Face negotiation theory is a theory conceived by Stella Ting-Toomey in 1985, to understand how people from different cultures manage rapport and disagreements. The theory posited "face", or self-image when communicating with others, as a universal phenomenon that pervades across cultures. In conflicts, one's face is threatened; and thus the person tends to save or restore his or her face. This set of communicative behaviors, according to the theory, is called "facework". Since people frame the situated meaning of "face" and enact "facework" differently from one culture to the next, the theory poses a cross-cultural framework to examine facework negotiation. The definition of face varies depending on the people and their culture and the same can be said for the proficiency of facework. According to Ting-Toomey's theory, most cultural differences can be divided by Eastern and Western cultures, and her theory accounts for these differences.
Background In this theory, "face" is a metaphor for self-image, which originated from two Chinese conceptualizations: lien and mien-tzu. Lien is the internal moral face that involves shame, integrity, debasement, and honor issues. Mien-tzu, on the other hand, is the external social face that involves social recognition, position, authority, influence and power.Hu, 1944
Erving Goffman also situated "face" in contemporary Western research and conceptualized the terms lien and mien-tzu as identity and ego.Goffman, 1967 He noted that face is a concern for one's projected image that is both immediate and spontaneous and is tied to the dynamics of social interaction.Rogan & Hammer, 1994 Goffman also notes that face is a part of a performance, in which performance is day-to-day activity that each individual uses to influence others. In a way, Western society views face as a marketable asset. The performance of "face" can be for the good of others or it can be for the good of one's self. Correspondingly, "facework" denotes actions taken to maintain consistency between the self and public line. The two forms of facework include restorative and preventive. Restorative facework is the act of reinstating face after the loss of it has taken place; the preventive face is the act of communicating to safeguard the threat of face being lost. Further research by Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson on politeness suggests that the desire for face is a universal concern.Brown & Levinson, 1978West, Turner & Zhao, 2010 Brown and Levinson further suggested that face can refer to two wants of the individual- the positive face that necessitates approval by others and the negative face that requires that one's actions or thoughts are unimpeded by others. Thus participant's wants are of more importance than the interaction itself in a face-saving view of politeness. In fact, researchers Brown and Levinson posit that face is something that "is emotionally invested, and can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction". Levinson and Brown did not, however, address culture-specific norms, which is why Ting-Toomey decided to do so in this theory.
Ting-Toomey expanded this thinking and conceptualized face as an individual's claimed sense of favorable social self-image in a relational and network context. Facework is defined as clusters of communicative behaviors that are used to enact self-face and to uphold, challenge/threaten, or support the other person's face. In other words, facework is the sum of all messages received by someone that helps them gain or lose face.
With these concepts and frameworks, the face-negotiation theory investigates intercultural conflict styles. The perceived or actual conflict differences revolved around three issues: content, relational, and identity.Wilmot & Hocker, 1998 Content conflict refers to the substantive issues external to the individual involved. Relational conflict refers to how individuals define, or would like to define, the particular relationship in that particular conflict episode. The identity-based conflict concerns issues of identity confirmation-rejection, respect-disrespect, and approval-disapproval. In this way, identity issues are tied closely to culture-based face-orientation factors. A face-threatening episode is an identity expectancy violation episode. Thus, the face-negotiation theory views conflict, intercultural conflict in particular, as a situation that demands active facework management from the two interdependent conflict parties. It can also be noted that in face-negotiation, individuals negotiate face not only with others but with themselves, as well.
The theory has gone through multiple iterations since its creation. There is a 1988 version of seven assumptions and 12 propositions, a 1998 version of seven assumptions and 32 propositions, and, most recently, the 2005 version of seven assumptions and 24 propositions.
Components
Individualism vs. collectivism To understand Ting-Toomey’s theory, it is important to understand the difference between individualistic and collectivistic cultures. The phrase originates from Geert Hofstede’s Culture’s Consequences. In the book, Hofstede uses individualism and collectivism as one of the four dimensions that vary between cultures. In Ting-Toomey’s theory of face negotiation theory, individualism and collectivism are one of the main differences between Eastern and Western cultures.
Individualistic cultures are less common than collectivistic cultures, as they make up only about a third of the world. According to psychology professor Harry Triandis, the three ways to tell apart individualistic and collectivistic cultures are through self, goals, and duty.
