The difference is how they behave in conflict situations due to their social upbringing, as Asians belong to collectivist culture and they think of their whole group before making any decision and try to negotiate to protect their image in conflicts unlike Americans. Cultural differences create communication as a response to conflicts. Face Negotiation Theory talks about keeping or saving face in conflict situations according to the culture of people involved.
They have no place in dealing with workplace associates. Research indicates that those who have the means to threaten tend to use it. It also shows that threat leaves a trail of hostility that does not fade from memory. Threats, even when not executed, destroy or jeopardize relationships.
The negative consequences of threats are hard to predict but not likely benign. The other will never fully trust you again.
They may have the means to counter your threats with worse ones of their own. As for lying, if you have ever worked with anyone who lies or seeks to mislead by bluffing, you know how hard it is to believe anything they say.
After a few experiences like that you avoid them as much as possible. Negotiating with such people is not apt to result in an agreement they will later honor.
Lasting relationships with liars and bluffers is not possible. Another trait that proves difficult in negotiation is dealing with people who conduct themselves in an arrogant or domineering manner. As a salesperson I have dealt with buyers who stormed into our conference room as though they were above anyone there.
They made it clear that we were subservient to them and in the bargaining room only by their good graces. All they accomplished by putting us down by their arrogance was to set the stage for paying a higher price than they might have otherwise paid. They try to leave the other a graceful way to retreat from any position taken.
They take the time to frame their opposition in such a way that the other can agree without losing the good regard of associates. They do this in several ways. The key to leaving the other side a face-saving way to retreat from their position lies not in manipulation or the clever phraseology of a demand or offer.
It rests on conditioning the request for concession or other benefit on the motivations of the concession-maker and the values they wish to achieve.
Your offer to sell at that price is appreciated but leaves us little room for healthy growth. We believe a lower price will benefit both of us because it would allow us to sell more to our customers and therefore buy more from you.
Another way to save face for those they oppose is by handling threats carefully. When, in the heat of negotiation, they are tempted to threaten someone, they avoid it. Threat, whether carried out or not, demeans the other.
It treats them like a child. Threat, not carried out, results in the loss of face for the threatener. The Chinese, in their desire for social and business harmony, have built strong defenses against dysfunctional disagreement. There is always the possibility of deadlock. Both parties are there for a reason, and if talks fail they can both expect to lose something.
This is never an easy choice. We know that threat creates hostility and may have unexpected consequences. Before using threats in a negotiation, I suggest you consider the following precautions: First, threats have to credible.
The other party must believe that the threat will be carried out. The person who threatens but fails to follow through loses authority.
A threat is likely to be believed if the threatening party has made good on previous threats. Second, threats have to be proportional to the problem at hand. Third, before threatening, be sure you have the resources to follow through.
Above all, be sure that your organization is willing to back you in taking the necessary action. Fourth, threats may win momentary concessions, but they leave a residue of anger. Threatened sellers may get revenge later by overcharging on specification changes or by increasing prices when the balance of power favors them.Politeness, Face and Facework: Current Issues face-saving view, as it builds on Goffman’s () notion of face and on and what kinds of social relationships will trigger face-protective strategies.
Most of the research into politeness since the republication of. Let’s face facts. At the very core of your fiduciary duty to your client is the idea that you need to work hard to get them the best price.
That means if you’re shying away from negotiating, you need to toughen up and learn from the best. So Persian speakers use some strategies in saving the face or personality of each other while they communicate.
The most frequent way to express face saving act is the application of first person plural pronoun "شما" instead of first person singular "تو". A Face Negotiation Perspective Communicating for Peace.
Sage. Yang, Martin C. Negotiation Skills Saving Face in Negotiations. Often in a negotiation people will continue to hold out not because the proposal on the table is inherently unacceptable, but simply because they want to avoid the feeling or the appearance of backing down to the other side.
This discussion was held at the 3 day executive education workshop for senior executives at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.
Guhan Subramanian is the Professor of Law and Business at the Harvard Law School and Professor of Business Law at the Harvard Business School.
Saving Face Saving Face In Shooting an Elephant by George Orwells, the author narrates an incident when he was an unhappy British police officer in Burma faced with the predicament to shoot an elephant and safe face, Face Saving Negotiation Strategies Essay Chapter Two.