S AV I N G FA C E

IN BUSINESS
M a n a g i n g C r o s s - Cu l t u r a l I n t e r a c t i o n s

REBECCA S. MERKIN
Saving Face in Business
 Rebecca S. Merkin

Saving Face in Business

Managing Cross-Cultural Interactions
Rebecca S. Merkin
Baruch College, CUNY
New York, NY, USA

ISBN 978-1-137-59173-9 ISBN 978-1-137-59174-6 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59174-6
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017940597

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher,
whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation,
reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any
other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic
adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or
hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the
publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The
publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

Cover credit: Cover © Rawpixel/Getty Images

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Nature America Inc.
The registered company address is: 1 New York Plaza, New York, NY 10004, U.S.A.
 PREFACE

The purpose of this book is to provide an overview on the research on

culture and saving face as it relates to business. More specifically, this book
serves the purposes of (1) identifying the different ways saving face
underlies the many relationships that evolve and exist in the course of
doing business, (2) explaining the types of facework communication
strategies one would be most likely to encounter when interacting with
those from other cultures with different worldviews from one’s own, and
(3) providing models with which to strategize one’s own facework to
coordinate with the likely reactions others may have upon us. The studies
examined and reported in this book are carried out specifically on the
group-level of analysis and corresponding cross-cultural communication is
examined from a group-level perspective. Case studies were provided to
enable others to experientially examine cross-cultural face threats from
different viewpoints.
Some of the circumstances that are examined in this book that relate to
how employees could experience situations in which their face could be
threatened in the process of conducting business include leadership and its
impact on employees, managing work-life balance, managing communi-
cation that is self-promoting versus modest, managing orientations that are
task versus relationship focused, managing millenials’ perceptions which
can deviate from others in their culture, managing sexual harassment,
managing expectations for participation, consultation, and feedback,
managing superior-subordinate relationships, managing petty tyranny and
paternalism, and promoting innovation. Characteristics of business that
arise and that relate to organizational context issues are also addressed in
v
vi PREFACE

this book; particularly, the areas referred to as formalization, teamwork,

corruption, organizational rituals, coopetition, Confucian dynamism, and a
Protestant work ethic.
Overall, the breadth of the discussion on facework and its relationship to
business has been expanded, allowing for research efforts that can be
undertaken further in this context. Researchers of business, communica-
tion studies, interpersonal communication, organizational communication,
intercultural communication, management, international business, eth-
nomethodology, organizational sociology, and organizational behavior can
all extend their analytical explorations with reference to the themes pre-
sented in this book. I believe this book provides new ideas and perspectives
on how saving face and facework are an important aspect of business
interactions. Future work can now proceed to investigate the new areas of
intersection presented in this book. Additionally, those conducting busi-
ness internationally can use the information disseminated in this book to
develop strategies for relating better to business partners in other cultures,
hopefully resulting in improved chances for succeeding in professional
endeavors.
Over the years I have had the opportunity to carry out a number of
cross-cultural studies and to continually examine research related to the
topic at hand. Different pieces of the material presented in this book have
been verified by a number of my own studies which have tested many
aspects of face and facework. In fact, face and facework have always been of
prime importance in my work because without upholding the dignity of
others, relationships frequently dissolve. The opposite is true as well, when
endowing upon someone respect, relationships have a basis to thrive.
I have, therefore, spent some time emphasizing this issue.
I am very grateful to Becky Rubin who first encouraged me to explore
the study of facework when I was a student at Kent State University.
Presently, I would like to thank my colleague Elisabeth Gareis for her
mentoring and continual support and encouragement throughout the
process I have experienced in writing this book. Many thanks go out to my
colleagues at Baruch College—CUNY for awarding me a semester off
which enabled me to have the time and opportunity to finish writing this
book.
I would also like to thank Marcus Ballenger, commissioning editor for
this book, for his invaluable assistance in the preparation for this manu-
script as well as for providing me with support and material vital to the
 PREFACE vii

completion of this book. Other thanks are extended to Jazmine Robles for
taking special care in aiding and serving as my editorial assistant.
Furthermost significantly, I am deeply beholden to my husband, David,
for encouraging me and for managing to “get along” patiently throughout
this book effort.
Finally, I would like to dedicate this book to my mother. My mother
modeled how to avoid conflicts, use silence effectively, and allow others to
gain face. She also quietly managed to encourage her two daughters to
pursue academic careers despite the obstacles before them.

New York, USA Rebecca S. Merkin

 CONTENTS

1 Introduction 1

2 Principles of Saving Face 21

3 Culture and Face Enactment 33

4 Individualism-Collectivism and Saving Face 81

5 Individualism-Collectivism Applied to Direct

Versus Indirect Facework 119

6 Masculinity-Femininity Applied to Cooperative

and Competitive Facework 137

7 Power Distance, Receiver Facework, Innovation,

and Superior-Subordinate Relationships 165

8 Uncertainty Avoidance, Face-Saving,

and Organizations 197

9 Long/Short-Term Orientation, Facework,

and Organizational Relationships 229

ix
x CONTENTS

10 Overview and Facework Model Application

for the Cross-Cultural Workplace 261

Index 277
 LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 3.1 Facework model 46

Fig. 6.1 Facework model: individualism/collectivism,
masculinity/femininity, and facework 154
Fig. 8.1 Facework model: receiver facework: power distance
and uncertainty avoidance 200
Fig. 9.1 Facework model: short term and long term
orientation 246
Fig. 10.1 Facework model: cultural dimensions and facework 271

xi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1 Individualism scores by country 82

Table 6.1 Masculinity scores by country 139
Table 7.1 Power distance index scores by country 167
Table 8.1 Uncertainty avoidance scores by country 203
Table 9.1 Long-term orientation scores by country 233

xiii
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Americans love stories about “self-made” men or women. That famous

Americans can often redeem themselves—even after horrific scandals—
suggests 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 golfer’s wife, Elin, had actually
smashed the car window with a golf club, aiming for the golfer’s head. Soon,
Woods released a statement admitting, “This situation is my fault, and it’s
obviously embarrassing to my family and me. I’m human and I’m not
perfect.” He promised to “make sure this doesn’t happen again.” 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 perfor-
mance 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
person’s status and self-esteem (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993).

© The Author(s) 2018 1

R.S. Merkin, Saving Face in Business,
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59174-6_1
2 R.S. MERKIN

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 patron-
izing 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 “face”—the
positive social value we effectively claim for ourselves—as 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 one’s 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
“saving face” and “losing face” are familiar terms. Few Americans really
understand their full range of meaning, particularly for those in collec-
tivistic cultures. In fact, the method of approaching another’s face plays a
vital role in the success or failure of cross-cultural interactions for indi-
viduals and for organizations.
The term “losing face” is an English translation of the Chinese phrase
“tiu lien”. 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 person’s stable hierarchical position or, in some cases, their
caste. Thus, their identity is immutable—a fact they expect to be
acknowledged and reaffirmed in any successful interaction. If we misun-
derstand 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
 1 INTRODUCTION 3

composed of four dimensions of cultural values that explain how people

from different cultures communicate throughout the world. Hofstede’s
(2001) cultural values include individualism-collectivism (values on group
membership), power distance (values on how to relate to authority), mas-
culinity-femininity (values on using competitiveness versus cooperative-
ness), and uncertainty avoidance (varying needs to reduce uncertainty).
Cultures fall on points along a continuum of these values. Hofstede’s 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 country’s weather or lan-
guage. This is because real cross-cultural communication transpires on a
deeper level and reflects people’s 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 person’s 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 others’
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
4 R.S. MERKIN

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. What’s 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 Bush’s
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 Iacocca’s 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
 1 INTRODUCTION 5

sinking the US’s. Mr. Iacocca’s 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, “Mr Iococca’s behavior and remarks are outrageous and
insulting to us.” 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 threat-
ening to face by definition because, in today’s 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 indi-
viduals 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 emo-
tional disclosure, it is important to understand others’ 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
“Is there any coffee left?” the question is usually interpreted as a request (as
opposed to an appeal for information) (Demeure, Bonnefon, & Raufaste,
2008). This is particularly likely when the status of the listener is superior to
that of the speaker, if the listener is sensitive rather than open-minded, or if
the listener likes to be in control rather than considerate of other people’s
opinions.
Geert Hofstede defined power distance as the extent to which the less
powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country
expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. In cultures that are
high in power distance, especially indirect communication is the norm for
maintaining face. Thus, researchers found that explicit requests could
actually “disrupt social bonds” (Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; Gagne,
2010).
6 R.S. MERKIN

Conflict can also break social bonds when disrespectful communication

leads to face loss. Retzinger (1991) points out how conflict causes people
to feel shame which causes them to respond with rage, which, in turn, leads
the target of this anger to shame the initiator in return. This is referred to
by Retzinger as the shame-rage cycle in which participants take turns
shaming and feeling rage, thus, perpetuating the conflict. During conflict,
or any face-threatening situation, recipients of ambiguous communication
travel swiftly between observation and imagination, testing what has been
imagined against future observations (Scheff & Retzinger, 2001). During
interactions, we observe an utterance or facial expression, then put our-
selves in the role of the other, imagining what emotion and meaning the
expression conveys. Often, we imagine what signs would be evident if our
inference is correct. We test our inferences by looking for these signs—
going back and forth between imagination and observation (Scheff &
Retzinger, 2001). In cross-cultural conflict, we may more readily misin-
terpret the signs which could lead to repeated face loss, face-threat, and
escalating spirals of conflict or impasses in the conflict negotiation processes
(Ting-Toomey, 2007).
For instance, the incident with President Bush discussed earlier, which
encompasses all of these contexts (initial interactions, requests, conflict,
and potentially a shame-rage cycle) illustrates just how badly things can
turn out if people do not carefully consider the cultural dimensions of social
contact in advance, before communicating with others with whom they are
not familiar. Most instances of international communication, of course, are
not as consequential as this American President’s unfortunate trip to Japan,
but it is worth pausing to summarize the range and nature of the more
typical consequences of losing face.

CONSEQUENCES OF LOSING FACE

Understanding the issues surrounding loss of face is key to establishing and
maintaining relationships across cultures. To begin, if someone feels
slighted communication may become defensive (Gibb, 1961). Second,
when a person actually feels a loss of face, communication may completely
break down (Gross & Stone, 1964). Third, although individuals from the
same culture may share many connections and come to communicate again
after face loss, the same is not likely for individuals in formal intercultural
relationships (Merkin, 2004). For example, it is typical for people to
interact with local colleagues and those they see at conferences or meetings
 1 INTRODUCTION 7

where they may repair fractured or strained relationships. However, people

residing in faraway countries are unlikely to have the opportunity to
casually resume a conversation or engage in small talk. Furthermore, when
someone loses face, it is memorable, which makes such encounters hard to
smooth over. Once a person feels humiliated, it is often difficult to turn
things around. And, finally, failure to understand the nuances of culture
can rob us of the opportunity to maintain other’s attention (Fang &
Rajkumar, 2013). When we first meet someone, we pay careful attention to
them in order to get to know them. But once an initial impression is made,
it is very hard to change that impression. Thus, establishing positive con-
nections upfront requires careful effort, including understanding other
cultures’ expectations about face. Due to globalization, opportunities for
cross-cultural interaction continue to multiply rapidly.

THE SUBTLETIES OF GLOBALIZATION

On the one hand, McLuhan and Fiore’s (1968) claim that the world has
become a global village is accurate. The internet, transportation, and the
globalization of the marketplace have all made the world smaller. However,
over the past 20 years, data show that around the world, value systems are
more divided than ever (Inglehart, 2005). For example, cultural attitudes
toward women and gender relations vary greatly across cultures. What’s
more, the concept of multiculturalism—wherein several dissimilar cultures
(rather than one national culture) can coexist peaceably and evenhandedly
in a single country—is flawed (Minkov, 2011). Even in the United States,
American Republicans and the Hispanic community are acknowledged to
be deeply divided (Tackett, 2013). Therefore, multiculturalism amounts to
a wide-eyed assumption that subcultures are unified, denying the need for
people with different value systems to be able to navigate their relationships
carefully with each other.

