toomey

INTRODUCTION

The immense growth of global competition and co-operation has made it important for us to understand the dynamics of cross-cultural communication. In this context, Professor Ting-Toomey examines what intercultural communication is, and describes her work on face-negotiation in a conflict context and in global economic markets.

Between fifteen and forty percent of US managers sent to overseas, operations have been failures, a situation resulting in their premature return. Professor Ting-Toomey suggests from her recent research that before we send any managers overseas, or before we negotiate business deals with people from different cultures, it is necessary to learn about their cultural assumptions and the attitudes about the communication process. Communication can cement a relationship; it can also function as a barrier. Much of the management and communication theories in the literature today contain Eurocentric biases which include theories on motivation, leadership, equity, etc. based on individualistic orientation rather than global orientation. She asks, "What do people in other cultures think of business communication or management practices?"

In her presentation, Professor Ting-Toomey shares her approaches to understanding cultures, and then explains her face-negotiation theory. She then applies the implications to business management practices and examines the theoretical implications of the face-negotiation process in Eastern and Western cultures.

UNDERSTANDING CULTURES

Ting-Toomey draws upon work that discusses communication between Eastern and Western cultures, specifically between Asia Pacific cultures and US and Canadian cultures in terms of individualism and collectivism. The individualism/collectivism dynamic has been researched by cross-cultural psychologists, management people, and communications people. The findings, below, are sources in Professor Ting-Toomey's research.

Understanding Cultures: Four Dimensions of Organizational Management Practices

Geert Hofstede has been doing research in the international management area over the past twenty years. His latest database includes US-based multinational subsidiaries consisting of organizational management practices in fifty countries. Hofstede discusses four dimensions in understanding organizational management practices: 1. individualism-collectivism, 2. power distance, 3. uncertainty avoidance, and 4. masculinity versus femininity.

1. Individualism-collectivism. This dimension centres on organizational practices in individualistic cultures such as Canada, US, Australia, and Great Britain contrasted with collectivistic cultures in East Asia (Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore). 2. Power distance. Low power distance (Canada, US) subscribes to equal power distribution versus high power distance (Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, etc.) in hierarchical structures.

3. Uncertainty avoidance. Hofstede found that Canada and the US are low in uncertainty avoidance, i.e., we like to take risks, take individual initiative, and enjoy conflict. Whereas cultures like Japan, Hong Kong, and South Korea are high in uncertainty avoidance, i.e., do not like conflict, but pursue group harmony; people within these organizations need clear rules, procedures, and clearly defined job responsibilities.

4. Masculinity versus femininity. This dimension has been controversial because many people feel it is sexist. Hofstede discovered that Japan rated high on masculine dimensions (males expect an "in-charge" role). In contrast, countries like Norway and Sweden have a stronger feminine dimension, which means that roles are more fluid between males and females. Canada rated high on the masculine dimension compared with many Northern European organizational practices.

Individualism-Collectivism

Individualism-collectivism appears to be the most useful of the four dimensions. Professor Ting-Toomey (and her colleagues), Michael Bond, Harry Triandis, and Geert Hofstede consistently found that the individualistic and collectivistic dimension teaches the most about differences between cultures, particularly between East Asian and western cultures.

Individualism and collectivism is connected with the concept of identity, i.e., How do we see our sense of self? Individualistic cultures emphasize the "I" identity and collectivistic cultures emphasize the "we" identity, which is a fundamental difference between western and eastern cultures. The relational and communication patterns of this dimension are discussed below:

a) Relational patterns. The communication process in individualistic cultures focuses on inter-individual levels, while collective cultures focus on the group base (whether you are in-group, one of us; or out-group, one of them). However, individualism and collectivism is not a polarized dimension: cultures function on a continuum. For instance, within the US or Canada, there are pockets of individualistic ethnic communities and pockets of collectivistic ethnic communities. So when discussing the individualistic versus collectivistic dimension, we are talking about patterns or value orientations within a country, in which there may be many variations. Pointing out the patterns and understanding them is a first step in learning to respect the differences.

b) Communication patterns. In individualistic cultures, people tend to be verbally direct: we value communication openness, learn to self disclose, like to be clear, straightforward, and contribute to a positive management climate. Whereas in collectivistic group-oriented cultures, indirect communication is preferred because the image of group harmony is essential. In western cultures, talking is very therapeutic; in Asian cultures, there is an emphasis on observing and reflecting about the process. It is rare in Asian cultures to have open conflict, because it appears to disrupt group harmony.

