Face-Saving Strategies in Communication PDF

Chapter 6 FACE-SAVING I magine that y...

Chapter 6 FACE-SAVING I magine that you are so absorbed in texting your friend while walking to class that you fail to notice a stairwell. Suddenly, you are off-balance, falling on what should be level ground. Thanks to superior coordination skills, you keep from going head over heels down the steps, but you do jerk and jump down the jagged cement. Your belongings fly into the air, but you make a remarkable recovery, landing on both feet and catching your cell phone before it hits the ground. Just as your nerves and heart settle, you notice that a group of your classmates is watching. In fact, it is obvious from the expressions on their faces that they have seen the entire embarrassing event. A million thoughts race through your mind. What do you say or do? Do you walk on and ignore them? What about the things you dropped? You are struck by a sudden desire to say something intelligent, something that reflects you are not the clumsy boob you appear to be. Instead, you stoop down to pick up your things. You look at the steps and curse them, as if they were human and had consciously decided to trip you. With a newfound composure, you turn to your classmates and say, “What are you looking at?” You immediately realize this is a silly question, so you add, “I was texting and didn’t see the steps.” They laugh. You turn red. One onlooker says, “Hope you didn’t break your cell.” He probably meant it as a joke to ease the moment. Somehow, though, this joke stings. They turn and walk away. Half-jokingly, you vow to hate these people for the rest of your life. You are amazed at how bitter you feel. Hours later, you wonder what the big deal was. How could you have gotten so flustered and bent out of shape over a simple misstep and comment? The answer lies in what scholars, and now practitioners, commonly refer to as face. Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. Face is a central theoretical concept used in a wide array of disciplines and is defined in as many ways. Yet most definitions concur that “face” is concerned with identity needs. People have identities or public images they want others to share. Although the attributes vary, people want to be seen by those they encounter as possessing certain traits, skills, and qualities. They constantly position themselves in interaction with others (Harre & van Langenhove, 1999). In short, face is the communicator’s claim to be seen as a certain kind of person. As one scholar in the area puts it, face is “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself [sic] by the line others assume he has taken during a par- ticular contact” (Goffman, 1955). Face concerns are known to be important across all cultures (Oetzel, Garcia, & Ting-Toomey, 2008; Ting-Toomey, 2005). The concept of face can be traced to fourth-century bc China. The Chinese distinguish between two aspects of face, lien and mien-tzu (Hu, 1944). Lien stands for good moral character. A person does not achieve lien, but rather is ascribed this quality unless he Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-02 17:19:28.  Face-Saving 181 or she behaves in a socially unacceptable manner. To have no lien means to have no integrity, which is perhaps the most severe condemnation that can be made of a person. Mien-tzu reflects a person’s reputation or social standing. One can increase mien-tzu by acquiring social resources such as wealth and power. To have no mien-tzu is simply to have floundered without success, an outcome that bears no social stigma. 6.1 THE DIMENSIONS OF FACE Although scholars generally concur that face is a universal characteristic of being human, there is less agreement as to the common identities or “face wants” people share. Brown and Levinson 1987) propose the most popular view in their theory of politeness. Polite- ness theory conceives of face as something that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced and must constantly be attended to in interactions. Specifically, the authors propose two dimensions of face: Positive face refers to a person’s desire to acquire the approval of others; negative face is the desire for autonomy. Conflict may arise because many commu- nicative acts, especially instances of social influence, are face threatening. For example, a request to “get busy with that report” may interfere with the hearer’s negative face wants or the desire for autonomy. According to the theory, the degree to which face is threatened by a request is a function of three factors: the social distance between the parties, the relative power of the parties, and the intrusiveness of the request or act. The greatest potential face threat is found when there is greater social distance between the parties, the listener has more power than the speaker, and there is a great degree of imposition placed by the communicative request or act. We refer to the theory as “polite- ness” because the degree of face threat is thought to determine how polite a speaker will be. Brown and Levinson propose that people use five general strategies to perform a face-threatening act (FTA), represented in Table 6.1. The strategies and examples in Table 6.1 are presented from most to least polite. The most polite strategy is to avoid the FTA completely—the speaker makes no request. The next strategy is called going off-record. This is when the FTA is performed in such an ambiguous manner that it could be interpreted as some other act by the hearer. Going off-record is stating a request indirectly or implicitly. The third strategy is the use of negative politeness. This strategy attempts to mitigate the threat to the hearer’s negative face by giving him or her autonomy. Positive politeness is the fourth strategy—the speaker performs the FTA with attention to positive face needs (the want of approval). The least polite strategy is a bald on-record FTA with no attempt to acknowledge another’s face wants. Politeness theory contends that speakers employ the strategy that fits the situa- Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. tion. The more serious the FTA, the more polite the speaker will attempt to be. Table 6.1 Politeness and FTA Strategies Politeness FTA Strategy Example High Avoid—do not perform No request is made. Going off-record I’m really getting hungry. Negative politeness I know you are busy, but could you start cooking dinner? Positive politeness You are such a good cook. I can’t wait until you start dinner. Low Bald on-record Would you fix dinner? Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-02 17:19:28.  182 Face-Saving Lim and Bowers (1991) extend the Brown and Levinson concept of positive face (the desire for approval) because it compounds two different human face needs: the need to be included and the need to be respected. The need for inclusion, they maintain, is the need to have one’s person and personality approved of, whereas the need for respect is the need to have one’s abilities and skills approved of. As a result, Lim and Bowers distin- guish between three types of human face needs: (1) the want to be included or fellowship face, (2) the want that one’s abilities be respected or competence face, and (3) the want not to be imposed on or autonomy face. 6.2 FACE-LOSS AS IT RELATES TO FACE-SAVING When face wants are not addressed during interaction, one or both parties may experi- ence a loss of face. People are said to lose face when they are treated in such a way that their identity claims are challenged or ignored. Given the strong need to maintain a favorable image, face-loss can lead to an impasse in interaction and exacerbate or create conflict between parties. Goffman (1955) describes several face-loss consequences. First, face-loss often causes a party to be momentarily incapacitated or confused. The shock that one’s identity is facing attack sometimes takes a moment to adjust to. Second, the party may feel shame or embarrassment. This feeling is often accompanied by a host of common symptoms that reflect this social distress, including blushing, sweating, blink- ing, fumbling, stuttering, and general nervousness (Sharkey, 1988). Third, the party may feel inferior or less powerful. In sum, face-loss is an unpleasant experience, seen from the eyes of the harmed party as social humiliation. Not surprisingly, research shows that parties are willing to retaliate and sacrifice rewards at great costs when they perceive the threat of humiliation. Research has shown that different people have different degrees of face-threat sensitivity and that parties are willing to retaliate, respond less rationally, and accept great costs when they perceive the humiliation that accompanies face-loss (Miles, 2010; Raver & Barling, 2008; Tynan, 2005). Face-saving behaviors are defensive attempts to reestablish face after threats to face or face-loss. In other words, face-saving is what a person does to regain the image he or she believes has been dismissed. The remainder of the chapter explores the consequences of face-saving strategies for parties in conflict. 6.3 A THREAT TO FLEXIBILITY IN CONFLICT INTERACTION Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. Continued change is often a good sign in conflict. Changes in a person’s positions and styles, as well as more general shifts in the climate and emotional tenor, indicate that a person or group is successfully resisting tendencies toward rigid perpetuation of conflict interactional patterns. They also decrease the likelihood that the parties will lock into the destructive cycles that trained incapacities often produce. As uncomfortable as it some- times is, parties should be encouraged by change because it usually means that others are still working on the issue and that a breakthrough is possible. Change requires energy; the use of energy to move the conflict interaction in new directions suggests that there is still some level of motivation to deal with the unresolved issue. Any signs of stalemate or rigidity can easily paint the first gray shades of discouragement on a colorful, although difficult and emotionally draining, conflict. The emotional side of conflict is intimately connected with a party’s flexibility (Halp- erin, 2013). As noted in Chapter 1, every move in conflict interaction affects relationships, Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-02 17:19:28.  Face-Saving 183 liking or disliking for each other, mutual respect or lack of respect, beliefs about each other’s competence, and a score of other beliefs and feelings. Face-saving is an attempt to protect or repair relational images in response to threats, real or imagined, potential or actual. It can limit a party’s flexibility in taking new approaches to the conflict issue. In addition, because of its relational consequences, face-saving often carries an emotional “charge” that can greatly accelerate destructive escalation or avoidance in conflict. Face-sav- ing issues often redefine conflicts. When face-saving is a concern, parties’ perceptions and interaction patterns can lead to a progressive redefinition of the conflict, which changes a potentially resolvable difference over some tangible problem into an unmanageable issue centered on the relationships between the parties and the images they hold of themselves. Before exploring face-saving in detail—both causes and consequences—it is useful to consider a few