Communication Case study

Running Head: COMMUNICATION WITH COWORKERS

Resolving Conflict with Coworkers: A Case Analysis on Face-Negotiation

by

XXXXXX

Resolving Conflict with Coworkers: A Case Analysis on Face-Negotiation

Throughout our professional careers, most people at some point are placed in a work setting with peers who represent a diversity of opinions, backgrounds, and lifestyles. The eight-hour workday demands that we spend more time with our co-workers than with our individual families. Variety may be the “spice of life,” but diversity, particularly in the extreme, may engender feelings of hostility, anxiety, fear, competition, and other negative emotions, which may reduce productivity.

In the family setting, we are individually committed to the resolution of problems because our love and commitment to the relationship demands it. However, in the office setting we rarely are privileged to choose those to whom we are yoked and are therefore less committed to the relationship when problems arise. In truth, many have been required to perform as a team with individuals with whom they have very little in common. We, in fact, are often forced to “marry” ideas with individuals in the professional family who may have character traits that we would never have chosen in a spouse.

Past experiences, religious beliefs, low self-esteem, and socioeconomic backgrounds play a role, which can make the communication processes difficult. These barriers, though may appear insurmountable, can be overcome when time and energy is devoted to the cause. A professional relationship can be built through nurturing just as a spousal relationship grows by the same means. We have a tendency to avoid communication, apologies and reconciliation, and fail to demand respect under the guise of “keeping the peace” when in reality this underlying turmoil remains unresolved and problematic.

There will always be an opportunity for conflict when there is more than one person present, but the opportunity for growth is just as real. In times of conflict, many of us find ourselves in a position of “saving face,” which can make communication arduous. This present study discusses the phenomenon of the face-negotiation theory and how it can be applied in the day-to-day communication process involved in our professional lives.

In this study, I will examine my personal experience with a co-worker at my office. Equivalent to a marriage, I argue that, it requires both of us working toward a common goal, yet we find our energies being expended on different priorities. Since I am in sales and my co-worker is in sales support, surprisingly our perspectives can differ greatly. This can be potentially erosive to the company’s bottom line as well as to morale and trust. Through this case study, I will use face negotiation theory to identify how face threats can cause irreversible effects on a relationship if not identified and managed. This paper will also provide recommendations on how to communicate the right message to my coworker and to promote a positive and professional relationship.

Face-Negotiation Theory

The theory was developed in the late 1970 as a theory to explain how individual maintain and save face. It has three main axioms that are explained below.

Face

Most people are concerned about the personal image, which they project to others. The manner in which others view us can potentially promote our successes or influence our failures in life. Because of this, we often engage in a type of dance with our counterparts, which we hope will influence their opinion and ingratiate their feelings toward us. As stated in Matsu and Tin-Toomey’s (1992) summary, “Communication can cement a relationship; it can also function as a barrier” (p. 1). These verbal and nonverbal cues become a negotiation to “save face” and they are not isolated to the American culture alone, but exist in people of every race and gender. This is also important to understand when applying to business communications within different cultural settings. Em Griffin (2003) describes Ting–Toomey’s face-negotiation theory as:

In conflict situations, mutual and other-face concerns of people in collectivistic cultures cause them to give face to others by avoiding, obliging, or compromising. Self-face concerns of people in individualistic cultures cause them to restore their own face by dominating, expressing emotion, or displaying passive aggression. Both cultures use integrating and third-party help, but in different ways. (p. A-17)

Individualistic and Collectivistic Cultures

This “cross-cultural” theory differentiates in differing styles of conflict between “individualist,” also referred to as “low-context” cultures, and the “collectivistic” cultures, which refers to the “high-context” cultures. “Low-context” cultures primarily consist of Western cultures while “high-context” cultures consist of mainly Eastern cultures. Individualism focuses on the “I” approach while collectivism focuses on a “we” approach. Various cultures view “face” and their individual role in “face-work” in ways, which are directly linked to the acceptable standards of their respective societies.

