Americans love stories about âself-madeâ men or women. That famous Americans can often redeem themselvesâeven after horrific scandalsâsuggests that the remaking of self is possible too. Consider the example of golfer Tiger Woods. Woods enjoyed unprecedented success in his career from 1996 to 2009, winning 104 tournaments, 78 of those on the PGA Tour. His glory days seemed to have come to an end in late 2009. In the wee hours of the morning, Woods crashed his car into a fire hydrant just outside his home. A tabloid fueled interest in the incident by leaking accusations that Woods cheated on his wife. In the ensuing media storm, reporters and the public questioned details of the crash, including the timing of the accident as well as whether the golferâs wife, Elin, had actually smashed the car window with a golf club, aiming for the golferâs head. Soon, Woods released a statement admitting, âThis situation is my fault, and itâs obviously embarrassing to my family and me. Iâm human and Iâm not perfect.â He promised to âmake sure this doesnât happen again.â More revelations of affairs, however, caused a number of sponsors to drop the Woods brand and ushered in an era of poor showings for Woods on the golf circuit. By 2012 though, Woods had completed a comeback, capturing three tournaments in one season. The American public continued to be captivated by the excellence he displayed in his sport. Though his performance subsequently faltered, he managed to regain his standing to some extent, keeping contracts and developing a celebrity relationship. This is possible in the United States, where achievement and competence raise a personâs status and self-esteem (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993).
Americans find professional competence to be one of the requirements for credibility in politics as well as in sports. Thus, Elliot Spitzer, who resigned from his position as governor of New York in 2008 for patronizing an elite escort service, was able to run for New York City comptroller just 5 years later. Figures such as Woods and Spitzer were able to move relatively quickly from infamy to acceptance because Americans believe that reputation can be restored or reconstructed. We see our âfaceââthe positive social value we effectively claim for ourselvesâas negotiated during the process of communicating (Goffman, 1967).
Other cultures, however, have different assumptions about the concept of face. For example, those from collectivistic cultures like China, believe that face is hierarchical and embedded in the status quo (Lee & Peterson, 2001; Merkin, Taras, & Steel, 2014), thus precluding the possibility of managing oneâs face (as in the case of moving from one social class to another). Such perceptions provide fewer opportunities to regain face after losing it, thereby increasing the stakes of losing face. Consequently, though âsaving faceâ and âlosing faceâ are familiar terms. Few Americans really understand their full range of meaning, particularly for those in collectivistic cultures. In fact, the method of approaching anotherâs face plays a vital role in the success or failure of cross-cultural interactions for individuals and for organizations.
The term âlosing faceâ is an English translation of the Chinese phrase âtiu lienâ. This phrase reflects the idea that when people feel disgraced, they do not like to show their faces in public. In China, once face is lost, it is irretrievable. In Eastern countries, face is considered to be the respectability and/or deference which people claim for themselves from others by virtue of the relative position they occupy in social networks (Ho, 1976, p. 883). As a result, in Eastern cultures, people are judged based on their position and how appropriately they function in that position. This view of face is not as transient as ours in the United States because it is focused on a personâs stable hierarchical position or, in some cases, their caste. Thus, their identity is immutableâa fact they expect to be acknowledged and reaffirmed in any successful interaction. If we misunderstand this, it could spell the end of a fruitful relationship before it has a chance to flourish.
To better understand how cultures differ, theorists describe how cultural values vary. Geert Hofstede, a renowned Dutch researcher, studied how basic cultural values underlie organizational behavior. Using a sample of over 110,000 people in more than 50 countries, he developed a framework composed of four dimensions of cultural values that explain how people from different cultures communicate throughout the world. Hofstedeâs (2001) cultural values include individualism-collectivism (values on group membership), power distance (values on how to relate to authority), masculinity-femininity (values on using competitiveness versus cooperativeness), and uncertainty avoidance (varying needs to reduce uncertainty). Cultures fall on points along a continuum of these values. Hofstedeâs work applies these values to the kinds of underlying thinking people have when presenting their face to others during face-threatening situations. Understanding both cultural values and face-saving concepts can benefit practitioners, multinational managers, and the general public. By becoming more culturally literate, individuals are likely to become more able to accomplish their goals.