illustrations. Case Studies 6.1 through 6.3 show three diverse con- flict situations wherein the ability to be flexible and to change approaches, positions, or interaction styles are in jeopardy. At the heart of each case lies a concern with saving face. In Case Study 6.1, a university professor became increasingly concerned about the way students would be likely to see her if she changed her mind about a decision she had recently made. In Case Study 6.2, a group feared that an outspoken, quick-thinking member would have trouble backing off from a position once she took a stand on an issue. To the group’s surprise, she had little concern about being seen as “wishy-washy” and changed her mind once a better argument was made by other members. In Case Study 6.3, three staff members felt their face was threatened by one person who “took charge” without the team’s endorsement. In each of these cases, some form of face-saving was a central concern and could have undermined the parties’ ability to successfully deal with the conflicts. In the grade dis- pute, the professor had taken a stand on an issue and was reluctant to move from that position because she might be seen as indecisive or unsure of herself. When she recon- sidered her decision, she recognized that the student may have had a good case and that she may have been too harsh in enforcing her no make-up policy. As she entered the meeting where the conflict was to be addressed, however, there was a great likelihood that her current beliefs on the problem would not be stated unless something was done to ease her concern about the image she might acquire by following her inclinations. Part of her reluctance to move also stemmed from an already existing face threat: The image she had of herself as a fair professor had already been publicly called into ques- tion by the student’s decision to contact the college official. Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. CASE STUDY 6.1 THE PROFESSOR’S DECISION Imagine yourself as the English professor. Why might you be so concerned about your image? An English professor at a Midwestern university was called by the academic appeals referee and told that a student in her introductory writing course had filed a grievance about a grade he received last semester. The student was given a “D” in the class because he did not take the final exam in the course. On the day of the exam, the student left a message with the department sec- retary saying that he was ill and would not be present for the test. Although the Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-02 17:19:28.  184 Face-Saving professor received this message, the student did not get back in touch with her until after the grades had to be submitted. When the student did get in touch with the professor, he told her that he had three other final exams scheduled that same week and had decided to take those tests to stay on schedule rather than making up the English final immediately. He said he had assumed he would be able to contact her again before the grades had to be reported, but, as it turned out, he was too slow in doing so. On hearing the student’s explanation, the professor decided to stick with her earlier decision to give him the grade he received without any points on the final. The student’s grades on the earlier tests and writing assignments were good enough that if he had received a “B” on the final exam, he would have finished with a “B” in the course. After receiving the call from the appeals referee, the professor began to ques- tion her decision. Originally, she had felt justified in taking a tough stand because she had stated a very clear policy about missing tests and assignments early in the term. However, realizing that she might have been somewhat dogmatic in this case, she was leaning toward allowing the student to take a make-up exam and using that score to recompute his final grade. But as she entered the meeting with the appeals referee and student, she became increasingly concerned about changing her mind. She knew that word travels fast among students, and she was worried that soon she would have a reputation for changing grades or class policy when the right pressure was applied. She was also increasingly bothered by the student’s decision to register a formal complaint against her in the college. Discussion Questions How could an understanding of the professor’s concern for her future image assist the appeals referee in this case? Can you think of examples of conflicts in which you felt someone’s concern about image contributed to his or her inflexibility? CASE STUDY 6.2 THE OUTSPOKEN MEMBER Imagine yourself as Rhonda. Why do you think you are so willing to change your Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. position? What is the image of yourself that you are protecting? A group of twelve leaders and activists in the antipollution movement of an eastern city began meeting to discuss strategies for dealing with an attack on water standards that was currently being made in their area. A local business executive was mounting a campaign that could have jeopardized water and waste treatment standards if it gained sufficient support. The group of twelve met to determine what could be done to counteract the business campaign and to coordinate the efforts of environmentalists who wanted to work on the project. They saw their main task as building an effective alliance of people in town who wanted to work for environmental quality at this crucial time. The people in the group were from a wide variety of backgrounds and profes- sions: Some headed smaller civic organizations, some were students, one worked for a local newspaper, one was an elected city official. One member, Rhonda, was Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-02 17:19:28.  