Introduction
Conflict resolution conflict is a day to day occurrence that happens when two or more people or groups differ on issues, ideas or misunderstand one another. Conflict resolution is the process that aims to bring these parties together so that the cause of conflict can be eliminated. When talking about saving face in conflict resolution the term varies from culture to culture. But it means honor. Face saving can be defined as maintaining one’s positive image during conflict. One thing human beings do not like is being humiliated. This paper covers reasons that cause loss of face, the strengths of saving face and weaknesses of using this approach to solve conflict.
One theory regarding saving face is the face-negotiation theory by Stella Ting-Toomey. She divides the society into two groups. The first is those who are individualistic/low context cultures like the United States and value getting straight to the point when solving conflict. The also favor the use of problem solving skills (Huber 5).The second category or high context cultures places a high value on honor and saving face these include the Japanese, Chinese and other Eastern countries. The culture and norms affect how parties manage conflict (Gudykunst 27).
When resolving conflict it is important to check the degree to which the two parties put to saving face. One has to study the importance of face. The West and U.S. are referred to as low contest societies. This means that not much emphasis is placed on non-verbal cues to enable clear communication. These are societies that place more emphasis on an individual. This means that these people are very clear on what they are saying or they do not mince their words. In such societies, mistakes and blunders do not lead to much public shame. Hence the no face lost. Everyone seems to mind their own business. The theory emphasizes resolution of conflict where there is use of mindful language and skills of communication to manage conflict in appropriate, adaptive and effective ways (Landis, Bennett and Bennett 219).
Societies that place emphasis on face include China, Japan, Latin America and Korea. These are cohesive societies where reputation is important. They also tend to be traditional societies. When negotiating in such cultures, direct confrontation is discouraged. The use of “no” is also not common. There is a need to keep pleasant appearance. The approaches of conflict resolution in the two societies differ. In the first there is more emphasis on solving the problem and less concentration on maintaining relationships. In the high context cultures there is equal emphasis on solving the problem as well as building and maintaining relationships.
Importance of saving face
It is vital to save face when resolving conflict because loss of face may cause one to loss of bargaining power. This may hinder the conflict management process. Saving face is important to the Chinese because it maintains the respect between the parties. The extent to which one maintains face is used to measure competent communicators in the Chinese culture. Chinese people also interpret an outright “no” as a sign of lacking co-operation when solving conflict. (Ma and Chen10)
Saving face occurs in many set ups for instance the work place. A story is told of a director who gives orders skillfully enough to save face. This director found a worker lazing around and kindly asked him to get back to work by asking him if he was tired so that he would help him for sometime. This acted as a hint to tell the worker what was expected of him without directly confronting him directly. This saved the worker’s face. The team spirit in the work environment was also maintained (Ma and Chen 167).
The study of face helps one to know how to avoid culture clash in another country. In Thailand their culture despises public displays of affection. This causes embarrassment to the locals. So such behaviors should be avoided when you visit such places. The thinking patterns affect whether people of different cultures save face or not. There is a difference in the thinking patterns of people from different cultures Western people think linearly. They believe by seeking facts they can solve problems. Easterners have a non-linear method of thinking, where a problem can be solved at any point. This aspect is also reflected in their language such as Chinese.
Strengths of saving face approach
It is a good method when approaching those in authority. This method works when direct confrontation can lead to a communication breakdown. In the book Bridging troubled waters: conflict resolution from the heart the author, gives an example where a subject had to approach the king by conveying messages indirectly. The reality is expressed by use of ambiguities (LeBaron232).
The saving face communication can work to send sensitive messages such as rejecting a potential marriage partner. Augsburger tells a story about rejecting of a marriage proposal in his book where a poor man falls in love with a girl from a rich family. The man’s mother goes to ask for a hand in marriage on his behalf. She is served tea and bananas at the girl’s home. There was no conversation about the marriage but the inappropriate meal communicated the answer to the marriage proposal. The mother reported to the son that the marriage was not possible (Augsburger 96).