FACE-NEGOTIATION

Professor Ting-Toomey's work focuses on face-negotiation and conflict styles. She sees face as symbolic and as a claimed sense of self-respect in a relational situation. Face is a universal phenomenon because everyone would like to be respected; everyone needs a sense of self-respect. But how we manage the strategies in maintaining, saving, or honoring one's face differs across cultures.

Low versus High Contexts

The low versus high context communication framework was developed by Edward T. Hall. Low versus high contexts (used similarly to individualism and collectivism) focus on the communication process itself. Low context centres on individualistic values and stresses verbal communication; while the high context system centres on group orientations and stresses non-verbal communication. Immigrant cultures with a pioneer spirit such as Canada, the US, and Australia tend to exhibit low context communication styles. Whereas high context cultures seem to have a longer continuity and history of culture; so for them, where there is a historical, cultural, or relational context, it is important to understand the communication process.

The low versus high context framework in face-negotiation has been used in Professor Ting-Toomey's research in the US, Japan, South Korea, China, and Taiwan. She has also collected data from Australia, Thailand, and India. Her research consists of open-ended questionnaires and interview data with nearly 1500 students and colleagues. Some of the concepts she explores are outlined below:

1. Face saving. The question was asked, "What is the meaning of face?" American students tended to equate the concept of face with saving their own face, i.e., pride, reputation, credibility, and self-respect (relating to the ego). For them face is more individualistic, low context, and is associated with intrapsychic phenomena. Japanese students, on the other hand, understand the concept of face to be related to honour, claimed self image, and the family/organization. For them there is more awareness of relational dynamics in the concept of face saving.

2. Face giving. American students could not offer a meaning for face giving, whereas Asian business people/students could talk about the meaning of this term. Therefore, we may assume that face giving is more of an Eastern concern. To Asians, face giving means allowing room for the other person to recover his/her face--room to manoeuvre, to negotiate--so both can gain face in the end. For Westerners, face seems to be a dichotomous concept: we either lose face or save face. For Easterners, face is considered to be a mutual, interdependent concept, and is a relational and group phenomenon. Public face is a concern in at least two-thirds of the world's cultures. But in Western cultures, there is also a sense of individual self-respect, the right to be treated with respect, and not to be embarrassed.

3. Face losing. For Americans, loss of face means personal failure, loss of self-esteem, or loss of self-pride on an individual attribution basis. Whereas for Japanese and Korean subjects, loss of face means disrupting group harmony, bringing shame to their family, classmates, or company.

4. Recovery from face loss. For Americans and Canadians, humour is a strategy used to recover from face loss; if that does not work in a serious situation, other strategies that may be used are defensive strategies and attack strategies--clear win-lose strategies. Asian cultures, on the other hand, focus more on maintaining the image of a win-win process.

5. Conflict. Conflict is face-related, in that, face appears to be a predictor of what conflict strategies are being used. American subjects, for example, tend to adopt self-face preservation and maintenance, focus on self-face issues, use control-focused conflict strategies and confrontational strategies, and display stronger win-lose orientations. Asian subjects, on the other hand, tend to use face-smoothing strategies, mutual-face preservation strategies, and conflict avoidance strategies. People from Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the People's Republic of China use more compromising strategies; Japanese use more controlling styles (i.e. competitive) with outgroup members and conflict avoidance with ingroup members.

6. Face issues. The word "shame" occurs when feelings are associated with face issues: shame in relation to self, parents, or group situations. However, practices differ between Japanese and Chinese: for the Japanese, if they disgrace their organization, they may also disgrace themselves and their family; for the Chinese, any disgrace reflects on their family honour.