Face-Saving 185 an attorney in her 30s and a longtime activist in local politics. She was outspoken, and took the floor several times early in the first meeting. She spoke in a loud and confident tone of voice, and came to the meeting with well-developed ideas about what the group should do. She argued her position clearly and forcefully, while other members still seemed to be thinking about what the current situation was like and calculating what should be done as an immediate plan of action. When Rhonda made a strong case for what the group should do in the first part of the initial meeting, the climate in the group grew uneasy and tense. Sev- eral people looked at each other uncomfortably, and most people seemed hesi- tant to speak. The group seemed to be “holding its breath” and anticipating that Rhonda would be difficult to work with. Although she was obviously bright and had good reasons supporting her suggestions, members feared that Rhonda had set ideas and would not budge from the proposal she had just articulated so forcefully. The group worried Rhonda would feel as if she had lost face if she moved away from her stated position. After several people made comments that were not related to Rhonda’s proposal, one man in the group began pointing to possible complications and problems with Rhonda’s suggestion. She listened intently, and when he was finished speaking, Rhonda said that she really had not thought of the points he had raised and that she agreed they posed a serious set of problems. She asked the man if he had an alternative suggestion, listened to it, and then shortly began arguing for it. She made stronger and more well-reasoned arguments for the man’s proposal than he himself had made, and Rhonda was able to clarify questions other people in the group had about the proposed plan without dom- inating the interaction or intimidating people further. The group soon saw Rhonda as one of its most valuable members. She could carry a line of thought through for the group and lay out a well-reasoned set of arguments for a stand she was taking, but at the same time, she was not hesitant to turn 180 degrees on an issue if new information or evidence was presented that she had not previously considered. Discussion Questions What are the dangers of assuming that someone would be threatened if you argued with them? Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. Can you describe a situation where you felt someone was not changing a stated position even though you felt he or she had had a change of mind? CASE STUDY 6.3 THE CONTROVERSIAL TEAM MEMBER Imagine yourself as one of the three staff members of this case. In what ways is your face threatened by your co-worker? Why would you want to talk to your supervisor? Four staff members in a personnel office at a large computer corporation were assigned to a rather demanding recruitment project in addition to their Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-02 17:19:28.  186 Face-Saving regular job of interviewing and placement. They were asked to design and implement an effective program for minority recruitment and placement within the corporation. The project was viewed as one of the top priorities for the department, and the workers knew that the success or failure of the project would have a significant impact on their advancement in the organization. About a month before the project was due, one of the team members asked her immediate supervisor if they could meet with him. The supervisor agreed, but when the team arrived, only three of the four members were present. The team had not asked the fourth member to attend the meeting with the supervi- sor. The problem the team faced was that the fourth member repeatedly made decisions and completed tasks that all team members had not endorsed. The three staff members felt that these decisions and actions were threatening the quality of the entire project. The fourth member was a man who had been in the personnel office a year longer than the other three. He felt he had more knowledge and experi- ence than the other staff members, and he made this point on several occa- sions. He also told them that he did not want this project to interfere with the time he needed to complete his normal work routine, and so he was willing to make certain decisions about the project on his own to move things along faster. Although the three felt intimidated by their co-worker’s outspoken and eval- uative style, they also felt that he was bright and hardworking and did have some experience that they lacked. In most cases, however, they felt this addi- tional experience was unrelated to the current assignment. They saw the man’s concern about the project taking time away from his normal work as pure arro- gance; they all had the same work schedule to complete each week and needed to find time to work on the recruitment project. The team felt particularly insulted because, on several occasions, the man did not show up for meetings that had been scheduled. He did not let the group know that he would not be attending nor did he offer any explanations for his absence afterward. He also made no attempt to get information that he held to these meetings. Thus, the team’s work was often delayed. When he was pres- ent, meetings were tense and antagonistic, and the motivation of the team had plummeted because of the problem. When the supervisor asked the team if they had discussed their reac- tions openly with the “problem” person, the three members said they had Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. not. They had wrestled with the idea but decided that the issue was just too emotional to air openly. They were, however, mad at the co-worker, felt intimidated by him, and wanted the department management to hear about the problem. Discussion Questions Is there a “downside” to having face concerns addressed by someone who is not directly involved in the conflict? In what ways does “gossip” sometimes function as an attempt to receive face support? Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-02 17:19:28.  Face-Saving 187 In the environmental group, the face-saving issue was anticipated by members who heard Rhonda make forceful arguments early on. A tense and uneasy climate arose because most members assumed Rhonda was strongly committed to her position and would be inflexible. There was a general sense that Rhonda would be a “problem” if the group challenged her suggestions. The group was surprised and relieved to find that Rhonda’s intellectual and verbal abilities could provide information and clear reasoning for them without being tied to her self-image. If no one in the group had run the risk of questioning Rhonda’s initial stand because of a fear of embarrassing her, the group could easily have become dissatisfied with the decision-making process but remained silent, perhaps eventually splintering into pro- and anti-Rhonda factions. Face-saving was certainly a concern of the staff on the personnel project as they entered the supervisor’s office. Although the team feared the emotional strain and poten- tial long-range consequences of raising the issue with their co-worker, they felt he had treated them unfairly. They were made to feel as if their input on the project was unnec- essary or even harmful. At least part of their motivation for contacting the supervisor was to restore face. They did not want to think of themselves as incompetent, nor did they want to see themselves as people who would accept unfair treatment without resistance. If the supervisor agreed with their assessment of the situation, then their face would be restored. Face-saving can short-circuit parties’ abilities to remain flexible and shift their modes of conflict interaction, for two reasons. First, the emergence of a concern with saving face inevitably adds another issue to the conflict. The additional problem tends to take pre- cedence because it stands in the way of getting back to the main issue (Wilson, 1992). It draws energy and attention away from the central issue and focuses on more peripheral matters; parties may stop working on the issues that count most as they deal with the threat to face. In each of these three cases, face-saving added issues to the conflict that diverted attention—and interaction—away from the central concern, or exhausted the parties before an adequate resolution was reached (Table 6.2). In the grade dispute in Case Study 6.1, for example, the main conflict was over the professor’s policy on make-up exams and her decision to enforce that policy in the cur- rent situation. The professor’s reputation as indecisive or soft was really a secondary, although related, issue. In the environmental group, members’ attention started to shift from a concern with how the group should go about protecting water standards to how the group was going to deal with a member who appeared to be dogmatic and would likely be threatened by criticism. In the personnel project team case, the central conflict was over decision-making rights in the group. By not addressing this issue, the three workers added a face-saving concern: They felt unjustly intimidated by the man and Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. spent considerable time trying to feel better about the situation and attempting to decide whether they had somehow helped elicit the man’s arrogant behavior. These additional Table 6.2 Possible Consequences of Face-Saving in Conflicts Reduces parties’ flexibility. Adds an issue to the conflict. Turns attention away from more tangible concerns. Increases the likelihood of an impasse. Encourages an all-or-nothing approach to resolution. Prompts parties to turn to third parties to address concerns. Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-02 17:19:28.  188 Face-Saving issues can easily displace the team’s focus if they remain salient concerns or if the mem- bers fail to address a face-saving issue that is influencing members’ behaviors. Besides multiplying issues, face-saving makes inflexibility likely because face-saving concerns usually include the real possibility of a future impasse in the conflict. Motives to save face are difficult to alleviate in conflicts and tend to foster interaction that heads toward stalemates and standoffs. After examining face-saving in a variety of formal bar- gaining settings, Brown (1977) notes that issues related to the loss of face are “among the most troublesome kinds of problems that arise in negotiation” (p. 275). Parties may be less likely to negotiate about issues at all, if face concerns are highly salient for them (Miles, 2010). Several factors contribute to the tendency for face-saving issues to head toward an impasse. Face-saving issues often remain highly intangible and elusive because people are reluctant to acknowledge that their image has been threatened. People can sense that something is going wrong and that positions seem to be tightening, but the face-sav- ing motive may never be explicitly raised. To acknowledge a threat to one’s image is in some ways to make that threat more real. One can maintain a desired self-image despite what others think, as long as one can somehow deny what others think. To openly state what the threat may be and risk confirmation of the belief is in some cases to remove the possibility