“Ting-Toomey’s face-negotiation theory suggests that face maintenance is the crucial intervening variable that ties cultures to people’s way of handling conflict” (Griffin, 2006, p. 440). Face-negotiation theory asserts that the “facework” of people from “low-context” cultures like the United States, Canada, and Australia will be significantly different from the “facework” of people from “high-context” cultures like Japan or China. According to Ting-Toomey (1992), “Face is a universal phenomenon because everyone would like to be respected; everyone needs a sense of self-respect. But how we manage the strategies in maintaining, saving, or honoring one’s face differs across cultures” (p. 3).

Conflict Management Styles

According to this theory, there are five traditional “management styles” that have surfaced in Western countries. These management styles include avoiding, obliging, compromising, dominating, and integrating. Although my case study will not address these five styles, instead I will focus on Ting-Toomey and Oetzel’s three added styles, which are emotional expression, passive aggression, and third-party help (Ting-Toomey, Oetzel, & Yee-Jung, 2002). Emotional expression relays to what your “gut” and “heart” tell you to do. Passive aggression pertains to the behavior in which passive resistance is shown to demands,” while third-party help is to recruit the support of another party. “The ways in which various cultures view ‘face’ and their individual role in ‘face-work’ will determine the approach to conflict management” (Gallagher, 2006).

Background

Currently, I am a sales representative for ADT Security Services, we provide installation, service, and monitoring for business and residential security systems. It is my job to locate and recruit new sales through self-generated leads while also working assigned company leads. Self-generated leads consist of business that I have solicited personally. My position as a sales rep is based strictly on 100% commission sales. Those who have participated in this type of sales will verify that feelings of anxiety are easily generated under the best of circumstances. When situations arise which can potentially jeopardize or even sabotage your best sales efforts, they may be extremely difficult to manage and may require more energy and creativity to problem solve in an effort to save the sale.

In every work environment there seem to be certain individuals and situations, which inevitably make our jobs more challenging and difficult to execute. The following scenario unfolded a few months ago and created global dissention between client, sales representative, customer service, and technical and sales support. A customer specifically requested a Saturday appointment because their schedule would not allow them to meet with an installation technician during the week. Since technicians work only on a voluntary basis on Saturdays and are not required to work on the weekends, the voluntarily scheduled Saturday appointments can be booked up to a month in advance as they were for this customer.

Four weeks later, on the morning of my customer’s scheduled appointment, I received a call from an irate customer inquiring as to why the technician had not arrived. Her aggravation was fueled by the fact that she had other obligations to fulfill with which this delayed install was interfering. I immediately contacted my coworker who was responsible for scheduling the appointment to verify who the technician was and why he had not yet arrived. My coworker advised me that she did not have my customer on the schedule and could not recall ever making an appointment for her.

Over the next few moments, I found myself executing the fanciest of footwork in an attempt to placate both parties and occupying the position of advocate for the customer and defender of the company all at once. I realized that I had one last opportunity to “make things right” before I lost the sale. When the reality of losing the sale became apparent, I knew I must be aggressive in rescheduling the customer’s install date. Knowing that the following Saturday’s schedule would probably be booked, I immediately contacted my coworker’s voicemail to inform her that booked or not, we had no recourse but to squeeze this customer into the schedule, if we valued his business and desired to save the sale.

I felt it was necessary not to place blame on my coworker since none of us are exempt from making mistakes, but at the same time I wanted to leave no room for debate on the rescheduled appointment that I had promised the customer. Very rarely do I make promises like these to my customer, particularly when it involves the commitment of other departments without first consulting them, but I could not allow us to lose this customer over a petty miscommunication between my sales support team and me. Needless to say, this aggressive action did not set well with my coworker. Her reaction to my message ignited a poor attitude and a delay in returning my phone calls. It was not until I confronted her about her behavior that she was forced to communicate her feelings with me.

Analysis

Face Negotiation theory highlights the communication between my coworker and me. I will be using primarily the conflict management styles of the face negotiation theory. Although avoiding, obliging, compromising, domination and integrating are the five basic management styles listed in this theory; I will be applying Ting-Toomey and Oetzel’s (2002) added styles of emotional expression, passive aggression, and third-party help to this interoffice scenario. I hope that through the application of this theory, I will enhance the effectiveness of my communication between me and the sales support team.