ACCEPTANCE OF DIFFERENCE
Relationships characterized by cross-cultural clashes are frequently the
result of the failure by some or all parties involved to recognize and
acknowledge differences in culturally-based communication styles
(Beamer, 1992). They assume that all people communicate using the same
styles and rules. For example, many US professionals assume that all people
want to be spoken to informally, just as they assume that their gestures are
8 R.S. MERKIN

appropriate for use in any culture, or that an openly frank style of nego-
tiating is universally respected. It is important to note that there is no such
thing as a universal form of communication. Take the simple gesture of
expressing our real opinions about ideas. It is not unusual for Americans to
believe that we know how to do everything the best way. We discuss our
ideas with strangers and acquaintances on the street, at the airport, in
restaurants, and so on. In fact, we consider it a friendly gesture to express
ourselves. However, in other cultures, a discussion can take on a com-
pletely different meaning, particularly with regard to one’s status.
Expressing oneself frankly can be considered rude, insulting, or it can even
signal one-upmanship. A person’s interpretation of communication is
dependent on his or her culturally specific context. As a result, it becomes
necessary for people trying to connect with people from other cultures to
get to know what cultural differences may account for their different modes
of communication.

FACE-THREATENING SITUATIONS
There is no better condition for developing an understanding of a culture
in action than during a face-threatening situation. Cultures tend to reveal
themselves in situations where much is in jeopardy because it is here that
their defenses are crucial to support sustained productive communication.
When relationships require highly face-threatening communication such as
initial interactions, requests, and conflicts, the distinctive and fundamental
elements of a culture are revealed. Similarly, in business, where economic
survival is at risk, cultural attitudes toward work, power, trust, equality, and
communication influence how communication is carried out. Given that
both interpersonal and business relationships consist of mutual exchanges,
the ability to manage one’s comportment strategically is vital to protecting
one’s self-interest and avoiding losing face.
For example, suppose you are working with clients you do not know
well and the location of their company is in an inconvenient place for you
to meet them. You either cannot get there easily or cannot park. In this
case, you may need to make a request that you sometimes meet them
somewhere that is more convenient. Other requests for a change in plans,
or even for money, put other people in a position where they are
expected to provide us with something on our terms rather than on
theirs. This is face-threatening because it burdens other people. If they
acquiesce to our request, we feel relieved because the threat is gone, but
 1 INTRODUCTION 9

we also owe them a return favor for their service to us. How this
exchange is enacted varies by individuals’ cultural values. For example,
requests can be made directly or indirectly depending on whether explicit
requests are culturally acceptable.
For all these reasons, this book pulls together theory and research on the
verbal communication strategies individuals use to save face where com-
munication styles vary in different cultures around the world. The most
influential work on conceptions for understanding cultural differences is
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory (Smith, Bond, & Cagitcibasi, 2006;
see Chaps. 2–6 for more details). Consequently, this framework will be
used throughout the book as a springboard in which to discuss diverse
communicative facework strategies that are most likely to be used by cit-
izens of a specific culture based on their particular combination of cultural
dimensions. Cultural dimensions represent independent preferences for
one state of affairs over another that distinguish countries (rather than
individuals) from each other (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010) or
can represent the shared views individuals acquire by growing up in a
particular country (Hofstede, 2001). For example, one dimension of a
culture relates to how it understands the workings of power, while another
dimension relates to how it encourages members of the society to cope
with uncertainty. These and other dimensions of culture help explain the
underlying assumptions behind how negotiations proceed, agreements are
stated, and employees are trained and managed. Thus, this book provides a
model for understanding the likely patterns that people from different
cultures use and expect others to use when communicating. Based on this
model, the book aims to help readers develop a strategic facework plan for
intercultural interactions drawing on Hofstede’s theory of cultural
dimensions. The chapters that illustrate these patterns include examples
culled from the author’s original research in Korea, Hong Kong, Japan,
Chile, Sweden, the US, Israel, Syria, and Pakistan.

OVERVIEW OF CHAPTERS
This book begins with a chapter describing the parameters of saving face
and the use of facework—strategies used to maintain face—during inter-
cultural communication. Overall communication concepts and practices
are introduced in this chapter. This chapter explores the significance of
cross-cultural facework with an emphasis on the basics of how a person’s
face is validated. Just how significant face is to people varies by culture, and
10 R.S. MERKIN

this chapter discusses the cultural reasons that saving face is important and
how saving face is regarded and communicated. Accompanying terms such
as facework and impression-management will be set forth, demarcated, and
clearly discussed so that a working understanding of these terms can be
established before advancing into cultural processes.
Chapter 2 will describe the notion of cultural dimensions (aspects of a
culture’s assumptions)—what they are and how they impact individuals’
cultural values. Further, Chap. 2 will explicate how cultural dimensions
drive communication. Finally, Chap. 2 will lay out a fundamental model of
face developed by the author that systematically analyzes how people can
strategize their communication depending on the cultural makeup of the
country being visited. This model is set up to be used as a guideline for
purposefully conducting oneself with regard for the cultural values of
others. The model this book proposes is based on Hofstede’s
widely-recognized initial grand theory of cultural dimensions which is not
without detractors (e.g., McSweeney, 2013; Ralston et al., 2014; Venaik &
Brewer, 2013). However, in short, given that Hofstede’s theory is one of
the oldest, most comprehensive analyses of cultural values, this conceptu-
alization was chosen for the cultural model that follows. Further on in the
book, an explanation will be provided as to the logic behind this position
and the rationality attributable to the corresponding facework strategies
the model suggests to be used. We now turn to a discussion of the values
attached to the self and corresponding face, followed by a summary of the
structure of the chapters that makeup this book.
One of the most influential American sociologists of the twentieth
century, Erving Goffman (Fine & Manning, 2003), points out that peo-
ple’s feelings are attached to their self which is a sense of who one is
(Goffman, 1959). In turn, the self is the internal starting point for pre-
senting one’s face or the image of the self in social relationships, interac-
tions, and encounters. For example, a person may feel an insecure sense of
self, which may motivate him or her to manifest deliberate external
expressions of power, such as a high-priced bag or a sexy red sports car.
Cultural theorists point out that culture affects one’s notion of self
(Morisaki & Gudykunst, 1994). Specifically, the way people view themselves
is determined by how they see themselves in relation to their primary
group. If someone comes from a collectivistic culture, he or she might view
his or her family as an interconnected part of their self. This means that one
person’s actions can bring shame or pride to the others in the group. On the
other hand, if someone comes from an individualistic country—like the
 1 INTRODUCTION 11

United States—one could be a doctor but would not necessarily feel a

dimunition of personal status, such as extreme shame, if one’s brother is a
maintenance person.
Additionally, how people view their gender roles is part of their
self-identity. In particular, how one views what women and men do, as well
as the role of modesty and competition, are influenced by culture. As a
result, one’s subjective self-reflects cultural influences such as individual-
ism-collectivism and masculinity-femininity (Hofstede, 2001; Inkeles &
Levinson, 1997; De Mooij, 1998). Individualism-collectivism and
masculinity-femininity are both cultural dimensions (categories of values).
A number of researchers (e.g., Hofstede, 2001; Inkeles and Levinson,
1997) have pointed out that there are two cultural conceptions of self:
(a) the relationship between the individual and society or
individualism-collectivism (Hofstede, 2001) and (b) the individual’s con-
cept of masculinity-femininity or the social implications of having been
born a boy or a girl (Hofstede, 2001).
Since the self is expressed through face (Goffman, 1967), it logically follows
that the two values influencing one’s self would also affect one’s expression of
face. Hofstede (2001) found four dimensions of cultural variability that
explain the shared views individuals acquire by growing up in a particular
country: (a) power distance, (b) uncertainty avoidance, (c) individualism-
collectivism and (d) masculinity-femininity. Nevertheless, Hofstede (1991)
pointed out that only two of his four dimensions relate to the conception of
self (individualism-collectivism and masculinity-femininity), therefore, these
three dimensions would rationally be the forces that act upon one’s face
enactment. To illustrate this point, the model of facework presented shows
how these two cultural values are reflected in communication strategies.
Accordingly, the model presented in this book graphically depicts the entire
facework process, showing how the two cultural dimensions that represent
the self (i.e., individualism-collectivism and masculinity-femininity), as well as
the two dimensions reflecting influences of the environment and other parties’
reactive facework (i.e., power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term
orientation) influence facework strategy choices.
Consequently, this model represents the elements of the self, face, and
facework via concentric circles and arrows that represent the various face-
work strategies acting together in the interactional process as described.
The innermost part of this model refers to the elements of self that makeup
one’s face—individualism-collectivism and masculinity-femininity. Power
distance, uncertainty avoidance, and a long or short-term orientation are
12 R.S. MERKIN

represented as outer circles to indicate their presence as reactionary

strategies. Face refers to the presentation of self that is based on the two
cultural values that makeup the self. The argument this book presents is
that both aspects of the self are responsible for the presentation of face
while the other cultural dimensions are responsible for responsive facework
to prior messages received. This book argues that while face is not the sole
determinant of behavior carried out, it is highly influential. Additionally,
during intercultural interactions, culture drives both the presentation of
face and the reactions communicated during intercultural interactions that
help negotiate one’s impression and ultimately one’s face. The arrows
represent facework strategies likely to be related to the corresponding
cultural dimensions driving the reactive portrayal of face attempted during
the overall negotiation of a person’s impression. The different elements of
this model will be presented throughout the chapters that makeup this
book.
More specifically, the chapters of this book correspond to the arrange-
ment of the cultural dimensions in the model presented in Chap. 3. Thus,
the order of Chaps. 4 through 9 of this book present cultural dimensions
(i.e., individualism, masculinity, power distance, uncertainty avoidance,
and long-term orientation) and how they affect the strategies citizens from
cultures representing these dimensions choose to save face during
face-threatening exchanges.
Chapters 4 and 5 will discuss in detail the concept that cultural com-
munication experts call Individualism-Collectivism by exploring how those
traits manifest themselves in countries such as the US, Chile, and Syria.
Furthermore, Chap. 4 describes corresponding facework members of
particular cultures will likely prefer based on accompanying individualistic
and collectivistic cultural values along with examples and explanations. For
example, findings show that Japanese respondents tend to have more
collectivistic tendencies than US respondents who tend to be individual-
istic. Collectivists, who value the promotion of group cohesiveness, are
more likely to promote accord using more cooperative (Eby & Dobbins,
1997) and harmonious (Holmes, 2008) strategies to save face. In fact,
findings show that Japanese respondents (collective) reported using more
indirect facework strategies and more apologies and remediation than
North American (individualistic) respondents, who are more willing to use
antisocial, direct, competitive, and hostile facework to manage difficult
situations (Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; Merkin & Ramadan, 2010;
Pilavachi, 1995). To return to the episode that began this introduction,
 1 INTRODUCTION 13

President Bush’s mishap, when he demanded trade deals, reflects the

American tendency to communicate directly. This may be explained by the
American view that conflict can be used constructively to achieve goals
without the value of long-term relationships hindering such efforts
(O’Keefe, 1991). Chapter 5 will discuss the specific relationship between
individualism-collectivism and the use of direct versus indirect facework
strategies.
Chapter 6 will present the cultural concept referred to as
masculinity-femininity. The terms masculinity and femininity have partic-
ular meanings in communication theory and academic research that
sometimes overlap with what the terms mean in popular culture—but not
always or entirely. The cultural values associated with this dimension in a
nutshell are more colloquially referred to as competitive versus
status-leveling communications. More specifically, masculine competition
tends to be communicated by expressing more assertiveness and less
concern for people (Tosi & Greckhamer, 2004). On the other hand,
feminine leveling tends to be expressed through empathy and modesty and
violators of this value would tend to communicate by means of
self-promotion (which is also competitive).
Self-promotion is natural in competitive masculine societies. In contrast,
modesty is more prevalent in harmony-oriented feminine societies (Merkin,
2005). This chapter will explore how this cultural dimension plays out in
highly masculine cultures such as Japan and the United States as well as in
more feminine cultures such as Sweden and Chile. Additionally, corre-
sponding facework likely to be preferred based on accompanying masculine
versus feminine cultural values will be presented along with illustrations and
accounts. For example, findings show that individuals from masculine cul-
tures with high and medium levels of masculinity are significantly more
likely to choose antisocial compliance-gaining tactics in a work setting than
those from low masculinity or feminine cultures (Guowei, Pettey, Rudd, &
Lawson, 2007). This finding indicates that similar to individualism, the
competitiveness motive leads others to communicate in antisocial modes.
Chapter 7 will discuss the concept of the cultural dimension power
distance, which is the degree to which people acknowledge authority and is
presented in the facework model as a reactive strategy influenced by the
environment. This chapter will contrast high-power distance cultures, such
as Hong Kong, communication with low-power-distance cultures, such as
14 R.S. MERKIN

