Face Negotiation Theory - Annotated Bibliography Example

Annotated Bibliography: Face Negotiation Theory Annotative Bibliography: Face Negotiation Theory Human relationship is a prerequisite for the life of an individual since humans are social beings. Conflicts may occur because of constant human relationships with one another. Since culture determines a person’s interpersonal skills, it also determines the process through which an individual follows to solve a conflict. Ting-Toomey, a university professor, formulated the Face Negotiation Theory to explain how culture affects a person’s ability or inability to manage interpersonal conflicts (Neuliep, 2009). The theory applies the context of face to mean metaphorically a person’s image in the society. People typically establish and maintain a picture with the people they meet for the first time. Many studies have involved the theory to determine the relationships that occur in the workplaces (West & Turner, 2014). Furthermore, the researchers have applied the theory’s assumptions to conflict resolution in various workplace settings. The article herein examines various applications of the theory to the study of interpersonal skills and the application of the skills across cultures. The research will apply literature review as the primary reserve for initial theory understanding, conclusions, and recommendation. The literature resources will also provide the researcher with the fundamental understanding of the theory. Theoretical Discussion Face negotiation theory explains the differences in conflict responses based on an individual’s cultural background. The contextual meaning of face according to the theory implies a person’s self-image. Face and facework mean one in the same thing as entail the theory. The theory assumes that all communication in all cultures depends on maintaining a face between the negotiating parties. The face spurs conflicts when the identities are under questioning. The theory also proposes that an individual’s behavior is dependent on cultural variances and various relational and personal factors (Neuliep, 2009). Theorist Toomey originally formulated the theory to address the differences in conflict resolution styles arising from cultural preferences of a person. The theory divides cultural preferences into two categories, individualistic and collectivistic preferences. Ting proposed that people from the collectivistic cultures would tend to uphold their society’s image while the individualistic culture will tend to sustain their self-image during conflict resolution (West & Turner, 2014). The theory applies a five-style dual concern framework. The framework’s ideas base on the degree with which self-interest concerns an individual as well as the interests others. The five styles of conflict resolution include domination, avoiding, obliging, compromising, and integrating. The theory groups domination, compromising and integrating styles as individualistic approaches. Domination refers to the process by which an individual controls or dominates the decision-making procedure while compromising from a different perspective refers to the method of negotiation to come to a solution. Integration implies an approach of working together to reach a solution. Avoiding and obliging refer to the collectivistic styles where the individuals stay away from a conflict or give up to a conflict respectively (Neuliep, 2009). Critics of the theory have proposed that individualistic conflict resolution approach dominates the western culture while collectivistic approach dominates the eastern cultures. Individuals in higher ranks apply the domination style to solve conflicts while the lower ranked officials use the obliging or avoiding techniques. The conflict resolution style used in a particular conflict scenario significantly predicts the possible outcomes. The results are threefold and may include either win-win, lose-lose or win-lose (West & Turner, 2014). Synthesis of Scholarship An examination of various scholarly articles explaining the Face Negotiation Theory provided a universal claim that a person’s culture played a role in shaping an individual’s view of self-image and of others. The hierarchical positions existing at the workplaces inflict the use of some of the approaches in favor of others as explained in the above section. The executives usually incorporate the domination methods when solving a conflict with a lower ranked employee. At the same time, the employee will apply avoiding or obliging approaches as a show of respect for the authority in some cultures. A shift from the individualistic to a collectivistic attitude among those in executive positions in times of job delegation, supervision, decision-making, and conflict resolution would ensure a company’s prosperity. Solomom, D., & Theiss, J. (2013). Interpersonal Communication: Putting Theory into Practice. NY: Routledge. Print. The publication examines the influence of culture, self-image, perception, language, and emotions to interpersonal communication. The book further analyzes the effects of interpersonal conflicts to different interpersonal relationships people continually establish. The various interpersonal relationships include family, friends, professional, and romantic relationships. Face negotiation theory provides an important knowledge to examining how people develop, destroy and maintain these relationships. People tend to form a self-image with the individuals they meet during their daily personal interactions. The image creates the first impression that stays for a longer time until their next meeting. People of stronger positive interpersonal skills feel comfortable in each other’s