Emotional Expression

The definition of emotional expression is relayed to what your “gut” and “heart” tell you to do, and as a result allowing those feelings to show (Griffin, 2006, p. 446). I am persuaded that my emotional expression was demonstrated in this particular situation by the “gut feeling” that this customer did not receive fair treatment from the company, which I represented. When the customer buys into the initial presentation of my product, I begin to take a type of “ownership” of his account. Every behavior that I demonstrate from that point is for the purpose of establishing a trustworthy relationship. I essentially have established a stake in the transaction. Losing a customer’s trust is as disheartening to me as losing a sale, and I felt in this situation that both were in jeopardy. Because of this, I automatically assumed a defensive posture on the customer’s behalf. This defensive posture evoked a defensive stance from my coworker as well. We both felt that we were competent in our roles and were going to take offense if anyone implied anything differently.

Passive Aggression

According to an online dictionary (“Passive-aggressive,” 2006), passive aggression is pertaining to behavior in which feelings of aggression are expressed in passive ways, for example, by stubbornness, sullenness, procrastination or intentional inefficiency. It is my opinion that my sales support team member by this definition demonstrated passive aggression by failing to return my phone calls. Additionally, my coworker failed to engage in problem solving discussions or offer any ownership of the miscommunication. This failed attempt to communicate bred feelings of animosity and widened the rift making it very difficult if not impossible to resolve the conflict. It further disabled me from scheduling future appointments. Because of this “face saving” passive aggressive behavior, I was forced to solicit help from a third party to settle the issue.

Third-party Help

Third-party help is when you “enlist” the support of another party, preferably someone who is known and admired by both parties. Although this is not a common practice in individualistic societies, it is a concept that should be embraced and activated in our professional surroundings. Out of a sense of frustration and with a determination to see that the customer’s needs would be met and trust restored, I enlisted the help of the service department to assist me in accomplishing the goal. This third party was sensitive to the customer’s need and was willing to operate outside of their usual boundaries to achieve the customer’s complete satisfaction.

Recommendations

Through the dialogue that my coworker and I had, it became apparent that my coworker suffers form the same character trait that I do, which is perfectionism. She could not bear to think that she had made a potentially costly mistake. In essence, her metaperspective (her seeing me seeing her) forced her into a position to “save face.” According to Griffin (2006),

Threats to our own image can be like slaps or punches to the face. When that happens, do we feel the sting and try to fix the damage by justifying our actions or blaming the situation? Or perhaps we counterpunch and fight back? People from individualistic societies tend to retroactively regain lost face by using these self-face restoration strategies. (p. 444)

I feel that the above statement qualified my co-worker’s response. The fact that she felt my voice message was accusatory leads me to believe that she was looking for someone to blame in order to shift the attention off her mistake.

According to Ting-Toomey’s (1999) face-negotiation theory, “She believes that cultural knowledge, mindfulness, and facework interaction skill are the three requirements for effectively communicating” (p. vii). I have found this to be applicable to my case as well. Knowledge of each coworker’s department and responsibilities helps to better equip me in knowing the proper avenue to pursue when booking my jobs or solving a customer service issue. Mindfulness of my coworker’s schedules and workloads incorporates a mutual respect that everyone deserves. Every department, on the other hand, must implement interaction skill. This is what makes us a team. None of the individual departments (sales, service, administration, etc.) can carry the goals of the company single handedly.

Knowledge

Knowledge is considered “the most important dimension of facework competence” (Griffin, 2006). It is hard for me and my coworker to be effective in our positions if we do not have a fundamental knowledge of the operations of the organization. A greater dimension of this knowledge is obtaining a good understanding of the role of each department and how they are executed. I like to think of an organization as one body with each department representing an extension of the body. For example, the finance department represents one arm of the body, where the sales department represents another arm, and so forth. In other words, both my coworker and I need to be aware that one extension without the other leaves a handicapped body or organization, which ultimately exacts a cost that is paid by the customer. Both my coworker and I would have been much more effective if we could have put our insecurities and assumptions aside and instead focused on how the communication occurred and what needed to be done to alleviate the chances of it happening again. Eliminating these issues requires attention to problem solving and willingness on the part of those who are involved to engage in the process. Cross training individuals from different departments as well as holding regular informational meetings may be a beginning. Focusing on education pertaining to the roles of each department, with an emphasis on teamwork to promote efficiency and interoffice relationships are effective tools, which can be used to reach established goals. The more team focused we become, the more mindful we will be of our coworkers, and this becomes the lubricant of a well-oiled machine.

