The concept of face is defined as “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contract” (Goffman, 1967, p. 5). Goffman 1967, goes on to assert that face is essentially a flow of events during an encounter that is manifested when those events are interpreted for the meanings expressed in them (p. 7). Just about everyone uses this concept on a daily basis in their interactions with others. I would argue that people interacting with lesser acquainted individuals utilize this concept more because they feel they must uphold a certain image of themselves in order to maintain a desired reputation and/ or public image.
When we are better acquainted with people, we will naturally have less of a tendency to act protective and defensive around them, so there is less of a need to put on this public face and behave in a restrictive manner to maintain a certain image. Dailey 2013, explains that this means “that people can feel that others think well of them, that one’s honor and self-esteem are accepted and deserved. One does not have to worry about being embarrassed” (Slide 2). Additionally, Jameson, 2004 points out a temporal relationship between length of relationship and trust and states that “as suggested by social capital theories, the longer the history of trust-enhancing interactions between individuals and groups, the easier future cooperation becomes.” (p. 275).
Face-saving leads to ambiguity. Face is described as the freedom from threat to one’s sense of honor, status, dignity, self-esteem and competence (Dailey, 2013). People want to maintain their self-worth and maintain a feeling of adequacy when interacting with others. Everyone wants the opportunity to present themselves in the most positive manner and ensure that others view them favorably. As such, individuals may use small talk, humor or indirect communication to maintain a level of ambiguity as a strategy for dealing with the opposing needs for autonomy and connection (Jameson, 2004, p. 259). In my opinion, ambiguity or need to save face when communicating, creates complexity and leads to a lack of complete understanding.
Ambiguity can be found in all human language, and when most people communicate they think what they say is pretty clear most of the time (Keysar, 2007, p.71). However, Holtgraves (2014) explains, that “one of the primary linguistic means of managing face is to be less than completely direct or explicit” (p. 220). Humans must therefore rely on their own interpretations and assumptions when communicating. In my previous company, I mediated a dispute between an employee and a manager who both remained very poised and showed great consideration for each other’s concerns during the meeting. I interpreted their expressions and the agreement that they were “good” as mutual acceptance that they can continue to work together amicably. However, once the manager left the meeting, the employee broke down in tears and proceeded to tell me that the manager was not being honest during the meeting. I quickly realized that my interpretation of “good” was incorrect.
According to Goffman (1967), when the rules of self-respect and considerateness are combined, persons tend to conduct themselves in a manner that saves face for himself and the other participant during an encounter (p. 11). However, in this case, the participant’s agreements were based on “temporary lip service to judgments with which the participants do not really agree” (Goffman, 1967, p.11). The manager and employee were not able to maintain a positive relationship and conflict continued. While the ambiguity of the conversation helped preserve a positive face, it created a complete lack of understanding between the participants, as well as added complexities to the employee continuing to report to the manager. The working relationship could therefore not be salvaged and the employee was eventually transferred and excelled in another department.
Word Count: 399
Tarah
References:
Dailey, W., PhD. (2013). COM 665: Face Saving and Politeness [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved May 17, 2016, from Lecture Video Online https://chipcast.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=873d52f6-e809-41ea-9219-ae78dd66cda6
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face to face behavior. New York, NY: Pantheon. Pages 5-45
Interpretation impacts face saving.
Communication is defined as “the act of imparting or transmitting information, both verbally and nonverbally” in which the exchange of gestures, thoughts and attitudes are conveyed (Charlton, Dearing, Berry & Johnson, 2008, p. 383). Interpretation includes meanings, evaluations, and attributions and says what the person meant or what they were trying to do which is possibly face threatening (Dailey, 2013). In organizations today that utilize, telephonic, e-mail and text messaging as form of communication, interpretation is a language form that can negatively impact relationships. This is seen in an e-mail that is typed in all capitalized letters or in a text message response that may be one of two words. This can create tension or a difference of opinion between the two parties and lead to an argument. Dailey, 2013 defines an argument as a verbal competition as which idea or opinion is better, smarter or more moral. To improve the communication and conflict management, parties must be able to manage both aspects of face for the speaker and receiver (Jameson, 2004). The strongest communicators listen more than they speak (Dailey, 2013). To truly understand the message that another person is trying to convey must require the listener to quiet their mind and be fully dedicated to listening to the communication so they do not interpret the message incorrectly. The same letters in listen are found in the word silent and is a very important to truly understand focus on the delivery of the message by silencing the mind. During the lecture video, Dailey uses the story of the older gentlemen in the restaurant using a term with the other men in his group in the restaurant that are interpreted differently based on the receiver. The difference of their past was important to understand that the terms used was acting to save face with the other members. This example is similar to topics used in our culture where select words used by individuals are interpreted certain ways based on your sex, race, religion and ethnicity. The history and environment of the individual plays a critical part in understanding the interpretation of the word or statement that is being used. “…underneath their differences in culture, people everywhere are the same. If persons have a universal human nature, they themselves are not to be looked to for an explanation of it” (Goffman, Pg44). “The truth is that the really polite man, in the sense of being well-mannered, is, like the poet, born, not made” (Martyn, 1896).