Israel. Many readers will remember the uprising in Tiananmen Square,

which shocked and surprised so many—particularly because of the ten-
dency of the Chinese to respect authority and accept injustice in keeping
with their high-power distance cultural values. This chapter will also discuss
the facework likely to be preferred based on associated levels of power
distance and cultural values along with additional examples and
elucidations.
Face management is profoundly shaped by whether cultures have a high
or low power distance (Ting-Toomey, 2005). Studies show that people
from high-power distance cultures tend to have greater communication
apprehension and tend to be less likely to speak up than people from low
power distance cultures (Savage, 2007). For example, investigations
showed that a series of Korean (high-power distance) airplane crashes were
due to subordinates being unwilling to challenge their superiors for fear
that the challenges might cause their superiors to lose face (Gladwell,
2008). In fact, the same phenomenon was considered during a later plane
crash involving Asiana Airlines (Chow, Yortsos, & Meshkati, 2014).
Further investigations and explanations will be presented from research
conducted in Japan, Hong Kong, Pakistan, Israel, Sweden, Chile, and the
US together with hostile, cooperative, and indirect facework strategies
which will be related and discussed in greater detail.
Chapter 8 will cover the concept of uncertainty avoidance or the degree
to which people feel insecure about ambiguity and to avoid these appre-
hensions, establish definite plans, rules, or rituals—a reactive communica-
tion strategy as depicted in the presented model. Facework likely to be
favored by members of particular cultures based on associated levels of
uncertainty avoidance will be presented along with instances and illumi-
nations. For example, people from high-uncertainty-avoidance cultures,
who tend to need to feel in control, can sometimes give into their anxiety
by engaging in aggressive behavior, which they consider to be acceptable to
either reduce anxiety or to save face (Hofstede, 2001; Merkin, 2006). This
can be further evinced by the finding that uncertainty avoidance is nega-
tively related to openness (De Jong, Smeets, & Smits, 2006). For example,
in US gift shops the owners tend to show special attention to their shop-
pers in order to close a sale. In contrast, in high-uncertainty-avoidant
Switzerland, shop owners tend to aggressively hover over their customers
who have children, to make sure that their merchandise is not disturbed
and aggressively tend to their wares by not allowing their patrons to touch
the products in the store. Thus, while US shopkeepers are concerned with
 1 INTRODUCTION 15

their customers’ face, retailers in Switzerland cannot attend to others’ face

until they can contain their own sense of uncertainty. Other examples of
uncertainty avoidance will be presented from Chilean, Chinese, Israeli,
Japanese, Swedish, and US cultures, specifically exploring ritualistic, har-
monious, and hostile facework strategies which are related to uncertainty
avoidance levels.
Chapter 9 will discuss Hofstede and Bond’s fifth cultural dimension. In
Hofstede’s original study he had not analyzed Asian cultures. However,
later, he joined Michael Bond, who carried out an additional study among
students with a survey instrument that was developed together with
Chinese employees and managers, in delineating a fifth dimension based on
Confucian dynamism, referred to as long-term orientation/short/term
orientation (Hofstede & Bond, 1988). Analyses will be made on how these
values are related to facework preferences. Long-term orientation refers to
the degree to which a culture conveys to its members’ acceptance and
delayed gratification of their needs (Dereskey, 2008). Long-term orien-
tation is manifested in behaviors such as cooperative long-term relation-
ships, composure, persistence, tradition, and thrift. On the other hand,
traits that are associated with short-term-oriented societies include respect
for tradition, fulfilling social obligations, and protecting one’s face
(Hofstede, 2001). Facework associated with long-term-oriented values will
be described, along with examples of how such values are communicated
when trying to save face. For example, people from long-term-oriented
cultures tend to engage in cooperative and harmonious facework (Merkin,
2004). Thus, when citizens of long-term-oriented societies negotiate, they
also engage in unpretentiousness because they value long-term alliances
and trust, which can only be developed when there is an absence of conflict
and disagreement. Thus, those from long-term-oriented cultures tend to
take a longer time when getting to know people, but are also patient and
persistent in their attempts at relationships. This chapter will include
descriptions and explanations from cultures including Hong Kong, Japan,
the US, and Sweden together with harmonious and cooperative facework
strategies, which are related to a long-term orientation.
Chapter 10 synthesizes the concepts introduced in earlier chapters and
describes how the model set forth initially can be used as a benchmark for
future reference and planning. In addition, Chap. 10 will describe how to
go about strategizing face-saving communication based on popular com-
binations of cultures. This discussion begins with a synopsis of the pro-
posed universal model, then continues to review original research and
16 R.S. MERKIN

report on significant findings. The results of the author’s past and present
studies as well as recent research are elucidated along with a final discussion
of the latest conclusions on face-saving strategies and culture. Finally,
Chap. 10 will summarize and discuss the implications of the conclusions
presented in this book.
One fundamental principle for success in saving face is communication
competence. An important element of communication competence is
openness. If people approach individuals from other cultures with adapt-
ability and openness, they are more likely to have successful encounters
because goodwill and the willingness to learn from others are important
steps in the direction of good relations with others.

OPENNESS
If President Bush had approached the Japanese with openness instead of
anger, as in the previously described case, his mission would not have been
so fraught with difficulty. To avert anger, attempts to be open to others and
their unique situation which is correlated with a lack of hostility
(Matsumoto, LeRoux, Bernhard, & Gray, 2004) would have been helpful.
When people try to be open to the other’s point of view, others are less
likely to be angry when interacting with them. Therefore, one essential
element in adjusting abroad and developing successful intercultural rela-
tionships is an open attitude towards others (Hotta & Ting-Toomey,
2013; Matsumoto, Yoo, & LeRoux, 2010). Looking back on the Bush
scenario, a better strategy might have been to try to find out what con-
cerned the Japanese first and then to use polite communication to address
both the concerns of the Japanese and themselves, working towards a
negotiated win-win face-saving solution.
What happened with President Bush also shows how vital a concern
saving face is during interactions between people with whom we are
unfamiliar. Establishing positive first impressions such as looking good,
smiling, and having an appropriate greeting for someone can go a long
way. In business or between strangers, this is much harder than it sounds
because looking good, smiling, and being nice must be applied specifically
to each culture. On a first encounter, eye contact, distance, introduction
styles, dress, gifts, and language are all things that should be studied before
a meeting takes place. What’s more, there are certain encounters (i.e.,
initial interactions, requests, and conflict) that require extra care because
they are inherently face-threatening. Without taking cultural variables into
 1 INTRODUCTION 17

account, it is likely individuals will accidentally commit a faux pas leading to

a loss of face somewhere along the line.
To avoid losing face, combining openness, goodwill, and a willingness
to learn together with cultural knowledge can help individuals accomplish
their goals in this global world. In order to begin increasing cultural
knowledge, cultural dimensions reflecting important values that underlie
communication geared to upholding one’s impression during communi-
cation will be examined in greater depth. Chapters 4 through 9 of this
book will explore the basic cultural dimensions (i.e. individualism-
collectivism, masculinity-femininity, power distance, uncertainty avoid-
ance, and long-term orientation) and how they shape the communication
strategies citizens from particular cultures are likely to use during
face-threatening exchanges and why.

REFERENCES
Beamer, L. (1992). Learning intercultural communication competence. Journal of
Business Communication, 29(3), 285–303.
Chow, S., Yortsos, S., & Meshkati, N. (2014). Asiana Airlines flight 214:
Investigating cockpit automation and culture issues in aviation safety. Aviation
Psychology and Applied Human Factors, 4(2), 113.
Cocroft, B. K., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Facework in Japan and the US.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18(4), 469–506. doi:10.1016/
0147-1767(94)90018-3.
De Jong, E., Smeets, R., & Smits, J. (2006). Culture and openness. Social
Indicators Research, 78, 111–136.
De Mooij, M. (1998). Masculinity/femininity and consumer behavior. In G.
Hofstede (Ed.), Masculinity and femininity (pp. 55–76). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Demeure, V., Bonnefon, J., & Raufaste, É. (2008). Utilitarian relevance and face
management in the interpretation of ambiguous question/request statements.
Memory & Cognition, 36(4), 873–881. doi:10.3758/MC.36.4.873.
Dereskey, H. (2008). International management: Managing across borders and
cultures. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Eby, L. T., & Dobbins, G. H. (1997). Collectivistic orientation in teams: An
individual and group-level analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(3),
275–295. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Fang, X., & Rajkumar, T. M. (2013). The role of national culture and multimedia
on first impression bias reduction: An experimental study in US and China.
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 56(4), 354–371.
18 R.S. MERKIN

Fine, G. A., & Manning, P. (2003). Preserving Philip Rieff. Journal of Classical
Sociology, 3(3), 227–233.
Gagné, N. (2010). Reexamining the notion of negative face in the Japanese socio
linguistic politeness of request. Language & Communication, 30(2), 123–138.
doi:10.1016/j.langcom.2009.12.001.
Gibb, J. R. (1961). Defensive communication. Journal of Communication, 11,
141–148.
Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers. New York: Little Brown and Company.
Guowei, J., Pettey, G., Rudd, J., & Lawson, D. (2007). Masculinity/femininity
and compliance-gaining in business negotiations: A cross-cultural comparison.
Journal of the Northwest Communication Association, 3693, 93–110.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
Goffman, Erving (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. Random
House (2nd ed. with Joel Best, 2005). Aldine Transaction.
Gross, E., & Stone, G. P. (1964). Embarrassment and the analysis of role
requirements. American Journal of Sociology, 70, 1–15.
Ho, D. Y.-F. (1976). On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology, 81(4),
867–884.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (2001). (2nd ed.). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values,
behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations,
software of the mind. Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. (1988). The confucian connection: From cultural roots
to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16, 4–21.
Holmes, P. (2008). Foregrounding harmony: Chinese international students’
voices in communication with their New Zealand peers. China Media Research,
4, 102–110.
Hotta, J., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2013). Intercultural adjustment and friendship
dialectics in international students: A qualitative study. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.06.007.
Inglehart, R. (2005). The worldviews of Islamic publics in global perspective.
World Values Survey. Internet publication. Retrieved July 28, 2013, from
http://www.worldvluessurvey.com.
Inkeles, A., & Levinson, D. J. (1997). National character: A psycho-social
perspective. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction.
Lee, S. M., & Peterson, S. J. (2001). Culture, entrepreneurial orientation, and
global competitiveness. Journal of World Business, 35(4), 401–416.
Mantle, J. (2011). Car wars: Fifty years of backstabbing, infighting, and industrial
espionage in the global market. New York: Arcade Publishing.
 1 INTRODUCTION 19