In individualistic cultures, people are more likely to focus on themselves rather than any groups they are involved in. A self-introduction would look simply like the name of the person, their age, etc. In collectivistic cultures, some of the most important aspects of the self are the groups they are involved in. Those from collectivistic cultures are more likely to define themselves by any group affiliation they find themselves in. Those from individualistic cultures focus on their own personal goals, rather than how those from collectivistic cultures want to achieve goals for their groups. To an individualistic culture, it would be unusual to think about pride in one's company over pride in oneself. Finally, those raised in collectivistic cultures are more likely to be sacrificial in their duty to others, unlike those raised individualistic. Collectivistic cultures have an emphasis on family dynamics and the duty one has to their loved ones. Meanwhile, people from individualistic cultures will feel less of a duty towards their family because they were likely not socialized with traditional family values.
Assumptions Face and facework are universal phenomena. The Face-Negotiation Theory perspective stresses the impact of culture on the situated meaning of face and the enactment of facework. Thus, the theory assumes that:
1.Those from any culture practice facework whenever communicating.
Examples:
•Humans constantly maintain upkeep for their self-image no matter if they practice self-face upkeep or other-face upkeep.
•In professional settings, employees in Western cultures (e.g., the United States, Germany) may emphasize direct communication and assertiveness to maintain self-face, while employees in East Asian cultures (e.g., Japan, China) may employ indirect communication strategies, such as silence or deference, to maintain other-face and group harmony.
2.Face is problematic when identities are questioned.
Examples:
•Questioning someone's position or place in a group setting can create face-threatening situations.
•In online interactions, particularly on social media, individuals may experience face threats when their opinions are challenged publicly, leading to defensive communication strategies such as justification, denial, or aggression.
3.Differences in individualistic vs. collectivistic and small vs. large power distance cultures profoundly shape face management.
Examples:
•The way we communicate with others depends on how we communicate with leaders and the groups we fit in to.
•In a conflict at work, an American employee (individualistic, small power distance) may prefer direct confrontation to resolve the issue, while a Chinese employee (collectivistic, large power distance) may use mediation or an indirect approach to preserve group harmony.
4.Individualistic cultures prefer self-oriented facework while collectivistic cultures prefer other-oriented facework.
Examples:
•Individuals from individualistic cultures are more likely to protect their own faces during threatening social situations. Meanwhile, those from collectivistic cultures integrate their face with the face of others involved in threatening social situations (less "every man for himself").
•If an employee from the U.S. receives negative feedback in a meeting, they might defend their actions to maintain their self-face. In contrast, an employee from Japan might accept the criticism quietly and focus on restoring the group’s collective face.
5.Small power distance cultures prefer an "individuals are equal" framework, whereas large power distance cultures prefer a hierarchical framework.
Examples:
•These differences are often seen in the political climate of each of the different power distance cultures.
•In Sweden (small power distance), employees may openly give feedback to their manager, as face concerns are minimal. In contrast, in Mexico (large power distance), employees may hesitate to express disagreement with their boss to avoid face-threatening situations.
6.Behavior is also influenced by cultural variances, individual, relational, and situational factors.
Example:
An Indian diplomat negotiating with a Western counterpart may adjust their communication style—using indirect speech when speaking to Eastern delegates but shifting to more direct language when dealing with Western officials.
7.Competence in intercultural communication is a culmination of knowledge and mindfulness.
Example:
A multinational business leader working in China may study the local practice of 'giving face' (e.g., showing public respect to elders and superiors) to build strong relationships and avoid unintentionally offending local partners.
Taxonomies Face-negotiation theory primarily deals with five sets of themes: face orientation or concerns, face movements, facework interaction strategies, conflict communication styles, and face content domains. In the 2005 version of theory, the five thematic clusters are referred as "core taxonomies".
Face orientations
The orientation of face determines the focus with which the face negotiator will direct her or his attention and energy of the conflict messages. Because of different concerns, caused by different underlying cultural values, face negotiators may orient towards self-face (one's own image), other face (the other conflict party's image) or mutual face (both parties' image and/or the image of the relationship).Ting-Toomey, 1999
For example, in individualist cultures, such as the United States, Germany, and Great Britain, there is great value on personal rights, freedoms and the "do it yourself" attitude. Individualists cultures are seen as promoting independence for individuals In collectivist cultures such as Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Colombia, more value is placed on "we" vs. "I". The needs of the group outweigh the needs of the individual, making independence or individualism viewed as selfish. One-third of the world lives in an individualist society, while the other two thirds are identified with collectivist cultures.