company and, consequently, become friends. People who ask private questions, mostly, do not create and maintain a more persuasive interpersonal skill. The book sets forth the strategies that an individual should embrace to establish appropriate socialization practices. Jackson, J. (Ed.). (2012). The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication. NY: Routledge. Print. The book introduces a new concept of intercultural conflict resolution strategies. Diverse cultures have different conflicting perception about self-image and, therefore, acceptable interpersonal skills in a particular cultural setting may be inappropriate in another. The book notes that intercultural communication competence is necessary for tackling intercultural conflicts. A recent study documented in the publication to determine intercultural competence defined the term as the ability to communicate effectively in an acceptable manner in intercultural situations based on one’s skills, knowledge, and attitudes. Evidently, appropriateness and effectiveness of language and physical expression are core determinants of self- image in different cultural settings. Besides, the two help to define a person’s interpersonal skills as concerns the people of the foreign community. Moreover, individuals from contrasting communities often have different contrasting value patterns, verbal and non-verbal habits, and conflict interaction practices. The book recommends that the interacting individuals should always embrace face-saving efforts to avoid embarrassment and vulnerability cases. The restoration of a face also ensures personal independence in all societal aspects and, therefore, individuals must always aspire to maintain a positive face. Jackson (2012) proposes the inclusion of culture-sensitive knowledge classes in the said communities to help eliminate the implicit ethnocentric lenses used to evaluate behaviors in an intercultural conflict scene. Hayes, J. (2002). Interpersonal Skills at Work. Marlboro, Vermont.: Psychology Press. Print. Hayes (2002) analyzes the effects of human behavior on their ability and ease with which they can achieve their goals in life. He uses the context of workplace setting to analyze explicitly the effects of employer and employee behavior in the organization’s attempts to achieve its targets. Hayes introduces the book’s chapter by arguing that people commonly underestimate the time they spend in face-to-face interactions. An individual’s behavior affects other people’s behavior, for instance, a parent’s behavior significantly affects the child’s behavior because the parent is the first role model in the child’s life. The employers usually carry out interviews before employing a prospective employee. The interview’s main purpose is to examine the face level of the interviewee. The interviewers establish a rapport with the interviewee so the respondent can provide relevant information in the minimum time possible. The interviewers must not dominate the conversation, else the interviewee would feel uncomfortable, and his face image compromised and, consequently, refrains from sharing his ideas. Group decision-making procedures and outcomes highly depend on the level of knowledge and skills of the group members in addition to how they apply them to the task. The task-relevant knowledge is usually not available at the panel’s disposal possibly because a non-assertive knowledgeable member of the group lacks enough confidence to air their views, or some members may fail to pay attention to their opinions. The significant issue is face image and interpersonal skills. Members of lower self-image often lack confidence and recognition in the society. The face negotiation theory becomes handy in such a situation to help regain the lost face image of the person. Conclusion Evidently, the idea of face is an important tool in defining a person’s self-image and in explaining the interpersonal skills that the individual is likely to form with other people. The Face Negotiation Theory also encompasses the cultural differences as well as same culture interactions and, therefore, provides a useful tool in determining the interpersonal relationships as well as cultural conflicts. Furthermore, the cultural aspect of the theory enables the human generation to establish proper and effective intercultural language and physical expression thus promoting self-image and positive cultural exchanges. The outcomes of negotiation as a conflict resolution method are promising and hence the theory is of great significance in today’s society. However, the theory has some shortcomings as pointed out by the critics in the field of communication and interpersonal skills. The critics argue that the theory contains a lot of closely related terms which can cause confusion to new learners in the field of communication. Future research should aim at reducing or giving a precise definition of the terms to enhance a better understanding of the theory. Finally, future studies of the theory should target to include the appropriateness of the theory to examining relationship among several groups of individuals with different views. References Hayes, J. (2002). Interpersonal Skills at Work. Marlboro, Vermont: Psychology Press. Print. Jackson, J. (Ed.). (2012). The Routledge Handbook Of Language And Intercultural Communication. NY: Routledge. Print. Neuliep, J. W. (2009). Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach. Los Angeles: Sage. Print. Solomom, D., & Theiss, J. (2013). Interpersonal Communication: Putting Theory into Practice. NY: Routledge. Print. West, R. L., & Turner, L. H. (2014). Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Print. Read More