of denial. Therefore, the threat to one’s image may be real and may be influencing the conflict interaction, but it often lies beneath the surface where it will go unrecognized or unaddressed. The professor in the grade controversy, for example, might go through the entire meet- ing with the student and appeals referee without raising the issue of her image or with- out noting that she felt put off by the student’s decision to contact the referee about the matter. Although these concerns may never surface, they could prompt her to adhere to her original decision, even though she now doubts its fairness, or to make unreasonable demands on the student before moving from her initial stand. An effective third party appeals referee might anticipate these face-saving concerns and make suggestions that alleviate them but not require that the issue be stated explicitly (Shubert & Folger, 1986). Often the mere presence of a third party allows someone to move from a position with- out losing face because they can attribute any movement they make to the other party: “I never would have settled for that if the appeals referee hadn’t pushed for it” (Brown, 1977; Pruitt & Johnson, 1970). There is another reason why impasses are likely outcomes of conflicts complicated by face-saving issues: Conflict interaction becomes highly vulnerable to an all-or-nothing approach to resolution when face-saving issues arise. A gambler who loses all evening at a casino table may feel a need to bet big at the end of the night to restore face with those Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. who have watched him or her struggle. When an issue becomes heavily steeped in estab- lishing or protecting face, it is often easier for participants “to go for broke” or walk away than to remain in a situation that, in an important sense, undermines their self-concept or sense of self-worth. Face, in many instances, is viewed as an issue on which no com- promise is possible. Personal honor and a commitment to oneself can take precedence over any continued involvement with, or commitment to, the relationship. The staff who worked on the personnel recruitment project were all too willing to let the one man make decisions for them, even though his behavior insulted and upset them. The members expected further embarrassment if they brought the issue to the man’s attention; they thought he would defend himself by pointing to his own experience and chide them for ignoring their daily work tasks to work on this project. Rather than risk the confrontation and a further affront to their self-image, members were willing to walk away from the issue, even though it meant continued frustration with the project. Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-02 17:19:28.  Face-Saving 189 6.4 CONFLICT INTERACTION AS A FACE-SAVING ARENA Face-saving messages are concerned with an image the speaker tries to maintain or rees- tablish in the interaction. Because this image depends on other parties’ reactions, any attempt to save face is an attempt to negotiate the speaker’s relationship with other par- ties in the conflict. Face-saving messages offer information about how the speaker wants and expects to be seen in the exchange. As we noted in Chapter 5, this type of relational comment (“This is how I see you seeing me” or “This is how I want you to see me”) is car- ried by any message a speaker sends (Watzlawick et al., 1967). In the case of face-saving messages, however, the relational comment is more salient because it is under dispute; the face-saving message is a defensive response to a perceived threat. The speaker has reason to believe that his or her desired image will not be accepted by other members. As a result, the speaker feels a need for assurance or confirmation and engages in various behaviors, such as those in our examples, to “restore face.” It is difficult to proceed with- out resolution of the face problem and will often be dominated by this problem until the speaker feels satisfied that enough has been done to establish the desired image. It is clearly the speaker’s perception of how others are taking him or her that determines when the face-saving issue is lifted from the interaction. If a person rushes into an important meeting fifteen minutes late and says, “Back-to- back meetings never seem to work out,” the comment carries a face-saving message. It asks the group to see the person as someone who is so busy that he or she may have to overschedule meetings and end up being late at times. This relational message serves a face-saving function because it supplants a potentially threatening image others could hold; it asks people not to see the speaker as someone who is inconsiderate of others’ time or is unconcerned about what may go on at the meeting. Being busy, hardworking, or overtaxed is a positive image; being inconsiderate, slow, or careless is an image the person wants to avoid. In an insightful analysis of face-saving work in everyday interactions, Goffman (1967) describes how people try to conduct themselves in social encounters to maintain both their own and other parties’ face. Goffman emphasizes that the mutual acceptance of face is “a condition of interaction not its objective” (p. 12). Interaction ordinarily pro- ceeds on the assumption that the faces people want to project are, in fact, the ones that are accepted as the exchange unfolds. There is a noticeable strain or a recognizable problem when face maintenance becomes the objective rather than a precondition of interaction. Even in ordinary interaction, then, people feel a need to amend the situation when a face-saving issue arises so that the exchange can unfold without the concern. For