Matsumoto, D., LeRoux, J. A., Bernhard, R., & Gray, H. (2004). Unraveling the
psychological correlates of intercultural adjustment potential. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28(3–4), 281–309. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.
2004.06.002.
Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S., & LeRoux, J. A. (2010). Emotion and intercultural
adjustment. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), APA handbook of intercultural commu-
nication (pp. 41–57). Washington, DC Berlin US Germany: American
Psychological Association.
McLuhan, M., & Fiore, Q. (1968). War and peace in the global village. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
McSweeney, B. (2013). Fashion founded on a flaw: the ecological
mono-deterministic fallacy of Hofstede, GLOBE, and followers. International
Marketing Review, 30(5), 483–504.
Merkin, R. S. (2004). Cultural long-term orientation and facework strategies.
Atlantic Journal of Communication, 12(3), 163–176.
Merkin, R. (2005). The influence of masculinity-femininity on cross-cultural
facework. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 34, 267–289.
Merkin, R. (2006). Uncertainty avoidance and facework: A test of the Hofstede
model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(2), 213–228.
Merkin, R., & Ramadan, R. (2010). Facework in Syria and the US: A cross-cultural
comparison. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(6), 661–669.
doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.05.006.
Merkin, R., Taras, V., & Steel, P. (2014). State of the art themes in cross-cultural
communication research: A systematic and meta-analytic review. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 38, 1–23.
Minkov, M. (2011). Cultural differences in a globalizing world. United Kingdom:
Emerald.
Morisaki, S., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1994). Face in Japan and the United States.
In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The challenge of facework (pp. 47–94). Albany: State
University of New York Press.
O’Keefe, B. J. (1991). Message design logic and multiple goals. In K. Tracy (Ed.),
Understanding face to face interaction: Issues linking goals and discourse
(pp. 131–150). Philadephia, PA: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pilavachi, P. (1995). A cross-cultural perspective on face-repair strategies in
embarrassing situations: Japan vs. the US. Dissertation Abstracts International
Section A, 55.
Ralston, D. A., Egri, C. P., Furrer, O., Kuo, M. H., Li, Y., Wangenheim, F., et al.
(2014). Societal-level versus individual-level predictions of ethical behavior: A
48-society study of collectivism and individualism. Journal of Business Ethics, 122
(2), 283–306.
Retzinger, S. (1991). Violent Emotions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
20 R.S. MERKIN

Savage, M. (2007). The effects of self-construal and perceptions of power distance on

communication apprehension and argumentativeness. Chicago, IL: Paper
presented at the National Communication Association.
Scheff, T. J., & Retzinger, S. M. (2001). Emotions and violence: Shame and rage in
destructive conflicts. Lincoln, NE: Author’s Guild BACKINPRINT.COM.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of
charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4),
577–594.
Smith, P. B., Bond, M. H., & Kagitcibasi, c. (2006). Understanding social
psychology across cultures: Living and working in a changing world. London:
Sage.
Svennevig, J. (1999). Getting acquainted in conversation: A study of initial
interactions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Tackett, M. (2013). Republicans risk razing arizona edge by losing hispanics.
Bloomberg News, Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-
05-13/republicans-risk-razing-arizona-edge-by-losing-hispanics.html.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory.
In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication
(pp. 211–234). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2007). Intercultural conflict training: Theory-practice
approaches and research challenges. Journal of Intercultural Communication
Research, 36(3), 255–271. doi:10.1080/17475750701737199.
Tosi, H. L., & Greckhamer, T. (2004). Culture and CEO compensation.
Organization Science, 15(6), 657–670.
Venaik, S., Zhu, Y., & Brewer, P. (2013). Looking into the future: Hofstede long
term orientation versus GLOBE future orientation. Cross Cultural
Management: An International Journal, 20(3), 361–385.
Young, I. (2013). Cultural influences on accounting and its practices. A Senior
Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation in the
Honors Program Liberty University.
 CHAPTER 2

Principles of Saving Face

The world has become a global village (McLuhan & Powers, 1989).
A number of trends contribute to our globalizing society, including
communication technology and social media, which connect almost every
part of the world. Improved transportation has also increased the unifica-
tion of different parts of the world (Woolsey, 1994). This unification has
led to inter-connectedness causing globalization of the marketplace (Chen
& Starosta, 2000). Therefore, many companies have had to develop
business strategies and expand their product offerings to foreign countries
(Porter & Kramer, 2006). Such practices require successful intercultural
interactions. The consequences of failed communication might include a
lack of the cooperation needed for product distribution, poor product
reputation, and other circumstances that could cause a company to lose
business (Gregory, 2013). This is partly why Warren Buffet, from Berkshire
Hathaway, famously lectured his new employees stating, “If you lose
dollars for the firm from bad decisions, I will be very understanding. If you
lose the reputation of the firm, I will be ruthless” (Doorley & Garcia, 2011,
p. 4).
Another trend which has resulted from globalization (and correspond-
ing active trafficking, war, and communication accessibility) is widespread
population migration reflecting the stark reality of our changing, turbulent
world. This trend has led to an increase of immigrants settling in the USA
(e.g., Suárez-Orozco, Suárez-Orozco, & Qin-Hillard, 2014). As a result,
individuals living in previously homogeneous small American towns such as
Nashville, Tennessee, for example, have had to learn how to improve their

© The Author(s) 2018 21

R.S. Merkin, Saving Face in Business,
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59174-6_2
22 R.S. MERKIN

intercultural communication skills to welcome their new “Sonido”

neighbors (Massey, 2008). In addition, in an attempt to remain com-
mercially competitive, some corporations have employed migrants through
unregulated subcontractors for cheap labor (Quayson & Arhin, 2013).
Such increases in population migration have obliged members of the
workforce to reconsider their intercultural communication flexibility
(Jameson, 2007).
All of the above trends have led more expatriates and more local
international businesses to take root. For example, the Coca-Cola brand
has managed to expand and export its American-branded product globally.
The foreign interaction experience, however, is a potentially threatening
circumstance for losing face. This is partly because nonnationals who come
to the USA to do business are essentially sojourners experiencing and
learning how to overcome the ordeal of cultural adjustment (Townsend,
Regan, & Li, 2015). This adjustment process involves a great deal of
uncertainty and insecurity (Gudykunst & Hammer, 1988) for expatriates
regarding the unfamiliar, intercultural interactions they are obliged to
confront. The insecurity about losing face is particularly compelling
because failing to save face could lead to negative responses “ranging from
slight discomfort or embarrassment, to mild annoyance, anger, and out-
right hostility” (White, Tynan, Galinsky, & Thompson, 2004, p. 103).
While US Americans understand concepts such as guarding oneself
against accusations and defending opinions, this is only part of the whole
notion of face for people from individualistic cultures. Saving face is a
complete defense of one’s personal identity for people from China, Japan,
and India—collectivistic cultures that consider saving face to be essential.
For example, in most collectivistic cultures that emphasize saving face,
complex group memberships could cause a loss of face to occur in many
directions (such as with both coworkers and superiors) based on individ-
uals’ hierarchical positions in their group. To avoid this, people with col-
lectivistic orientations tend to conform more to their group so as not to
stick out and threaten their own and others’ face (Ralston & Elsass, 1991).
In business cultures, through compliance and cooperation, processes are
carried out inside the organizational ladder to reduce the possibility of
losing face and to avoid being the cause of someone else losing face. In
such cases, the act of saving face is often played out through deference
towards elders, respecting bosses, and by protecting bosses from losing face
by possibly sacrificing their own face. In addition, the cultural value of not
losing face can influence corporate negotiations, project administration,
 2 PRINCIPLES OF SAVING FACE 23

and how people are managed and trained (Tran, 2016). Understanding
face, therefore, is necessary for business because the consequences of losing
face could cause a torrent of negative reactions such as employees quitting,
negotiations falling apart, and training being wasted because everyone is
too distressed about the experience to accept solutions offered, to name a
few possibilities.
The specific case of employees in cross-cultural organizations is proto-
typical of people’s needs to succeed in relationships and interactions, and
highlights the importance of successful communication attempts in
accomplishing goals. This is because face is a relational phenomenon
operating on the cultural level (Arundale, 2010). However, in any inter-
action, whether the transactions are directed with a goal in mind or not, the
maintenance of face is a primary condition of all interaction (Goffman,
1967; Ting-Toomey, 2012).

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FACE

Because the world continues to grow increasingly socially, economically,
and environmentally interdependent (Leonard, 2013), appropriate inter-
cultural communication is essential both in business and in ordinary daily
interactions. In fact, there is an increased probability that individuals will
experience intercultural encounters with strangers in this more global
market. As a result, the issue of face is of major importance because there
are more opportunities for people to lose face and potentially greater or
longer-lasting consequences to such errors. In relationships between
members of different cultures, when a person is slighted, communication
may become defensive (Chen, 2013; Gibb, 1961). Worse, when a person
has lost face, extremely intense emotions may result (Cardon, 2006).
What’s more, losing face could lead to communication completely break-
ing down (Gross & Stone, 1964) and affect one’s ability to function (Ho,
1976), leading to avoidance facework (Wagner, 2015). Facework is used in
an effort to maneuver conversations from going awry to moving in a more
positive direction. Different cultures provide different mechanisms for
rebuilding face after it is lost, usually requiring further interactions. Thus,
although individuals from the same culture may share many connections
and come to communicate again after face loss, this may not be the case
with individuals in formal intercultural relationships who lack the same
access to mutual acquaintances or future interactions because those who
have little in common and live far away from each other are less likely to
24 R.S. MERKIN

naturally communicate. However, those from the same culture with similar
social and/or professional networks are more likely to be placed in envi-
ronments that bring them together.
Therefore, the widespread customs surrounding elements of face loss
will be presented in this chapter to serve as a reference when facilitating
intercultural interactions. The explanation which follows provides impor-
tant information necessary to reduce the uncertainty experienced by
members of organizations and by any other person obliged to engage in
intercultural interactions, whatever the objective may be. Because the
nature of intercultural communication is complex, it is important to
understand the process of facework to improve communication skills
contributing to interactional success. By definition, intercultural interac-
tions are potentially threatening to face because people from diverse cul-
tures encode and decode messages differently (Guirdham, 2011). This
process occurs in part because of varying cultural dimensions that influence
human behavior (Hofstede, 2001; Pedersen, Lonner, Draguns, Trimble, &
Scharron-del Rio, 2015). In order to understand the process of face
enactment, first a description of the individual level of this process will be
provided followed by an explanation of the major elements of the
facework.

SAVING FACE AND FACEWORK PROCESSES

In social situations, people typically work to avoid discomfort in order to
‘‘save face’’ for oneself and others. Goffman (1967) refers to the process we
use to accomplish this as an interaction ritual. This is because the behaviors
we carry out to save face follow patterns or rituals that are based on cultural
values. In general, what takes place during interactions between people is a
projection of one’s self, then a response by the other party or parties to the
interaction takes place in a patterned ritualized fashion. Included in
interaction rituals are expectations that the participants will collaborate to
follow normative rules of courtesy and be just as concerned with the other’s
face as his or her own. Goffman (1955) explained that members of groups
are expected to sustain a standard of consideration to save the feelings and
the face of others present, and are expected to do this willingly and
spontaneously on account of emotional identification with others and their
feelings. People also rely on the consistency of others’ face and feel
honorably and emotionally bound not to make others feel uncomfortable.
 2 PRINCIPLES OF SAVING FACE 25

When all parties follow normative interaction rituals, encounters run

smoothly (Goffman, 1955).
When we monitor and correct our behavior through the eyes of others,
we also create ourselves (Sueda, 2014). The individual’s priority is to work
towards a particular image for one’s self and maintain it once it is achieved.
Finally, when one’s place in society is solidified, then one acts accordingly
by avoiding people and places that are likely to elicit conflict or put face in
danger. Given that people are invested in the opinions of others, they are
vulnerable to possible interaction with ritual offenders when communi-
cating. Consequently, people may lie to save face when they feel it is
threatened. Indeed, in collectivistic Asian cultures, like China, where face is
of prime importance, honesty is a lower priority than it is in individualistic
cultures like the USA, where people believe that face can be negotiated
(Hugh-Jones, 2015; Merkin, Taras, & Steel, 2014). Since face is of primary
importance, people from collectivistic cultures such as China show a
greater desire to do business with individuals whose emails include face-
work and provide logical reasoning before making a request, as opposed to
their US counterparts who would prefer more direct communication
(Richard & McFadden, 2015).
Thus, relationship building is very important for Chinese negotiators
(Mujtaba, 2013). Consequently, Chinese professionals initially focus on
relationships and trust building before making any major deals. As such,
the Chinese prefer traditional means or rituals of negotiations during
business consultations. However, while an initial agreement may be made
during cross-cultural interactions between the Chinese and US. Americans,
for example, renegotiations are also fairly common among Chinese busi-
ness associates, even after a contract has been signed, depending on how
they feel about the context in which business is being carried out (Mujtaba,
2013) thereby leaving the possibility open to protect face. Such practices
are often difficult to understand by US Americans who put most of the
business provisions of a deal into the written contract document, expecting
all parties to abide by the terms therein. These practices are reflections of
Chinese interconnectedness versus US American independent views of self.

INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL FACE ENACTMENT

A person’s face needs to be protected because it reflects a person’s inner
self. Thus, to understand how face is negotiated one must initially focus on
the self. Feelings are attached to one’s self and one’s self is expressed
26 R.S. MERKIN

through face (Goffman, 1955). The self, therefore, is behind the concep-
tualization a person holds of his/her face. According to Goffman (1967),
face is the positive social value a person effectively claims for him/herself by
the line (a pattern of verbal and nonverbal acts) others assume he/she has
taken during a particular contact. Thus, face refers to an image of self that is
positive and affirmed through interaction with others. Accordingly,
depending on how people view their self, that is how they will act out their
face. It is possible to gain face or expand one’s face by displaying rank and
gain face with important members of in-groups by being more conspicuous
and making higher-status consumption choices than others surrounding
oneself (Eckhardt & Houston, 2002; Zhang, Tian, & Grigoriou, 2011).
As Goffman (1955) explains, when a line and inner perception of one’s
self are in sync, one’s said to “have,” “be in,” or “maintain” one’s face
(Goffman, 1955, p. 339). When one feels as though one is in face, feelings
of security and contentedness result. Thus, when one can maintain face
successfully, one experiences feelings of composure. On the other hand,
given that face is an emotional representation of self, discontinuity in the
maintenance of face arouses negative feelings and tension. If discontinuity
between information and a perceived line exists, one is described as being
“in the wrong face” (Goffman, 1955, p. 339). Similarly, one can be “out of
face” (Goffman, 1955, 339) when one fails to have a line ready for
enactment or one is unable to act in an appropriate way; let’s say when one
cannot carry on a conversation with a business associate and there are
awkward silences. In cases of failed face, extensive shame and threatened
feelings result and the person experiences what is referred to as losing face.
If these negative feelings are displayed, further damage often ensues.
Although self-perceptions of self are internal, face is expressed behav-
iorally. Hence, face resides in “the flow of events in the encounter”
(Goffman, 1967, p. 7). It does not reside in the individual but is negotiated
between parties. Because face is negotiated, it is enacted through interac-
tion (Chang, 2008; Haugh & Watanabe, 2009). The communication
enactment process is called facework (Tracy & Baratz, 1994).
According to Goffman (1967), facework is the mutual acceptance of
lines during encounters. It is typically a “working” acceptance not a “real”
one (Goffman, 1967, p. 11). This means that interactions are acted out to
make sure communication flows smoothly and decisions are made to play
along without addressing the actual reality of what is happening. To
facilitate interactions, people endeavor to preserve the face of others by
behaving in ways motivated by self- and mutual respect (Goffman, 1967).
 2 PRINCIPLES OF SAVING FACE 27

So, for example, if someone acts rudely, we may just play along with them
so as not to experience awkward feelings resulting from a conflict; instead
prioritizing more easily moving along with our day. The line of conver-
sation or the facework encounter is comprised of collaborating commu-
nication strategies known as facework strategies. Facework strategies are
behaviors used to strategically boost face (Merkin, 2006). They can also be
used to repair damaged or lost face during face-threatening situations
(Ting-Toomey, 2005).
A face threat is the use of verbal or nonverbal communication that acts to
challenge a person’s favored self-presentation (Holtgraves, 1992). Face
threats occur when people say or do something discordant with one’s
self-presentation (Cupach & Metts, 1994; Goffman, 1967). Face threats can
vary in their severity and consequences (Petronio & Altman, 2002) and can
be brought on by the self (e.g., spilling a drink at a restaurant in front of
others), or by others, as in one person insulting another (Cupach & Metts,
1994; Litt et al., 2014; Merkin, 2000). A face-threatening act is a commu-
nication that places a speaker’s or a recipient’s face needs in jeopardy (Mirivel,
2015). Communication that is particularly prone to face-threats includes
self-disclosure, offers, invitations, conflict management, requests, or sug-
gestions (Devi & Devi, 2014). People tend to be particularly careful in
face-threatening situations so as not to worsen communication.
People tend to test out strategies in their attempts to present their face
positively, but no matter what message they wish to send, the other par-
ticipant(s) assumes they are intentionally taking their stand (Goffman,
1967). As a result, when a US employee visits employees at a subsidiary in
an interdependent-type of collectivistic culture such as Japan, and instead
of following his/her all-inclusive trip itinerary, decides to spend the after-
noon with his/her family, this could be misunderstood as a slight. It is true
that those from individualistic cultures need time for themselves.
Nevertheless, taking this time without regard for cultural rituals (such as
spending time with the host) could be misconstrued to mean that this
employee is willfully slighting the Japanese employees he/she is visiting.
While face is a person-to-person phenomenon, collectivistic entities also
need to manage “face” or reputations. There are those who disagree with
the concept that corporations are like people, however, in a very real way,
corporations need to manage their reputations in a way that is similar to the
way people do. In fact, our brains conceptualize corporations as people,
too. This is evidenced by research that finds people use similar parts of the
brain to understand both corporate and human behavior (Sapolsky, 2015).
28 R.S. MERKIN

This is illustrated by the words and actions of the Panama Canal

Authority. The Panama Canal, which is a 50-mile waterway connecting the
Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean, is undergoing a 5.3 billion dollars
expansion project that is almost 2 years behind schedule and plagued by cost
overruns and contractor disputes. Contractors building the new locks, which
will allow bigger ships to pass through the 102-year-old waterway, were
supposed to complete the work by May 31, 2015. Their projection of
credibility (or corporate face) was at stake if they didn’t open on June 26,
2015. Thus, during the inauguration of a new canal training center, their
Canal Authority Administrator, Jorge Quijano, said, “The date is very close
and there is still a lot of work to do, we can’t lose face” (Bloomberg, 2016).
Their facework included resolving problems associated with contractors and
seepage from the new locks discovered during testing. In order to maintain
face the contractors had to fulfill their obligations.
Thus, face enactment is constantly an issue for companies and people.
What’s more, maintaining face and accurately playing out facework is
particularly difficult during dealings with people from other cultures. For
example, let’s say George is an informal American who attended a business
meeting with his more formal counterparts from Korea late in the evening.
After much consumption of alcohol, George decided to change into a tee
shirt and shorts to walk around the City after the meeting was over. While
walking around, however, George noticed the District and Regional
Managers sitting at an outside café table having another round. In this
scenario, all parties could pretend they don’t see each other. George could
keep walking and get away or reclothe and try to rejoin the party. Whatever
action George decides to take, his behavior will make an impression—
whether accidentally or not. If the other parties were American, George
could make a joke about it. However, members of collectivistic Korean
cultures tend not to prefer direct approaches because they find it more
face-threatening and are more likely to employ avoidance strategies (Cho
& Sillars, 2015). The other parties may prefer to smooth over the inter-
actions by pretending they did not see George altogether. All the same,
George was seen and this occurrence was noticed. In this situation, if a joke
was initiated, the process of face enactment could be continued by laughing
about the gaffe. However, threats occur owing to verbal gaffes or faux pas
(Tracy, 2008) which could lead to losing face and communication breaking
down. Hence, alternatively, both participating parties could decide to
ignore each other depending on their assessments as to what is most
appropriate.
 2 PRINCIPLES OF SAVING FACE 29

The presentation of self and one’s corresponding face can, therefore, be

altered in different situations (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Goffman, 1967;
Locher, 2012). A system of facework comprises the whole set of
face-enhancing, face-neutral, and face-attacking practices that are an
expected part of engaging in specific activities such as conducting business
(Tracy, 2011). For example, perhaps the District and Regional Managers
above realized that the consequences of their responses could disrupt the
status quo they needed to preserve, along with the relationship, in order to
maintain face (Ralston & Elsass, 1991). This situation could lead them to
avoid further face-threatening encounters with George until he is appro-
priately dressed for work. In facework, parties decide how they choose to
amend their actions based on previous encounters. It is this
interaction-based communication that informs decisions people from dif-
ferent cultures make about how best to maintain face.

REFERENCES
Arundale, R. B. (2010). Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework, and
interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2078–2105. doi:10.
1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021.
Bloomberg. (2016). Panama to open $5.3B canal expansion June 26 or ‘Lose face’.
Industry Week. Retrieved from http://remote.baruch.cuny.edu/login?url,
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1775311112?accountid=8500.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage
(Vol. 4). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Cardon, P. W. (2006). Reacting to face loss in Chinese business culture: An
interview report. Business Communication Quarterly, 69(4), 439–443.
Chang, Y. Y. (2008). Cultural “faces” of interpersonal communication in the US
and China. Intercultural Communication Studies, 17(1), 299–313.
Chen, G. M. (2013). Losing face on social media: Threats to positive face lead to an
indirect effect on retaliatory aggression through negative affect. Communication
Research, 0093650213510937.
Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (2000). Communication and global society: An
introduction. In G.-M. Chen & W. J. Starosta (Eds.), Communication & global
society (pp. 1–16). New York: Peter Lang.
Cho, M. K., & Sillars, A. (2015). Face threat and facework strategies when family
(health) secrets are revealed: A comparison of South Korea and the United
States. Journal of Communication, 65(3), 535–557. doi:10.1111/jcom.12161.
Cupach, W. R., & Metts, S. (1994). Facework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30 R.S. MERKIN

Devi, T. S., & Devi, P. M. (2014). Ways of using refusal utterances: A pragmatic
study of refusal speech act in Manipuri. Language in India, 14(11).
Doorley, J., & Garcia, H. F. (2011). Reputation management: The key to successful
public relations and corporate communication. London: Routledge.
Eckhardt, G. M., & Houston, M. J. (2002). Cultural paradoxes reflected in brand
meaning: McDonald’s in Shanghai, China. Journal of International Marketing,
10(2), 68–82.
Gibb, J. R. (1961). Defensive communication. Journal of Communication, 11,
141–148.
Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work. Psychiatry, 18, 213–231.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York,
NY: Doubleday Anchor.
Gregory, T. (2013). Freelancers!: A revolution in the way we work. Houston, Texas:
Strategic Book Publishing.
Gross, E., & Stone, G. P. (1964). Embarrassment and the analysis of role
requirements. American Journal of Sociology, 70, 1–15.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Hammer, M. R. (1988). Strangers and hosts: An uncertainty
reduction based theory of intercultural adaptation. In Y. Y. Kim & W.
B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Cross-cultural adaptation: Current approaches (pp. 106–
139). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Guirdham, M. (2011). Communicating across cultures at work. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Haugh, M., & Watanabe, Y. (2009). Analysing Japanese ‘face-in-interaction’:
Insights from intercultural business meetings. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & M.
Haugh (Eds.), Face, communication and social interaction (pp. 78–95).
Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.
Ho, D. (1976). On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology, 81, 867–
884.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institu-
tions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Holtgraves, T. (1992). The linguistic realization of face management: Implications
for language production and comprehension, person perception, and
cross-cultural communication. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 141–159.
Hugh-Jones, D. (2015). Honesty and beliefs about honesty in 15 countries
(No. 2015–01). Norwich: School of Economics, University of East Anglia.
Jameson, D. A. (2007). Reconceptualizing cultural identity and its role in
intercultural business communication. Journal of Business Communication, 44
(3), 199–235.
Leonard, M. (2013). Why convergence breeds conflict: Growing more similar will
push China and the United States apart. Foreign Affairs, 92, 125.
Litt, E., Spottswood, E., Birnholtz, J., Hancock, J. T., Smith, M. E., & Reynolds,
L. (2014, February). Awkward encounters of an other kind: Collective
 2 PRINCIPLES OF SAVING FACE 31

self-presentation and face threat on facebook. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM

Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing
(pp. 449–460). ACM.
Locher, M. A. (2012). Politeness research from past to future, with a special focus
on the discursive approach. In Lucía Fernández Amaya, Maria de la O
Hernández López, Reyes Gómez Morón, Manuel Padilla Cruz, Manuel Mejias
Borrero, & Mariana Relinque Barranca (Eds.), New perspectives on (im)politeness
and interpersonal communication (pp. 36–62). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
Massey, D. S. (Ed.). (2008). New faces in new places: The changing geography of
American immigration. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
McLuhan, M., & Powers, B. R. (1989). The global village. Der weg der
mediengesellschaft in das, 21.
Merkin, R. S. (2000). A cross-cultural examination of facework communication: An
application of Hofstede's cultural dimensions.
Merkin, R. S. (2006). Power distance and facework strategies. Journal of
Intercultural Communication Research, 35(2), 139–160.
Merkin, R., Taras, V., & Steel, P. (2014). State of the art themes in cross-cultural
communication research: a systematic and meta-analytic review. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 38, 1–23.
Mirivel, J. C. (2015). Face. In K. Tracy (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of
language and social interaction (p. 187). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
Mujtaba, B. G. (2013). Negotiating with modern Chinese professionals: A review
of cultural considerations and cyberspace communication. Journal of Technology
Management in China, 8(3), 190–202.
Pedersen, P. B., Lonner, W. J., Draguns, J. G., Trimble, J. E., & Scharron-del Rio,
M. R. (2015). Counseling across cultures. Los Angeles: Sage.
Petronio, S., & Altman, I. (2002). Boundaries of privacy.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). The link between competitive advantage
and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.
Quayson, A., & Arhin, A. (Eds.). (2013). Labour migration, human trafficking and
multinational corporations: The commodification of illicit flows, (Vol. 7).
London: Routledge.
Ralston, D. A., & Elsass, P. M. (1991). Conformity: A subtle means of impression
management. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Applied impression
management: How image-making affects managerial decisions (pp. 241–256).
London: Sage.
Richard, E. M., & McFadden, M. (2015). Saving face: Reactions to cultural norm
violations in business request emails. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1–15.
32 R.S. MERKIN

Sapolsky, R. M. (2015, Oct 15). Our brains say corporations are people, too;
research finds that people use similar parts of the brain to understand corporate
and human behavior. Wall Street Journal (Online). Retrieved from http://
remote.baruch.cuny.edu/login?url, http://search.proquest.com/docview/
1722193873?accountid=8500.
Suárez-Orozco, M. M., Suárez-Orozco, C., & Qin-Hillard, D. (2014). The New
immigrant in American society: Interdisciplinary perspectives on the new
immigration. New York: Routledge.
Sueda, K. (2014). Research on face in communication studies. Negotiating multiple
identities (pp. 19–36). Singapore: Springer.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory.
Theorizing about intercultural communication. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.),
Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 71–92). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2012). Communicating across cultures. New York: Guilford
Press.
Townsend, P., Regan, P., & Li, L. L. (2015). Developing international managers:
The contribution of cultural experience to learning. International Journal of
Educational Management, 29(2), 234–251.
Tracy, K. (2008). “Reasonable hostility”: Situation-appropriate face-attack. Journal
of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 4(2), 169–191.
Tracy, K. (2011). A facework system of minimal politeness: Oral argument in
appellate court. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 7
(1), 123–145.
Tracy, K., & Baratz, S. (1994). The case for case studies of facework. In S.
Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The challenge of facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal
issues (pp. 287–305). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Tran, B. (2016). Communication (intercultural and multicultural) at play for cross
cultural management within multinational corporations (MNCs). In N. Zakaria,
A.-N. Abdul-Talib, & N. Osman (Eds.), Handbook of research on impacts of
international business and political affairs on the global economy (pp. 62–92).
Hershey, PA: Business Science Global.
Wagner, E. C. (2015). Face management in post-relational dissolution commu-
nication. The Proceedings of GREAT Day.
White, J. B., Tynan, R., Galinsky, A. D., & Thompson, L. (2004). Face threat
sensitivity in negotiation: Roadblock to agreement and joint gain.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 94(2), 102–124.
doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.03.005.
Woolsey, J. P. (1994). A brief review of the industry’s past three decades. Air
Transport World, 3, 46–48.
Zhang, X. A., Tian, P., & Grigoriou, N. (2011). Gain face, but lose happiness? It
depends on how much money you have. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 14
(2), 112–125.
 CHAPTER 3

Culture and Face Enactment

To facilitate a better understanding of the process of face enactment, a

description of what happens on the singular, personal level was presented
earlier. This chapter will provide a description of facework interactions
while focusing on the cultural group level. As pointed out by Fang (2012),
though more current studies may be more scientifically designed
(Schwartz, 1992), more practically-oriented (Trompenaars, 1994), or have
tested more societies (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004)
than Hofstede’s research, the overall impact of these recent studies has not
surpassed Hofstede’s. Rather, later studies have essentially followed
Hofstede’s philosophical tone (Fang, 2012). Hofstede’s elaboration of the
multifaceted marvel of culture, in simple and measurable terms, clarifies
why his conceptual framework is enormously popular as evidenced by its
incredible number of citations (Fang, 2010). Because of this and the
additional justifications given previously, his framework was chosen for the
model that ensues. However, given the value of more recent work, addi-
tional conceptualizations of cultural values will also be presented and
explained (Schwatz, 1999; House, 2004, 2014).
At the cultural group level, values reflect the explanations groups (e.g.,
nations) develop in response to face-threatening acts (Hofstede, 2001;
House, 2004, 2007; Schwartz, 2012). For example, in the US, citizens
believe that women and men are equal and therefore, women managers
should be treated with respect; so that if a business colleague from another
nation refuses to work with the woman manager of a team, reactionary
facework to such a violation of US values would be carried out. To explain

© The Author(s) 2018 33

R.S. Merkin, Saving Face in Business,
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59174-6_3
34 R.S. MERKIN

this process, this chapter will reintroduce cultural values (based on

Hofstede’s 2001 work on cultural dimensions) in a proposed model of
facework. Then this model, which includes cultural indicators and the
other major elements that operate together in intercultural facework
interactions, will be advanced.

Definition of Terms
Before explaining the intricacies of intercultural facework, a number of
terms need to be clarified. First, before applying Hofstede’s cultural
dimensions, an explanation will be given as to what a cultural dimension is.
Then, the actual cultural dimensions studied here will be explained.
Alternative cultural studies and bodies of theory (House, 2014; Schwartz
et al., 2012) will also be presented and described. Following descriptions of
cultural difference methodologies, the process of facework and its rela-
tionship to intercultural interactions will be described, using Hofstede’s
theoretical systems as a springboard and a heuristic tool to further elaborate
on how appropriate intercultural facework is carried out.
Cultural dimensions are frameworks used to describe the shared
assumptions that vary from culture to culture—meaning that they are
shared by members of the same society, not by individuals. An example of a
shared assumption might be that we don’t brag because that makes us stick
out. Others may feel they need to show people their credibility so they
name drop. Another term used to describe a cultural dimension is referred
to as national culture. National culture is generally described as a set of
shared values, beliefs, and assumptions that have developed over time in a
particular country. Despite the existence of in-country regional differences,
national culture is a meaningful concept that is commonly measured at the
country level, such as the US national culture, etc. (Erez, 2011; Minkov &
Hofstede, 2012, 2014). However, it may also be shared by members of the
same nation who live outside their home country because formative
experiences of culture shape patterns of thinking, feeling, and acting in
response to circumstances encountered in life (Erez, 2011; Hofstede,
2001; House et al., 2004; Schwartz, 1999). Theories of cultural dimen-
sions presume that people who grow up in the same place will share similar
views about what is appropriate in everyday communication. Additionally,
cultural dimensions describe the effects of a society’s beliefs on the values of
its members, and how these values relate to cross-cultural communication.
 3 CULTURE AND FACE ENACTMENT 35

HOFSTEDE’S CULTURAL DIMENSIONS

Hofstede (1980, 2001) investigated the differences of thinking or “mental
programming” between members of over 40 different modern nations to
see what cultures are composed of. After the considerable effort of
matching thousands of respondents by occupation, age, and sex,
Hofstede’s analysis of questionnaires in the over 40 countries yielded four
dimensions of cultural variability. Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) cultural
dimensions provide a useful tool to analyze the influence of culture on the
expression of face in intercultural interactions because he provided recor-
ded scores along a continuum for most of the countries in the world. More
specifically, Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) 4 dimensions of cultural variability
include: (a) power distance, (b) uncertainty avoidance, (c) individual-
ism-collectivism (individualism), and (d) masculinity-femininity (mas-
culinity). These dimensions explain the shared views individuals acquire by
growing up in a particular country.
For example, power distance is a measure of the amount and strength of
interpersonal influence between two parties as perceived by the least
powerful of the two (Hofstede, 1980, p. 96). Members of different cultures
sometimes do not share the same views about how to treat superiors. Some
see superiors more as equals, whereas others view superiors as a supreme
authority. Thus, cultural members’ perceptions of or reactions to power
distinctions are a consideration in cross-cultural interactions. Clearly, if an
employee addresses a superior by his or her first name when the superior
has the latter cultural perception there would be face concerns to address.
Power distance is usually communicated as a reaction to reinforce hierar-
chical norms in a culture.
Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) second cultural dimension, uncertainty
avoidance, refers to the extent to which people are made nervous (a
reaction, as depicted in the model that follows) by situations they consider
to be unstructured, unclear, or unpredictable, and the extent to which they
try to avoid such situations by adopting strict codes of behavior and beliefs
in absolute truths (Stohl, 1993). The strict rules necessary for predictable
certainty in business and social situations require strict adherence in
high-uncertainty-avoidant cultures. For example, those who avoid uncer-
tainty need their businesses to be more transparent and their accounting
practices to be upright and apparent. Consequently, questionable
accounting practices have been shown to be far less common in companies
based in countries that are high in uncertainty avoidance such as Israel and
36 R.S. MERKIN

Japan (Kanagaretnam, Lobo, Ma, & Zhou, 2016). Therefore, depending

on the level of uncertainty avoidance, those from a particular culture tend
to differ in how much ambiguity they tolerate while perceiving others
(Hofstede, 2001). The level of ambiguity tolerated by cultural variations in
uncertainty avoidance tends to dictate the likelihood that ritualistic
responses to face-threatening situations will be used.
A third cultural dimension considered to be the most popular cultural
dimension in cross-cultural studies is individualism-collectivism (individ-
ualism) (Merkin, Taras, & Steel, 2014). Individualism is the relationship
between individuals and the collectivity that prevails in their society
(Hofstede, 1980). Individualists base their identity on themselves alone.
For example, individualists socially encourage originality and extroverted
self-expression, which is frowned upon in collectivistic cultures. An
example of an individualistic culture is the United States where quirky
people can be viewed as “interesting” as opposed to the collectivistic view,
reflected in the Japanese proverb that “the nail that sticks up gets ham-
mered down”. Collectivists are often contrasted with individualists as the
respective end points on a continuum. This is because as opposed to basing
their identity on themself alone, collectivists tend to base their identity on
their social group. According to Yang (1981), collectivism is “a tendency
for a person to act in accordance with external expectations or social
norms, rather than internal wishes or personal integrity” (pp. 159–160).
Collectivistic cultures emphasize conformity, empathy, and dependence
(Ishii-Kuntz, 1989). The conflicting values of individualistic versus col-
lectivistic needs tend to be reflected in interactions between cultures
varying on this dimension.
In order to conform, it is important for those from collectivistic cultures
to save face because losing face causes one to stick out. Thus, when
encountering a possible face-threat, when experiencing some sort of failure,
collectivists might use humor to save face when they are about to be
exposed in some way, or when they have been found out to have been
involved in inappropriate behavior (Kane, Suls, & Tedeschi, 1977). Saving
face by means of humor to indicate that a behavior was actually a joke and
not meant to be taken seriously, works by means of “decommitting”
oneself from the action (Chen, Watkins, & Martin, 2013; Martin, 2007).
In fact, facework has been associated with individualism and collectivism in
studies showing that individualistic beneficial humor styles (affiliative and
self-enhancing humor) are positively related to collectivism and saving
others’ faces (Chen et al., 2013). Chen et al. (2013) also found that more
 3 CULTURE AND FACE ENACTMENT 37