Word Count: 418
References:
Charlton, C., Dearing, K., Berry, J., & Johnson, M. (2008). Nurse practitioners’ communication styles and their impact on patient outcomes: An integrated literature review. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 20, 382-388.
POST 4:
Politeness can inhibit conflicts and develop employee relations.
This week, the term politeness caught my attention and how strategies of politeness have the ability to cultivate multiple faces to have productive relationships at the workplace. The reason for multiple faces is noted due to the American culture of focus on self instead of a collective unit. According to the lecture, politeness is “communicating in such a way so as to allow and even support the other’s need for positive face, self-esteem, and dignity” (Dailey, 2016, slide 3). Jameson explained a theory of politeness and how it “illuminates communicative strategies that directly help organizational members balance” (Jameson, 2013, p. 260). Before supporting how politeness minimizes conflict and promotes relations beyond definitions, the understanding of face is also important.
Throughout Goffman’s article, multiple depictions of face are provided and based on these explanations; face is not necessarily a physical component but rather a series of actions that can be noticed throughout events by the presence or absence of face given the situation and self-consideration within the social environment (Goffman, 1967). Everyone’s face should be noticed, not only management or leadership roles but also subordinates and followers. With a focus on each internal face, it is believed productivity will rise. The act of acknowledging another’s face, or reactions to any given scenario, is one of many behaviors of politeness.
Politeness relates to conflict and employee relations because it is a method to minimize tension and increase openness to resolve issues. This happens since a person must set aside time to be polite. Examples, waiting an extra few seconds to hold the door for someone then that person taking a moment to respond with gratitude or taking the time to attentively listen to a friend explain a situation he/she experienced while you wait to share a personal experience. An article that describes three methods for employees to prevent workplace conflicts places the use of politeness as the most contributing factor by stating, “Employees should never overestimate the power of politeness” (Business NLP, 2016). By taking the time to be polite, even the subtlest use of politeness makes “the other party aware of one’s good alternative can provide leverage without alienating the other party” (Lewicki, 2016, p. 167).
To summarize, by actively engaging in politeness at the workplace positivity will increase and employees are likely to replicate strategies of politeness. By taking the time to acknowledge other faces, communication will also grow. So with the enhancement of positivity and communication as a result of politeness engagement, conflicts will devolve and relationships will greatly develop. All of which can possibly create a collective face of organizations.
Word count: 440
References:
Dailey, W.(2013). Comm 665: Face Threat and Politeness. Lecture Video. Central Michigan University.
Goffman, E. (1967). An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction. Interaction Ritual .
Jameson, J. (2004). Negotiating autonomy and connection through politeness:. Western Journal of Communication , 68 (3), 257-277.
POST 5:
Saving face and politeness affect business relationships.
Dailey (2013) defines face as “the freedom from threats to one’s sense of honor, status dignity, self-esteem, competence” (Slide 2). Goffman (1967) defines face as “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others have taken during a particular contact” (pg. 5). In simpler words, “how we want to be seen by others” (Jameson, 2013).
Jameson (2013) states that “face is a central concept in interpersonal communication” (pg. 260). How we communicate conflict shows face, whether it’s face saving, face threatening, or face supporting. The article by Jameson specifically analyzes the communications between CRNAs and anesthesiologists. A few quotes made by the interviewees emphasize the effect of face saving and communication on business relationships: “None of us like to be belittled”, “It all comes down to a theme of mutual respect”, and “Hey, we’re a team” (pg. 267). I feel that this relationship building through saving face and politeness is essential for good working relationships.
At my current work place, we have Sales Reps in the field and Administrative Account Managers in the corporate office. Technically, we are equals and a part of a team – we do not report to one another. However, it is the Sales Representative’s job to make price recommendations, and the Account Manager’s job to review and approve or provide different pricing. This creates a predisposed tension between the parties. Although the Account Manager has final say in quoted pricing, the Sales Rep is able to negotiate. How we negotiate our disapproval or disagreement is what affects our business relationship. We can offer face support by “providing an explanation” (Jameson, 2013, pg. 267) or by inquiring rather than giving orders, and listening rather than dominating conversation (Dailey, 2013, Slide 4). Or, we can threaten face and call one another out or expose our disapproval to our bosses/colleagues. When face is frequently threatened, it makes maintaining a positive business relationship difficult. It can decrease morale, productivity, and effectiveness.
After a negotiation has failed and face is threatened, how do you make sure your relationship with your counterpart is intact? O’Hara (2016) provided the following tips for when face is threatened: don’t panic, look for a bright side, be up front about your missteps, leverage the future, and do a postmortem. The most important point, in my opinion, is to not panic. “’Don’t assume you lost face”’ (O’Hara, 2016). O’Hara (2016) also mentions to keep in mind that “’this is one transaction of many”’. Typically, if your face is threatened by an individual, you don’t have the luxury of not working with that individual ever again. In the next negotiation, work towards saving face and politeness to rebuild relationships.
Word Count: 455
References:
Dailey. W. (2013). COM 665: Face-Saving and Politeness. Retrieved from https://chipcast.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=873d52f6-e809-41ea-9219-ae78dd66cda6
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior.