example, Wohn and Spottswood (2016) found that individuals managed face threats Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. posted by friends on their Facebook profiles by contacting their friends using a text mes- sage or private Facebook message. By not addressing the issue publicly, they tried to keep face threats hidden. In group conflict, there is a noticeable difference in interaction when face-saving issues arise and become the objective of the interaction. There is a shift away from group-cen- tered and group-directed interaction toward interaction focused on the experience of the individual member and his or her relationship to the group. Conflict interaction is group-centered when all parties consider their membership within the group and con- tinuously recognize that any movement made on an issue must be made with other parties in the conflict. Individual positions and stands can be argued, and indeed must be, if adequate differentiation is to occur. However, members never lose their identities and concepts of self when interaction is group focused; the commitment to self and the sense of personal identity become secondary to the awareness that the conflict is a shared Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-02 17:19:28.  190 Face-Saving experience, and change or movement in the direction of the conflict will be with other members. The emergence of face-saving as an issue undercuts the group-centered focus in con- flict interaction. When face-saving becomes an issue, individual concerns begin to out- weigh those of the group or the substantive issues in the conflict. The commitment to establishing a desirable self-image takes precedence over the sense of belonging and cohesion that exists when members more fully “step into” the group. Face-saving produces a qualitative change to the group’s conflict interaction. When interaction becomes individually focused, one person steps into an “official role” that he or she holds as an individual. Obviously, such a role is always available to each member, but it can easily remain dormant while members try to sustain group-centered interac- tion. The role of the member as an individual raises concerns about what the person looks like to the group, what impact that person in particular is having on the outcome of a decision, what place he or she holds in the group’s power structure, and so on. In a sense, the individual adopts an authority position and wants to be seen as the authori- tative representative of an image he or she wants to maintain or a role he or she wants to play in the group’s process. This separation lays the groundwork for the inflexibility discussed previously. The following example, which is an actual transcript of a discussion among four grad- uate students, illustrates a turn from group- to individual-centered interaction. The stu- dents in this discussion were given a topic as part of a class assignment. Believe it or not, their task was to clarify Plato’s conception of truth. In the interaction just prior to this segment, the students, who were from the same department and knew each other quite well, joked about the seriousness of the topic and were somewhat eager to go off on a tangent before leaping into the task at hand. As this segment of interaction begins, Kathy asks Peggy about her research on gender differences in people’s thought patterns. The group recognizes that the question is somewhat off the assigned topic, but they are more than willing to pursue it and delay their discussion of truth. The group eventually ties the issue of gender research back to the main topic, but that part of the exchange is not included here. Watch for the turn the interaction takes toward individual-centered interaction. Kathy: (to Peggy) Are you doing any more work on differences in male thinking? Peggy: (answering Kathy) Uh, hum. Dave: I have an article. Peggy: Collecting data as a matter of fact. Dave: I have an article that is so good. This is off the subject, but let’s talk about it Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. for a few minutes. Peggy: That’s right, let’s forget truth. I’d rather talk about males and females than truth. Kathy: Mhmmm. Gary: Mhmmm. Dave: Candace Pert is into, got into, pharmacology and is now in neuroscience. She is the discoverer of what’s called the opiate receptor in the brain. Those are the brain cells that opium has an effect on. The ones they’re attracted to. Peggy: Hmmmm. Dave: And they’ve, they’ve gone from opium receptors to ah, Valium receptors, to any tranquilizer. And she’s working now on a marijuana receptor, that the cells hit. And it’s so neat... (Some laughter while Dave is talking; Gary mimes something and Kathy makes a comment under her breath and laughs.) Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-02 17:19:28.  Face-Saving 191 Dave: (laughing slightly) Now wait a minute, wait a minute. This is fascinating. (General laughter) Gary: I’ve already heard it, so I’m spacing off on my own here. Dave: She made this discovery when she was a grad student. Kathy: Then there’s hope for me yet. (General laughter) Peggy: (pointing to the back of her head) Ah, here are my opiate receptors. Dave: She’s first author, and her male mentor and advisor and teacher is second author. Peggy: Hmmmmm. Dave: There was an award given called the... Kathy: (interrupting) And he got it, right? Dave: (continuing) The Lasky award, which is seen as a stepping stone to ah, to a Nobel prize, and ah... Kathy: What do opiates have to do with men and women? Dave: Now wait a minute. Peggy: (jokingly) Wait, wait—have patience, have faith. Dave: Here’s... here’s your politics in it to start with. Kathy: All right. Dave: She was