Stacy Roberts November 3, 2004 Dr. Hasenauer COMS 651
Face Management in the Workplace
Committees, groups, staff meetings, and interactive
conferences are part and parcel of the working environment. Working in a typical office environment requires consistent meetings and agendas in which group members deliberate over items like policy, procedures, work loads, and many other issues pertaining to the group’s overall success and
productivity.
We are all familiar with how it feels to be
part of a meeting, where the dynamic isn’t exactly calm and serene. group or Most often, when discussing issues relating to individual group performance, tend to productivity, become defensive, and or
competence, withdrawn.
members
These reactions are normal, and can be clarified with the theory of face management. In this paper, I will
outline the theory of face management and explore the ways in which individuals manage “face” in the workplace. I
will then describe three basic “faces” which emerge from group discussion, members and of how each face is represented I by
certain identify
the as
group. leaders,
Specifically, managers,
will team
individuals
and
members, and how each one handles potential threats that occur in group discussions. Goffman (1967) was the first individual to introduce the concept of face and facework into social science
research.
The basic premise behind the face management
theory is that all humans have “face” which Goffman (1967) defines as “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself/herself by the line others assume he/she has taken during a particular contact” (p. 5). In other
words, face is considered to be the social image one has of himself/herself based on other’s approval and acceptance. For example, if an employee believes that her manager doesn’t have confidence in her work ethic and performance, then she will consider her social image at work to be that of a substandard when an employee. individual This is presents questioned a problem, the
especially
within
context of a group meeting.
Face threatening acts, which
Brown and Levinson (1987) define as “those acts that by their nature run contrary of the to the face wants of the are
addressee certain
and/or such
speaker”
(p.
65).
There
acts
as,
requests,
suggestions,
criticism,
warnings, and reminders which are often discussed in group meetings, which inadvertently threaten a negative face,
thus creating a negative self image for an employee.
Within the context of face management theory, it is important (1995) to acknowledge three face “needs” face as well. which Fagre are
describes
different
needs
exhibited by members of a group depending on what is deemed as important by each member. The first is “autonomy face”
which is exhibited in a group member who wants to project an image of a mature, responsible adult, in control of his or her own fate (p. 102). The main concerns held by those
who value an autonomy face are that they want to be viewed as self-sufficient, independent, and reliable. In my opinion, these individuals are often seen as silent leaders within the group because they want others to view them as a valuable member, who has the ability to contribute in a way that promotes the success of the group. Valuing self-sufficiency who is part creates of and a an independence team, yet reflects lead which an by is
individual example.
prefers face
This
autonomous
comfortable for those who want to contribute, but do not necessarily want to focus entirely on team unity. When autonomous individuals feel that they are being constrained or imposed on by others, they can become
defensive and threatened. According to Fagre (1995), tools which listen can help to protect one’s autonomy face are, to
without
judgment,
ask
open-ended
questions
which
foster choice among members, and to use reality testing to explore various options without excluding anyone (p. 103). Each of these tactics is representative of a person who chooses to lead without becoming too attached to the team, or too involved as an outspoken manager or leader. The second is the “fellowship face”, which is mainly concerned with the need to feel a part of a group, and create promote a team atmosphere progress. which I will aid the group and
positive
believe
that
individuals
concerned with fellowship are often seen as team members, who are focused on group cohesiveness, and equal
participation from all members.
Fellowship oriented group
members do not stand out as leaders or examples by which to follow, rather they are constantly pulling the group
together so that no one is left behind. In group conflict, a “fellowship face” oriented group member will struggle with conflict if he/she experiences feelings of jealousy, fear, and/or mistrust. overcome these negative feelings, he/she can In order to stress the
notion of teamwork, and how much the team has accomplished together (Fagre, 1995, p. 103). group conflict are geared The strategies to overcome towards bringing everyone
together in a way that places emphasis on the team.
The
third,
“competence
face”,
is
valued
by
group
members who want to identify with a particular role without question. by their For example, service providers want to be viewed customers price. as It providing is quality service at a
competitive
important
for
individuals
concerned with competence to exhibit a face which is viewed as reliable, and exceptional to all members of the group. I believe these individuals are typically managers because they tend to act as the facilitator and are part of a relationship between group members and themselves based on trust and leadership. Competence oriented individuals not
only lead by example, and focus on the team, but they evoke the positive aspects of all individuals in order to
accomplish the task at hand. If conflict should arise, these individuals are one step ahead of the game, as they acknowledge one another’s ability to solve disagreements collaboratively instead of competitively moderator, (Fagre, guide 1995). the The group goal is to act as a
and
through
problems
and
disagreements in order to produce a successful product. Each face management tactic; autonomy, fellowship, and competence, help to create a working environment which
promotes group effectiveness and cohesion.
It was shown
that the “autonomous face” represents individuals who value
their own time and space, and choose to lead by example for other members. who The focus “fellowship on group is face” is and valued by
individuals where
cohesion not
inclusion, a main
outstanding
leadership
necessarily
concern. managers
And lastly, the “competence face” is exhibited by who want to ensure and that fairly, group discussions are
facilitated
properly
while
neutralizing Each face
statements which can be perceived as negative.
brings different strengths and weaknesses to the group, and represents face needs as universal human needs that arise often in intergroup relationships.
References Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). universals in language usage. Press. Fagre, L. (1995). in community mediation. Association: Recognizing disputants’ face needs Western States Communication Politeness: University Some
Cambridge:
Portland, OR. On face work. Interaction New
Goffman, E. (1967). ritual:
Essays on face-to-face behavior (pp. 5-45).
York: Pantheon.