detrimental humor styles (aggressive and self-deprecating humor) were

positively related to saving one’s self-face among the collectivistic Chinese
population. Another example of differences in individualistic and collec-
tivistic facework showed that individualists feel that their face is more
threatened when they are not personally consulted about important deci-
sions while their collectivistic counterparts feel more threatened when
harmonious communication is not engaged in during interactions (Merkin,
2015). This example shows two different perceptions of similar incidents
revealing how individualistic cultures focus on the self and collectivistic
cultures focus on the group.
Differences reflecting Hofstede’s (1980) fourth dimension of culture are
referred to as masculinity-femininity. Like individualism-collectivism,
Hofstede ranked societies on a continuum between levels of masculinity
and femininity. Cultures that are more masculine are more competitive and
have fewer social welfare programs (Hofstede, 2001). The dimension of
masculinity-femininity also refers to the dominant sex-role patterns in
societies in that masculine cultures place a greater emphasis on men being
rigidly committed to culturally accepted models of masculinity than more
feminine societies do (Arrindell et al., 2013; Hofstede, 2001). Just as male
communication is oriented towards status and power (Holtgraves & Yang,
1992; Tannen, 1990), masculine cultures emphasize success, achievement,
competition, and strength (Dartey-Baah, 2013; Dubina & Ramos, 2013;
Hofstede, 2001).
Thus, the author investigated face-saving issues, such as whether more
competitive or leveling strategies are more likely to be used by masculine
and feminine cultural members, respectively (Merkin, 2005b). Merkin’s
findings indicated that those from masculine cultures tend to save face
through more competitive communication than those from feminine cul-
tures. An example of competitive communication is taking credit for a
successful idea in a business meeting. In addition, those from feminine
cultures are more inclined to use strategies designed to minimize
one-upping others and to equalize partners in a relationship. An example of
a feminine strategy is politely explaining ideas to harmonize the relation-
ship at hand.
Hofstede (2001) also found that the gap between women’s and men’s
values is large in very masculine cultures as opposed to more feminine
cultures where men and women’s roles are more similar. In masculine
cultures, men are expected to be assertive, striving, and competitive and to
go all-out to achieve material success, whereas women are expected to
38 R.S. MERKIN

promote quality of life and to care for children and the weak (Shao, Rupp,
Skarlicki, & Jones, 2013; Van de Vliert, 1998). These expectations were
supported in a study in 13 masculine nations that indicated that men from
masculine societies have higher mean national levels of masculine gender
role stress than men from more feminine nations (Arrindell et al., 2013).
In highly masculine cultures, masculinity is related to power, assertive-
ness, and the use of aggressive language, while femininity is associated with
passivity, empathy, and the use of more submissive and uncertain language
(Hofstede, 2001). In contrast, those from feminine cultures are less likely
to differentiate between male and female roles in the workplace (Mikelsen
& Einarsen, 2001). An example of this is that workplace violence that is
characterized by sex differences is more prevalent in masculine cultures,
such as the United States, than in feminine cultures such as Scandinavia
(Lutgen-Sandvik, Tracy, & Alberts, 2007; Neuman, 2012).
After Hofstede (1980, 2001) finished his initial study, he conducted
further research with Bond using Asian participants, who had different cul-
tural concerns (revealed by a Chinese Value Study) that were previously not
tested (i.e., Hofstede, 1997; Hofstede & Bond, 1984, 1988). Upon further
investigation, Hofstede and Bond noted that a fifth cultural dimension exists
that typifies Asian cultures called long-term orientation which was also
replicated in later studies (Hofstede & Minkov, 2010; Minkov & Hofstede,
2010). Long-term orientation refers to a society fostering virtues oriented
towards future rewards, such as the promotion of cooperation and harmony
for the good of all. Other long-term-oriented values include thrift, hard
work, and persistence (Hofstede & Minkov, 2010). Long-term-oriented
values vary and are situated along a continuum of countries’ scores between
the poles of long-term and short-term orientations. In general, those from
long-term-oriented cultures are more willing to delay short-term gratifica-
tion to achieve future success (Hofstede, 2011).
Short-term orientation, which is the opposite end of the continuum from
long-term orientation, stands for societal values related more to the present
than to the past. Examples of such values include respect for tradition,
preservation of face, and fulfilling social obligations. The Asian cultures
studied by Hofstede and Bond (1984, 1988) and later by Hofstede and
Minkov (2010) had a greater long-term orientation than the more Western
cultures tested by Hofstede (1980) originally. Values related to a
long-term orientation tend to operate during intercultural interactions
such as ordering relationships by status so that employees working in
 3 CULTURE AND FACE ENACTMENT 39

long-term-oriented cultures would be more likely to communicate respect

and comport themselves more formally than employees from more
short-term-oriented cultures. A second conceptualization related to those
with a long-term orientation is a greater propensity to experience shame
(Hofstede & Minkov, 2010), which would be useful for more
short-term-oriented US Americans to know when communicating with
long-term-oriented individuals from China, for example. In particular, US
Americans would need to take special care not to threaten the face of
people from shame-prone cultures and to be aware of the greater sensitivity
to face-threats operating under the surface during such intercultural
interactions.
In addition to the US, Anglo countries, Canada, New Zealand, and
Australia score relatively short-term-oriented, which Hofstede and Minkov
(2010) suggest accounts for value conflicts inside the Asia-Pacific region,
especially in business and environmental issues. For example, though the
Asia-Pacific region has thus far managed to preserve a certain harmony with
nature, many parts of China are now being faced with business compli-
cations due to pollution. Consequently, Nestle and other companies are
providing hardship packages for executive-level candidates in cities that are
hard hit with pollution. More specifically, employment packages in China
are designed around executives leaving their families in their home country
and receiving an allowance for frequent trips home because spouses do not
want to live in polluted environments due to health concerns (“China’s
smog splits,” 2014).
A study on Chinese long-term-oriented millennial employees showed
that they fostered harmony among their peers with prosocial behavior such
as greater in-role and extra-role performance in order to improve their
long-term career development (Lin, Li, & Hou, 2015). Thus, a long-term
orientation acts to orient people towards creating greater harmony during
interactions so that relationships can flourish over the long-term. The issue
of pollution in China could potentially be a threat to face for Chinese
companies, however, given that those who possess a high long-term ori-
entation are more likely to manage face-threats using harmonious and
cooperative facework strategies than their short-term-oriented counter-
parts (Merkin, 2004) they are less likely to engage in conflict. In the case of
air pollution, for example, smoothing over the issue by providing extra
40 R.S. MERKIN

compensation eliminates any discussion or conflict upfront, and thus,

addresses this face-threatening issue before any damage to face can arise.
Hofstede (2011) explored further dimensions of culture uncovered by
Minkov’s (2007) analyses of what is referred to as the World Value Survey.
Specifically, Minkov’s cultural dimensions included exclusionism (a focus on
in-groups versus out-groups) versus universalism, indulgence versus re-
straint and monumentalism (self-promotion, absolute truth) versus flexu-
mility (a combination of flexibility and humility). Hofstede integrated
exclusionism versus universalism into his individualism -collectivism
dimension. Hofstede also converted Minkov’s (2007) monumentalism
versus flexumility dimension into a new version of long versus short-term
orientation, expanding the concept and adding more survey questions than
the World Value Survey items, to represent the expanded topic. Finally,
Minkov’s (2007) indulgence refers to a society that allows relatively
unrestricted gratification of basic and natural human drives related to
enjoying life. The other pole of indulgence versus restraint refers to a
society that either indulges in desires or subdues gratification of desires and
controls it through strict social norms. Hofstede described the concept of
indulgence versus restraint as more or less complementary to long versus
short-term orientation (Hofstede, 2011); and unexpectedly found them to
weakly correlate negatively. Given the overlap of this latest research, when
addressing cross-cultural interactions in facework further, our discussion
will focus on only the first five of Hofstede’s (2001) cultural dimensions.

SCHWARTZ AND GLOBE THEORIES OF CULTURAL

DIMENSIONS
Although Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are the most prominent and best
known conceptualization of national culture (Fisher, 2014; Kaasa, Vadi, &
Varblane, 2016; Merkin, Taras, & Steel, 2014), other researchers con-
ducted large-scale studies of culture as well, discussing different content
and finding different cultural dimensions emanating from their studies in
different contexts (e.g., Schwartz, 1999; House et al., 2004). Below this
chapter presents an introduction and short description of two later con-
ceptualizations, and subsequent chapters further refer to these concepts
when focusing on the contexts of motivation and leadership.
 3 CULTURE AND FACE ENACTMENT 41

Schwarz Theory of Basic Values

Based on Rokeach (1973) and Kluckhohn (1951), Schwartz (1999)
studied diverse motivational personal values deduced from an extensive
sample of school teachers and college students in 38 nations. Values,
according to Schwartz (1999), are broadly defined as notions of the
desirable which guide the way individuals choose behaviors, evaluate
people and events, and describe their actions and evaluations in a complex
and integrated system, which is assumed to be moderately stable over long
periods of time (Schwartz, 1999). Finally, while values may be global in
nature, they are also culturally specific (Glazer & Beehr, 2005). Schwartz’s
results included ten dimensions of culture at the country level, which
explain nation-level values differences (Schwartz, 2014; Schwartz & Bardi,
2001). Schwartz’s ten types of universal values are: power, achievement,
hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, universalism, benevolence, tradition,
conformity, and security. Like Hoftsede’s (2001) cultural dimensions,
Schwartz’s cultural values must also be analyzed on the country level as
opposed to the individual level (Fischer, Vauclair, Fontaine, & Schwartz,
2010).
The results of Schwartz’s a priori model, validate Hofstede’s findings in
that the main seven of the ten values Schwartz obtained are associated with
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, particularly with individualism versus col-
lectivism (Minkov, 2011). In fact, Schwartz’s seven cultural value orien-
tations basically reflect three dimensions, which are conceptually similar to
three of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 2006). Specifically,
Schwartz’s autonomy versus embeddedness corresponds to individualism
versus collectivism; egalitarianism versus hierarchy corresponds to power
distance; and mastery versus harmony corresponds to masculinity versus
femininity (Hofstede, 2006).

GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness)

GLOBE researchers (House et al., 2004; House, Brodbeck, & Chhokar,
2007; House, Dorfman, Javidan, Hanges, de Luque, 2014) carried out a
mammoth research program by surveying over 18,000 managers in the food,
telecommunications, and banking industries, in 62 societies. Their results
expanded Hofstede’s findings to include nine dimensions of national values
developed based on another cultural framework focusing on leadership
(Dorfman, Javidan, Hanges, Dastmalchian, & House, 2012). Listed by name,
42 R.S. MERKIN

GLOBE’s dimensions include performance orientation, institutional collec-

tivism, gender egalitarianism, uncertainty avoidance, in-group collectivism,
future orientation, humane orientation, assertiveness, and power distance.
The GLOBE research program expanded the Hofstede (1980, 2001)
model of five dimensions of national cultures to 18. Hofstede (2006)
reanalyzed GLOBE’s 2004 summary book and through meta-analysis was
able to reduce this data to five meta-factors. One factor significantly cor-
related with gross national product (GNP) and another factor correlated
with Hofstede’s (2001) power distance dimension. Three more factors
significantly correlated with Hofstede’s individualism, uncertainty avoid-
ance, and long-term orientation cultural dimensions. The fifth GLOBE
meta-factor Hofstede found included questions relating to Hofstede’s
masculinity versus femininity dimension. GLOBE’s respondents classified
the questions in a way that the researchers did not account for and which
closely resembles the original Hofstede model (Hofstede, 2006); indicat-
ing support for Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) framework. Consequently,
Hofstede’s work appears to validly represent this body of values.
Outside of the models utilizing cultural dimensions, some scholars argue
against national culture theories as an approach to studying culture, but the
study of culture should still include a recognition of the significance of
nations (Hsu et al., 2013). Some arguments maintain that because there
can be more than one culture or subculture within a nation, nations are not
the best unit of analysis for examining culture. But, there is substantial
utility in national culture theories as a starting point for analysis because
delimiting all subcultural groups in a nation is almost impossible (Hofstede,
2006). National culture is a more legitimate and meaningful unit of analysis
and representation for culture (Minkov & Hofstede, 2012) because
within-country commonalities and between-country differences do exist
(Schwartz, 2006). Additionally, many cultures have centuries-old roots and
thus, change very slowly.
It is also important to emphasize that Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) model of
national culture has enjoyed unmatched acceptance for decades including
numerous citations and face validity (the questions appear to measure what
they claim to measure), notwithstanding some criticism (e.g., Baskerville,
2003; McSweeney, 2002; Spector, Cooper, & Sparks, 2001). Most of the
later cultural frameworks, including Schwartz (1994) and the GLOBE
team (House, Javidan, & Dorfman, 2001), are rooted in Hofstede’s work
and offer only incremental improvements (c.f., Taras, Rowney, & Steel,
2009; Yang, 2010; Yang et al., 2012). Hofstede’s model has been used
 3 CULTURE AND FACE ENACTMENT 43

most often by researchers, and the large number of studies and consistency
of research methodology across studies applying Hofstede’s framework
provide support that his categories catalyze discussions about relationships
between cultural values, facework, and business interactions. Therefore, his
nation-based model is the most useful framework for this analysis.
In sum, cultural dimension theories are heuristic devices to analyze
related social scientific aspects of culture. Schwartz’s and the GLOBE
frameworks conceptually reduce to Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) cultural
dimensions and thereby show evidence for the general validity of
Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) conceptualization of culture. Consequently, in
the interest of parsimony, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions will serve to
facilitate further discussions on facework and cross-cultural interactions.

