Theoretical Origins and Context
Face negotiation theory is a theory conceived by Stella Ting-Toomey in 1985, to understand how people from different cultures manage rapport and disagreements. The theory posited "face", or self-image when communicating with others, as a universal phenomenon that pervades across cultures (Rahim,2003 )
The theory was born as a result of Ting-Toomey's frustration with the interpersonal conflict communication theories that were popular in the 1980s. At that time, theories emphasized the value of self-disclosure (Rahim,2002) , which did not adequately account for cultural variations in communication and conflict management styles.
Ting-Toomey (1988) drew on the work of Goffman (1955) and Brown and Levinson (1987) to develop the face-negotiation theory. The face-negotiation theory provides a sound explanatory framework for explaining differences and similarities in face and facework during conflict. In a nutshell, the face negotiation theory argues 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 (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey,2003).
Core Theoretical Concept: "Face" Ting-Toomey (1988, 1994, 1998,2001)
The central concept of Face Negotiation Theory is "face," which refers to "face" as a metaphor for self-image . More comprehensively, the meaning of face is generally conceptualized as how we want others to see us and treat us and how we actually present ourselves in social interactions (Rahim & Bonoma, 1979).
As social beings, most of us have the experiences of blushing, feeling embarrassed, awkward, shameful, or prideful. Many of these feelings are face-related issues. When our social poise is attacked or teased, we feel the need to restore or save face. When we are being complimented or given recognition, we experience face-enhancement.
Stella Ting-Toomey and Michael Cole explore the role of facework in intergroup and intercultural diplomatic communication. Drawing on the theoretical foundation of Face-Negotiation Theory (FNT), they argue that cross-cultural conflicts often stem from differing cultural expectations about how individuals manage face—the public image one tries to maintain in social interactions. (Ting-Toomey & Cole, 1990)
Fundamental Theoretical Propositions
Cultural Dimensions Framework
The theory is built upon Hofstede's cultural dimensions, particularly the individualism-collectivism continuum:
According to Hofstede (1980), an individualistic culture lays emphasis on the identity of the "I" while collectivist cultures place more importance on the "we" and the harmony in groups
In Ting-Toomey's theory of face negotiation theory, individualism and collectivism are one of the main differences between Eastern and Western cultures. Individualistic cultures are less common than collectivistic cultures, as they make up only about ⅓ of the world
Application to Conflict Management
The face negotiation theory explains how cultural difference in people influence in managing conflicts. The theory was formulated by Stella Ting-Toomey, professor of human communication at California State University
Face Negotiation Theory seeks to explain and understand the dynamics of intercultural communication. People from individualistic cultures, including most Americans, and people from collectivistic cultures, such as Appalachia, use different ways to save face and resolve conflict (Flick, 2013)
Theoretical Components and Framework
1. Types of Face Concerns
The theory identifies three primary types of face concerns:
- Self-Face: Concern for protecting one's own image and dignity
- Other-Face: Concern for protecting the other party's image and dignity
- Mutual Face: Concern for protecting both parties' images simultaneously
2. Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs)
Drawing from politeness theory, Face Negotiation Theory recognizes that certain communicative acts can threaten face, requiring strategic negotiation to maintain relationships while addressing conflicts.
3. Facework Strategies
The theory outlines various facework strategies used across cultures:
- Face-Saving: Preventive strategies to avoid face loss
- Face-Restoring: Corrective strategies to repair damaged face
- Face-Giving: Supportive strategies to enhance others' face
Cultural Variations in Face Negotiation
Individualistic Cultures:
- Emphasis on self-face and personal autonomy
- Direct confrontation and explicit communication
- Task-oriented conflict resolution
- Protection of individual rights and freedoms
Collectivistic Cultures:
- Emphasis on other-face and mutual face
- Indirect communication and harmony preservation
- Relationship-oriented conflict resolution
- Group cohesion and social stability priorities
Practical Applications and Implications
The Face Negotiation Theory is how people negotiate according to where they are from. For example, negotiators from the US value freedom and personal rights and incorporate that in their negotiation strategies
The theory has significant applications in:
- Intercultural business negotiations
- International diplomacy
- Cross-cultural conflict mediation
- Multicultural organizational management
- International education and exchange programs
Academic Significance and Contributions
Face Negotiation Theory represents a significant advancement in intercultural communication theory by:
- Cultural Specificity: Moving beyond Western-centric communication theories to include diverse cultural perspectives
- Practical Utility: Providing concrete frameworks for managing intercultural conflicts
- Theoretical Integration: Combining anthropological, psychological, and communication theories
- Empirical Foundation: Establishing measurable constructs for cross-cultural research
References
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Flink, C. M. (2013). Multidimensional Conflict and Organizational Performance. The American Review of Public Administration, 45(2), 182-200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074013490825 (Original work published 2015)
Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry, 18, 213-231
Rahim, M. A., & Bonoma, T. V. (1979). Managing organizational conflict: A model for diagnosis and intervention. Psychological Reports, 44(3_suppl), 1323–1344.
- Rahim M.A (2002). Toward a Theory of Managing Organizational Conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002
- Rahim M.A (2003) . Toward a Theory of Managing Organizational Conflict October 2003 International Journal of Conflict Management 13(3)
- Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213-235). Sage Publications.
- Ting-Toomey, S., & Cole, M. (1990). Intergroup diplomatic communication: A face-negotiationperspective. In F. Korzenny & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communicating for peace: Diplomacy and negotiation across cultures (pp. 77-95). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
- Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(2), 187-225.
- Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). The challenge of facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues. SUNY Press.
- Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (2001). Managing intercultural conflict effectively. Sage Publications.
- Oetzel, J., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2003). Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: A cross-cultural empirical test of the face negotiation theory. Communication Research, 30(6), 599-624.