7. Dimensions of face. American subjects centre on autonomy face (freedom) where privacy or personal space is important; high context, collectivistic cultures focus rather on "approval" face. In low context cultures, individual (intrinsic) accountability is emphasized; in high context cultures, however, group accountability or group dynamics may dominate.

BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS

How is face-negotiation applied in business communication? Several applications are listed below:

1. The first application of face giving is critical. Beyond face saving, many cultures also participate in face giving (mutual face giving) i.e., when I lose face, you also may be seen to lose face; or when you gain face, I can sometimes gain face. It is a mutual, interdependent group phenomenon. When face is negotiated, especially in Asian cultures, there usually are larger group implications.

2. The second implication of face is understanding that it is always inseparable from the "webs of relationship" in Asian cultures. In a sense everyone is interlocked: the sense of self is an interdependent, group-oriented concept. For example, in the Chinese term "guanxi", the interlocking relationship patterns portray "Who knows whom?" and "Who is in charge of whom?"

3. The third point is "Who has the greater or lesser face?" Most Asian people understand how much face they have; to have a greater face, they are more powerful in organizations or know more people in the system. They learn how to deal with higher level people (greater face); and with subordinates (lesser face) who handle many of the job details and are influential. (Lesser face does not mean that that person has no power.), but there is a strong link between the concept of power and the concept of face.

4. Another implication is that face is a reciprocal concept. In his recent work with Michael Bond, Hofstede realized that a fifth dimension, involving Confucian dynamism, was previously neglected. One of the major characteristics of Confucian dynamism is face-protection. Based on the organization management data collected over the past three years, Hofstede and Bond discovered that face protection is very critical when learning to negotiate business deals and to relate to people from Asian cultures.

5. A fifth implication is that Asians tend to use many intermediaries to preserve face. Messages passed on indirectly save one from being face threatened. North Americans on the other hand like to be more direct, get to the point, and like to avoid using intermediaries. But in many cultures, using intermediaries serves a critical function. For example, in Japan, it is important to have someone recommend you. Also your business card is your face, your identity, that shows your status so you are treated appropriately. In high context cultures, role image appropriateness is critical.

6. The last implication is that face is long-term. For Americans, a contract is legal and binding. Asians like to renegotiate, as if the contract were the beginning of the talks; therefore, they need to get to know the person they are doing business with. Asian business practices focus on the process--on bargaining and on the relational task. In Japanese cultures, for example, it is ritualistic to exchange gifts, so gift exchange is important if you wish to participate in their cultural practice.

THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS

Professor Ting-Toomey has provided a construct for understanding Asian business practices and communication style differences in order to develop other constructs for theoretical and research ideas. Some ideas are conceptualized below:

1. More multi-cultural team research efforts are needed. We should pay more attention to indigenous cultures, and look at their attitudes toward business practices and communication style differences. We need to identify core constructs with which we are unfamiliar, and are in danger of overlooking. Increased sensitivity is important because of global economic changes.

2. In training people to go overseas, it is critical to teach about low versus high context cultures as part of their applied skills. Listening skills are important in high context cultures. (In Chinese, the character for listening implies listening with your ears, eyes, and heart.) When collectivistic people come to individualistic cultures, they should learn to share more information, to self-disclose, to seek information more openly, and to seek to reduce uncertainty more than they normally would.

3. Within the face-negotiation framework, identity is important: How do we see the self? Who constitutes the in-group and the out-group? How do we move from out-group to in-group circles? What do we need to do in moving from ritualistic to substantive behavioral acts?

4. How do we develop face-work competency? There are four stages in communication competency: a) unconscious incompetence implies fundamental ignorance on the cognitive and behavioural levels; b) conscious incompetence means that behaviour is understood but not synchronized, e.g., aware that there are too many awkward pauses and silences; c) conscious competence or the ÒmindfulÓ stage means cognitively understanding communication differences, the patterns and variations of different cultures, and working on behavioural facework competence; and d) unconscious competence is rather like driving a car or swimming; at a certain point, it becomes spontaneous, natural. Spontaneity is part of practicing facework, you adjust and you adapt. You become ÒmindlesslyÓ mindful at this final stage.

* Made possible by a grant from the Panicaro Foundation.