Conflict Face Negotiation Theory
Conflict face negotiation theory links cultural values to face-saving and conflict styles (for a detailed review of this theory see Ting-Toomey, 2005). As previously mentioned, the ways people deal with conflict are influenced by their cultural backgrounds and personality tendencies.
According to Oetzel and Ting-Toomey (2003), face negotiation theory holds that:(a) people in all cultures try to maintain and negotiate face in all communication situations; (b) the concept of face becomes especially problematic in uncertainty situations (such as embarrassment and conflict situations) when the situated identities of the communicators are called into question; (c) cultural variability, individual-level variables, and situational variables influence cultural members’ selection of one set of face concerns over others (such as self-oriented face-saving vs. other-oriented face-saving); and (d) subsequently, face concerns influence the use of various facework and conflict strategies in intergroup and interpersonal encounters. (p. 600)
In addition, this theory proposes three key features of intercultural conflict— knowledge, mindfulness, communication skills—that result in being a competent communicator (Ting-Toomey, 2005). The first component, culture-sensitive knowledge, encourages individuals to develop an in-depth understanding of cultures other than their own and to try to adapt from an ethnocentric to an ethnorelative lens. For example, although many Americans do not know the capital of Canada, many Canadians not only know the capital of the US, but they know the name of its president, vice-president and other important facts.
Being ethnocentric involves viewing one’s own cultural way of communicating as the best, thereby believing that other cultural members’ communication habits are improper, incorrect, or inferior to one’s own.
For instance, Americans visiting France often complain about the rude French. Actually, the French convey their politeness explicitly, for example, by saying merci (thank you) before and after ordering food. On the other hand, Americans convey politeness implicitly and nonverbally, but they do not consistently say “please” or “thank you.” Instead, Americans appear ruder to the French as they visit restaurants and demand their food (“I’ll have the pommes frites”) without saying please or thank you. Ethnorelativism, on the other hand, involves understanding that people behave and communicate differently due to their cultural values, and that no one way is better than another (Bennett & Bennett, 2004).Conclusion 10.3: People often judge other cultures according to their own cultural- attitudes, beliefs, values, and behaviors.
Suggestion 10.3: Lose the ethnocentric lenses when interacting with a member of a different culture. For better vision, rely on ethnorelative lenses.
The second feature is mindfulness, which involves the willingness to attend to one’s own cultural and personal assumptions and beliefs while attending to the other communicator’s cultural and personal assumptions and beliefs (LeBaron, 2003; Ting-Toomey, 1999). As we argued in Chapter 1, being mindful of one’s behavior leads to more productive interactions and conflict outcomes. Being mindful is not simply being aware of one’s habits; it also involves recognizing the norms for appropriate behavior and lessons to be learned from other cultures.
Suggestion 10.4: Be mindful that your communication, especially during conflict, might reflect an instinctual response that is inappropriate to other cultural norms.
The final component offace negotiation theory concerns constructive communication skills, which refers to a person’s ability to be appropriate and effective when engaging in conflict. This also involves being able to adapt one’s skills during intercultural conflict when necessary.
Skills include a consideration of face-saving concerns, reframing the conflict, and collaborative dialogue (Ting-Toomey, 2004). Additionally, Ting-Toomey (1994) offers several skills for the individualist engaging a collectivist culture during conflict: be mindful of face-maintenance assumptions, attempt to be positive and proactive, appreciate quiet observation, practice deep listening skills, release the conflict if the other party does not wantIntercultural Conflict 147 to discuss it, and respect a collectivist-interdependent approach to managing conflict. For collectivists engaging in conflict with an individualist, Ting-Toomey (1994) offers the following strategies: be mindful of individualist assumptions, focus on resolving substantive issues, try not to take the conflict personally, assert and express emotions, provide verbal feedback, practice active listening skills, and respect an individualist’s approach to handing conflict (for a more detailed review of these skills see Ting-Toomey, 1994). This material leads to the fifth and final principle in this chapter:
Suggestion 10.5: Practice strategic conflict skills viewed from the other person’s cultural point of view.