Mindfulness

In order for us to be effective communicators, it is essential that we become mindful of each other. We need to be alert to the fact that “things are not always as they appear.” Remember, perception may be our reality but is not always our counterpart’s reality. Being mindful is making “a conscious choice to seek multiple perspectives” (Griffin, 2006, p. 449). Ting-Toomey writes:

Mindfulness means being particularly aware of our own assumptions, viewpoints, and ethnocentric tendencies in entering any unfamiliar situation. Simultaneously, mindfulness means paying attention to the perspectives and interpretive lenses of dissimilar others in viewing an intercultural episode. (Ting-Toomey, 1999, p. vii)

In any situation, particularly a potential conflict or miscommunication, we must be careful not to have a “knee jerk” reaction. Many times if we will allow ourselves the opportunity to converse with the opposite party instead of reacting out of anger or fear, we facilitate a solution to the problem in a way that accommodates every party involved. In my role as a sales representative, I not only have to be mindful of my customers and what is within their best interest, but I must also be mindful of my coworkers and their contributions to the company as well. Being mindful is the beginning of being an effective communicator, but it will not stand on its own. Our mindfulness must be translated into actions to equivocate effective communication.

Interaction Skill

As in Clinton’s (1996) book It Takes a Village, Mrs. Clinton references that it requires more than one individual to raise a child. This concept, with some variation, is similarly applied in my line of business. One of the more valuable lessons I have learned in my job is that it truly takes all departments to complete a sale. I may make the initial sale, which at times can appear to be the biggest hurdle, but it also requires a knowledgeable install team, accurate administrative staff, and dedicated service department in order to close the sale. If these departments do not effectively interact, the sale may easily be forfeited and all of my efforts to rescue it would be in vain. Since this incident, I have tried to incorporate interaction skill as part of the healing process between my coworker and me. If I am in the office and have any extra time, I make it a point to go to my sales support team and ask if there is anything I can do to help make their jobs easier. Sometimes this means making copies for them and other times it entails me “lending an ear.” Regardless of whether or not I make an impact on their workload, it is allowing the opportunity for effective communication.

In conclusion, communication between individuals is contingent upon many variables. The receiver does not always correctly interpret a message relayed by the sender. Unless the receiver gives correct feedback, one cannot safely assume that he has received the intended message. By definition, communication involves the interchange of thoughts between two or more individuals. Gaining feedback from the receiver remains the only way to confirm that an interchange of ideas has occurred. This leads us to believe that this process has not officially been completed unless both parties have expressed themselves effectively, fulfilling the definition and making communication a two-way street. It is important to know that the ways in which cultures view ‘face’ and their individual role in ‘facework’ will determine the approach to conflict management. In order to maintain effective communication, we must have a desire to become more knowledgeable, be mindful of others, and implement good interaction skills.

References

Clinton, H. R. (1996). It takes a village: and other lessons children teach us. New York:

Simon & Schuster.

Gallagher, E. (n.d.). Stella Ting-Toomey’s face-negotiation theory. Retrieved October 1, 2006,

from http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~eg515298/face.htm

Griffin, E. (2006). A first look at communication theory (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Griffin, E. (2003). A first look at communication theory (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Passive-aggressive behavior. (2006). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

Retrieved December 4, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Passive-aggressive_behavior&oldid=90839422

Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across culture. New York: Guilford.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1992). Cross-cultural face-negotiation: an analytical overview. In Pacific

region forum. Retrieved October 1, 2006, from the University at Harbour Centre Web site: http://www.cic.sfu.ca/forum/ting-too.html

Ting-Toomey, S., Oetzel, J., & Yee-Jung, K. (2002). Self-construal types and conflict

management styles. Communication Reports, 14, 87-104.