first author on this paper when this Lasky award was given; it was given to four men. Kathy: Mhmmm. Dave: And she was invited to the awards ceremony. That’s the extent of it. And she talks about it a little bit. Peggy: Oh, marvelous. Dave: But in the interview she talks about the—you know—I can be known as a scorned woman here, but I’ve done some other things since then that are really important to me. And she, she uses the analogy of the brain as a com- puter. And although she doesn’t talk about what we would commonly call software, that’s what you learn, she really, she’s looking at what she calls the hardwiring. The circuitry in the brain. And the differences in male/female circuitry. Peggy: And she’s found some? Dave: She’s found some possibilities. Some probable areas. Now there are differ- ences, there are some other differences that are not just male and female. There are differences, say, between what we would consider healthy, normal personalities and, say, schizophrenia. Peggy: Mhmm. Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. Dave: (There’s a three-second interruption here as someone enters the room, then Dave continues.) Ah, you look at the evolution of language instead of being male oriented and thinking that men had to learn how to use language so that they could coordinate hunting down a large animal. It was women who were the ones who were staying home. Kathy: (sarcastically) To get them out of the cave. (General laughter) Peggy: To talk to the walls. Dave: Yeah, you know talk to walls, talk to the kids. Peggy: Well, that’s interesting. I’d like to read that. Dave: And from the beginning. Yeah, it’s really fascinating because there are detect- able differences in male and female brains. Kathy: Hmmm (makes a face). Peggy: Yeah, I’d like to read that. Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-02 17:19:28.  192 Face-Saving Dave: (to Kathy) You act like I’m being chauvinistic. Peggy: No. Kathy: No, I’m just, I’m... Dave: (interrupting) Oh boy, this is terrible. Gary: She’d act a whole lot worse if you were being chauvinistic. Kathy: Do I act like you’re chauvinistic? Yes. Dave: You made a face. Kathy: (laughing) I’m trying to see inside my brain to see if there are any differences. That’s all. Dave: Differences. What, from mine? Kathy: Yes. Dave: But how can you see mine? Kathy: Oh, I don’t know. I can’t see in mine either. Let me be successful here first. No, I was thinking of brains, young Frankenstein, you know. Dave: (laughing) Oh, yeah. Kathy: Twelve years dead, six months dead, freshly dead. Dave: Yeah, yeah. Kathy: Sorry, Dave, I’m just not on that level today. Dave: No, no. Peggy: Well, I think there are some very definite differences in language use and that would be some clue as to why. I’ve always talked about it being culture, socialization, and that sort of thing, but, ah... Gary: I wonder if there’s a change coming in that with the revolutionary changes in men and women’s roles in society—they’re now becoming different—and if that will have an effect on this too. Peggy: Go back far enough and actually you can see that the species will evolve differently... Initially, the group’s interaction in this exchange consisted primarily of offering and eval- uating information about research on gender differences. Although Peggy did not elabo- rate on her research when Kathy asked her about it, Dave’s comments about the brain’s sensitivity to drugs held the group’s interest and prompted continued interaction on this topic. It became the focus of questions and jokes in the group, and it also raised the issue of how sexual politics becomes involved in research. Dave’s summary of the article he had read and his commentary about the possible implications it might have for under- standing the evolutionary development of male and female language use set the stage for the turn toward individual-centered interaction that took place in this discussion. Copyright © 2021. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. After Dave says, “Yeah, it’s really fascinating because there are detectable differences in male and female brains,” the next twenty speaking turns are focused on Dave’s image in the group. These comments deal with Dave’s relationship to the group rather than with the topic that had surfaced and engaged the group. Kathy’s facial response to Dave’s state- ment made Dave concerned about whether Kathy or the other group members saw him as a chauvinist. Peggy, Gary, and Kathy all attempt to reassure him, although sometimes lightheartedly and perhaps unconvincingly, that he is not seen as a chauvinist because of the way he summarized the article and reacted to it. In the main, the group handles the face-saving concern by joking about the article, becoming somewhat ludicrous (with the references to young Frankenstein’s brain), and finally treating one of Dave’s major points (about the possible value of an evolutionary explanation for language differences) seri- ously. When Peggy and Gary make their comments in the last three speaking turns in this segment, the interaction is turned back to a group focus. The interaction is no longer Folger, Joseph P., et al. Working Through Conflict : Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=6476632. Created from uhdowntown on 2023-10-02 17:19:28.  Face-Saving 193 focused on Dave’s experience in the group and the way he is seen by others. Dave lets his concern about his image drop, and the group continues with an exploration of the merits and problems with research on gender differences. Because people are always concerned about their self-concepts and roles within a dyad, group, or organization, conflict interaction tends to teeter somewhere between group and