Problems related to saving face approach to conflict resolution
One becomes too preoccupied with avoiding embarrassment that they do not pay attention during the negotiation process. The person thinks about what the public will say if they compromise on an issue. Another problem is that it diverts ones attentions from tangible issues. Countries have made poor decisions based on saving face an example is China. In 1994 they founded the World trade organization, yet joining it would liberalize trade which would harm China. It is difficult to put into writing clear agreements when the major concern is to save.
Other negative sides to saving face are that the people in these cultures object by use of silence and become authoritarian. This can result to grave consequences such as revenge. Eventually the conflict increases. This method lengthens negotiation process because one may refuse to compromise on issues. The person may form hard line positions so as to please the public. When either party keeps up with such positions just to save face, negotiations can get very heated and collapse. Saving face generates more conflict because people fear the collective humiliation when their demands are not met leading to many inter-ethnic and international conflicts (Coward & Smith p. 116).
Face saving does not solve conflict, especially when it leads to conflict avoidance or fails to bring conflict in the open (Augsburger 95). To the Chinese this is a highly regarded social skill. Saving face encourages poor communication with results like indirect communication, withdrawal and silence. This method requires giving up goals and interpersonal harmony. This method places emphasis on the public image at the expense of interpersonal harmony (Connerley, Pedersen and Pede31 ).
Ways by which one can lose face
Factors that can cause one to lose face insulting a person, disregarding one’s status. For instance referring a VIP to ‘’’.use of deregulatory nonverbal cues, for instance in the Middle East throwing a shoe at a person is considered to be the worst of insults. When parties have very long discussions and parties do not resolve problems leads to loss of face. The public wonders what you have been doing al that time with nothing to show for it. One’s weaknesses may be exposed by the other party causing one to lose face. For example if the details of a negotiators private life is brought to the limelight. This can embarrass him/her into silence.
Importance of understanding this theory
Face influences behavior in Asian societies, at individual and national levels. The reason why the face is a concept one cannot afford to ignore is that, Asia is large and is has important resources in the world. It also helps organizations to understand workmates who are from other cultures since the world has become a global village.
Another country that needs understanding is China, which has many of its citizens in diaspora. The eastern societies are very sensitive to what others say about them hence the need do understand them (Katre 49). There has been increased business negotiation between the western word and the Japanese. The westerners misunderstand Japanese approach to be unbusinesslike, deceitful and ambiguous (Nishiyama 83). The direct approach method mostly used by North Americans offends those who prioritize face-saving (Bell & Kahane p. 24).
The face-negotiation theory is affected factors like social distance, power and risk. (Dainton and Zelley 65). When the there is great power distance the person with less power will compromise. The person or parties that fall under the lower class tend to give in to the demands of the higher class.
Conclusion
One of the rules in conflict resolution is not to humiliate your opponent.
During conflict the process can get very tense and the need to take a break to save one’s honor may be needed. Human beings are flesh and blood with emotion and words can scar one for life. Before one opens their mouth to confront another party they should think about their words.
Works Cited
Augsburger, David. Conflict Mediation Across Cultures: Pathways and Patterns. Westminister: Kentucky, 2000.
Bell, Catherine & Kahane, David. Intercultural Dispute Resolution In Aboriginal Contexts. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2004.
Chen, Guo-Ming & Ma, Ringo. Chinese conflict management and resolution. Westport: Greenwood, 2002.
Connerley, Mary., Pedersen, Paul & Pede, Paul. Leadership in a diverse and multicultural environment: developing awareness. New Delhi: Sage, 2005.
Coward , Harold G. & Smith, Gordon S. Religion and peace building. New York: State University of New York Press, 2004.
Dainton, Marianne & Zelley, Elaine. Applying communication theory for professional life: a practical introduction. London: Sage, 2004.
Gudykunst, William.Theorizing about intercultural communication. Carlifornia: Sage, 2005.
Huber, Diane. Leadership and nursing care management. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2000.
Katre, Dinesh. Human Work Interaction Design: Usability in Social, Cultural and organizational contexts. India: Springer, 2009.
Landis , Dan., Bennett, Janet. & Bennett, Milton. Handbook of intercultural training. Safe: London: Sage, 2004.
LeBaron, Michelle. Bridging troubled waters: conflict resolution from the heart. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 2002.
Nishiyama, Kazuo. Doing business with Japan: successful strategies for intercultural communication. US:Hawai press, 2000.