It is just as central for travelers to understand how the concept of face shapes the way people communicate and receive responses in different cultures as it is to learn something about the countryâs weather or language. This is because real cross-cultural communication transpires on a deeper level and reflects peopleâs underlying values. These values are hard to define, however, until they are trampled upon, often inadvertently. But, the values are there and they matter because the people holding these values believe they are right and that those violating them have done something wrong.
For example, when handed a business card in Japan, if an American pockets the card without exclaiming over it, he or she may be shutting the door to future relations right there and then because this is considered to be a sign of disrespect. In Japanese culture, people expect business cards to be immediately inspected and admired, then placed on the table in front of the receiver for the duration of the meeting as a show of respect for the other person. When the meeting is over, cards should be stored respectfully and should never be placed in a back pocket. One should also never write on a business card. If individuals want to be taken seriously at a business meeting, they also must have business cards which are taken out of a card holder, not just out of a pocket. Why? In Japanese culture, the business card is a personâs face and, in turn, your face is also reflected in your treatment of this card when you are with others who hold this belief. In short, to succeed at cross-cultural communication without violating othersâ assumptions and rituals, we must be able to read and understand the meanings they convey through their behavior while communicating to preserve face for all. The business card is just one example of the myriad ways that relationships could get off to a poor start. To assure better cross-cultural experiences, understanding the tacit beliefs people from other cultures hold is essential.
Generally speaking, when people meet colleagues abroad they have goals in mind, but some persuasive tactics that are useful in the US can backfire abroad. Before such meetings, planning communication strategies based on cultural modes practiced by the other party often is the key to success. Moreover, if inappropriate communication maneuvers are carried out, it is possible that both the perpetrators and their counterparts (e.g., their partners in business) could end up losing face as a result of cultural misunderstandings.
For example, on January 8, 1992, US President George Bush went to Japan with Lee Iacocca and other American business magnates on a 12 day mission to improve trade relations with Japan. The delegation attempted to mandate that Japanese leaders buy more American automobiles and communicated this directly by making demands. However, to the Japanese, it is considered rude and a sign of ignorance or desperation to lower oneself to make direct demands. Therefore, instead of appearing as a statesman, President Bush seemed to have demeaned himself by appearing desperate to sell US cars. Whatâs more, in Japan, trade relations are handled exclusively by lower-level assistants.
This bad impression was worsened by a mealtime faux pas that some consider the most embarrassing diplomatic incident in recent US history. Losing control is looked down upon by the Japanese. When at a state dinner for over 100 diplomats held at the home of the Japanese Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa, President Bush experienced unexpected intense gastric distress, vomited into the lap of Miyazawa, and fainted; he did not appear to have personal control or leadership. Back home, footage of the president vomiting was broadcast on TV and became subject matter for late night comedians. This fiasco resulted in Mr. Bush losing face in front of the Japanese and before the whole world. In the end, President Bushâs failure to tailor his initial message to Japanese cultural sensitivities deprived him of the goodwill that might have allowed people to see his misfortune at the dinner table as merely an unavoidable accident caused by illness.
US businessman Lee Iacoccaâs communication style was not much better. During his visit with President Bush, he also made insulting direct demands. Furthermore, when he returned from this trade mission, instead of attempting to repair their relationship, he proceeded to deride the Japanese government for helping its own automobile industry while sinking the USâs. Mr. Iacoccaâs public remarks disparaging the Japanese infuriated the President of the Nissan Car Company and the Chairman of the Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association, Mr. Yutaka Kume who responded, âMr Iococcaâs behavior and remarks are outrageous and insulting to us.â Then he swore never to meet with those Americans again (Mantle, 2011).
These two examples reflect some of the most common circumstances in which face is threatened: cross-cultural relations, initial interactions, requests, and conflict. Intercultural communication is potentially threatening to face by definition because, in todayâs world, people of all cultures experience a heightened risk of losing face if they do not interact with those from different cultures in a mindful way. Those from different cultures think and communicate differently because of varying cultural dimensions that affect human behavior (Hofstede, 2001; Young, 2013).
Meeting people for the first time is also potentially face-threatening because initial conversations are personal investments in future social interactions (Svennevig, 1999). Interactions carry risk because the individuals do not always know how the other person feels about them. Thus, people often do not express verbal messages about what or whom they like because it may be easier for them to deny their feelings as a way to save face if the feeling is not mutual. Because cultures vary in their rules for emotional disclosure, it is important to understand othersâ rules well before initial meetings.
Because requests could cause a person to lose face, they are often expressed as a question. For example, when someone asks a question like âIs there any coffee ...