HOFSTEDE’S CULTURAL DIMENSIONS AND FACEWORK

For Americans to better adapt to Chinese culture, identifying China’s
cultural characteristics is essential (Erez, 2009). This is particularly
important because China is the third largest export market for the United
States and its largest importer. What’s more, the United States and China
trade over $300 billion backward and forward annually (Aoki & Jinglian,
2012). It is therefore important that trade relations between the two
countries remain unstrained.
Recently, a study showed how simple email messages have implications
for face-saving. In particular, Chinese employees reported a greater desire
to do business with the sender of emails that included facework (e.g., I
hope all is well; How are you today) and explained their reasoning before
making a request (Richard & McFadden, 2015). In contrast, US
employees were more irritated with this type of email, preferring more
direct messages (Richard & McFadden, 2015). This example shows that
there are cultural differences in communication preferences based on saving
face, and that seemingly minor changes in communication of email mes-
sages could lead to significant improvements in business outcomes. Thus,
while communication between familiar people is not necessarily simple,
intercultural communication is even more complex. The cultural dimen-
sions above should help clarify the cultural forces at play during facework.
An overall explanation of how a person presents and negotiates face will
follow.
Losing face is painful because face is an expression of one’s inner self. As
a whole, feelings are attached to one’s self, and one’s self is expressed
44 R.S. MERKIN

through face (Goffman, 1955). Because one’s face is an expression of one’s

inner self, the self is the starting point in the conceptualization a person
holds of his/her face. Face is an enactment of the self.
Although above is a description of the Chinese (national) preferences for
emails that begin with facework, the self of a human being also holds
various personal idiosyncrasies. In the previous instance, for example, if one
Chinese emailer was personally uncomfortable with direct requests, then
we could not generalize that all Chinese cultural members are uncom-
fortable with direct requests. Rather, to understand the cultural influences
on facework, it is necessary to examine a culture as a group. Hofstede’s
(1980) points out that his cultural dimensions were calculated and applied
to a cultural group level, not an individual level.
Because the nature of intercultural communication is complex, it is
important to refer to a model explaining the intercultural process of face-
work to improve communication skills that contribute to interactional
success. In order to understand the process of face enactment, an expla-
nation of the major elements of the facework model will follow based on
the elements of the self and contextual factors relating to face. It should be
noted that the concept of the self (composed of individualism and mas-
culinity factors) and the model that will follow below will represent
cultural-level effects to be applied generally.

Both Individualism and Masculinity Influence Facework

One’s culture affects one’s conception of self (Hofstede, 2011; Sullivan,
Young, Landau, & Stewart, 2014). For example, individualistic Americans
assume that equal rights are given and incorporate this value into their
self-identities, so if someone threatens their rights and pushes them
around, a perceived violation will be noted. Similarly, someone from a
feminine culture that values modesty will be offended when someone brags
and pushes people aside competitively. In short, a person’s self embodies
cultural values.
Inkeles and Levinson (1969) and others have pointed out that there are
two cultural conceptions of self: (a) the relationship between the individual
and society or individualism-collectivism (Hofstede, 2001, 2011; Sullivan
et al., 2014) and (b) the individual’s concept of masculinity and femininity
or the social implications of having been born a boy or a girl (de Mooij,
1998; Hofstede, 2001, 2011), affecting how cooperatively or competitively
one communicates (Hofstede, 2001; Merkin, 2005b). Because the self is
 3 CULTURE AND FACE ENACTMENT 45

expressed through face (Goffman, 1967), logically these two

self-conceptions act to influence one’s expression of face. For example, the
projection of leadership has been shown to reflect both aspects of the self;
namely, individualism-collectivism and masculinity-femininity (Alves,
Lovelace, Manz, Matsypura, Toyasaki, & Ke, 2006). Findings conclude
that self-leadership in collectivist cultures is understood on the basis of
social relationships, while leadership in individualistic cultures is centered
on the particular leader as an individual. Additionally, leaders from mas-
culine cultures tend to focus on goals such as accomplishing tasks whereas
leaders in feminine cultures tend to focus on quality of life such as the
successful ability to navigate employee relations (Alves et al., 2006). Thus,
different aspects of the self are played out in leaders’ presentation of their
face.
Although Hofstede’s dimensions have been widely used in analyses of
phenomena pertaining to different cultures (e.g., Manos, Drori, Shoham,
& Aharonson, 2015; Manrai & Manrai, 2011; Mirabela & Madela, 2013;
Pressentin, 2015), all five of Hofstede’s dimensions are more global in
nature than the narrower concept of the self. Hofstede (1997, 2011) as
well as others (e.g., Doney, Cannon, & Mullen, 1998; Merkin, 2005b)
pointed out that only two of his four dimensions [what he refers to as
individualism and masculinity continuums (Hofstede, 1980, 2001)] relate
to the conception of self. Therefore, the two dimensions of self, mas-
culinity, and individualism, are understandably the forces that act upon
one’s face enactment. As seen in the model (see Fig. 3.1) the inner self is in
the middle and both aspects of the self, individualism/collectivism, and
masculinity/femininity make up one’s face.
For the most part, however, investigations of face and facework have
been limited to cross-cultural analyses of a single predictor, i.e. individu-
alism (e.g., Cho & Sillars, 2015; Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; Hatfield
& Hahn, 2014; Richard & McFadden, 2015). Cocroft and
Ting-Toomey’s (1994) investigation of individualism alone showed that
Japan was both more collectivistic and more individualistic than the United
States. However, Hofstede (2001) and subsequent studies (e.g., Merkin &
Ramadan, 2010; Diener & Diener, 2009) found the United States to be
the most individualistic of all of the 40 countries studied.
The view advanced here maintains that people have both an individu-
alistic self, which lies on a particular point on the continuum of
individualism-collectivism, and a masculine–feminine self, which lies on a
particular point on a continuum. Thus, the level of a person’s individualism
46 R.S. MERKIN

ENVIRONMENT AND OTHER PARTIES

LONG TERM ORIENTATION

EXPECTIONS / RESPONSES

INDIVIDUALISTIC COLLECTIVISTIC

FACE
MASCULINE FEMININE

SHORT TERM ORIENTATION

ENVIRONMENT AND OTHER PARTIES

Fig. 3.1 Facework model

does not fluctuate but reflects one of two cultural dimensions contributing
to facework reflecting the two aspects of the self (Inkeles & Levinson,
1969; Hofstede, 2011) both of which interact to form one’s face. In a
nutshell, culture determines one’s self and, in turn, one’s corresponding
face. Therefore, culture is more important than situational context in
forming the self. The situation does play a part, however, in the strategies
people use to present their face. Research on individualism has shown that
individualism affects facework (Chen et al., 2013; Cocroft &
Ting-Toomey, 1994; Merkin, 2012, 2015) and the other aspect of face
 3 CULTURE AND FACE ENACTMENT 47

(masculinity) has been shown to bear effects as well (Merkin, 2005a, b).
Thus, elements of both individualistic and masculine facework, such as the
degree of direct and competitive strategies used during interactions, will
emanate from the self, based on a person’s culture.
Keeping this in mind, the Fig. 3.1 shows that the culturally-based
masculine–feminine and individualistic–collectivistic aspects of self are
elements comprising one’s face. Feelings are attached to one’s face so they
reside within the face as well (Smith, 2006). One’s face expresses the self
through interactive facework. In facework, individuals exercise various
communication strategies influenced by their culture which can then be
selected according to the situation. After experiencing a response to the
face presented, people then determine whether to amend their presentation
strategies or not.
Generally, after conveying one’s face, a person asks, “Was the message
understood?” To determine whether strategies were successful at convey-
ing a person’s face, this chapter explores the corresponding degree of
communication competence of various facework strategies. Also, once a
message is received, the other participant(s) will interpret a person’s mes-
sage according to his or her cultural values. An explanation of the cultural
dimensions of power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term ori-
entation (Hofstede, 2001) will help decipher how receivers are likely to
filter the sender’s message on the basis of their cultural outlooks. Since
communication is interactive communication exchanges go two ways but
conversations are propelled initially by cultural values as indicated.
However, first, the elements of the model pertaining to the presentation
of facework strategies will be given along with an approach for measuring
these elements. Next, information will be provided on the types of face-
work likely to be employed by members of different cultures. Finally, since
face is an interactive process (Goffman, 1967), an explanation of the
receiver’s reaction to facework will be furnished to complete the model
below which illustrates the process of facework. As previously stated, cul-
ture is what determines the facework that people use. Specifically, culture
affects norms (Rui & Stefanone, 2013) and these norms correspond to
varying levels of individualism and masculinity in the self. Below a more
thorough explanation of these factors will be provided.
48 R.S. MERKIN

INDIVIDUALISM–COLLECTIVISM
The dimension of individualism characterizes the relationship between
individuals and the collectivity that prevails in their society (Hofstede,
2001). Individualists are oriented to the self and base their identity in the
individual. Individualistic cultures emphasize the divinity of people’s
identity, rights, and human obligations (Donnelly, 2013). It is also asso-
ciated with relatively loose social ties, independence, a low need for affili-
ation with groups, a focus on self-interest, and low concern for the interests
of others (Taras, Kirkman, & Steel, 2010). Individual initiative is socially
encouraged in individualistic cultures but frowned upon in collectivistic
cultures that are more focused on group associations (Donnelly, 2013).
Collectivists base their identity in their social system. Collectivistic cultures,
emphasize conformity, empathy, and dependence (Bargiela-Chiappini &
Haugh, 2009; Ishii-Kuntz, 1989). According to Yang (1981), collectivism
“represents a tendency for a person to act in accordance with external
expectations, or social norms, rather than internal wishes or personal integrity”
(pp. 159–160). In order not to disrupt the status quo, collectivists tend to be
other-honoring and prefer using consensus and mutual cooperation
(Ting-Toomey, 2005). Consequently, the preferred mode of communication
in collectivistic societies tends to be more indirect and implied (Bello,
Brandau-Brown, Zhang, & Ragsdale, 2010; Merkin, 2015) because collec-
tivistic cultures tend to be high-context cultures (Kim, Kim, Lee, & Ahn,
2016; Ting-Toomey, 1988).

High-Context/Low-Context Communication
Hall (1976) broke down cultures according to two distinctive commu-
nicative patterns or dimensions. Hall referred to his two dimensions as
high-context cultures and low-context cultures. In high-context cultures,
meaning is interpreted on the basis of physical context, with little infor-
mation coded explicitly (Hall, 1976). In high-context communication,
people encode messages through unspoken communication. In this type of
communication, people use the situation (the sharing of experiences),
behavior, and paralanguage cues as integral parts of the communicated
message (Wurtz, 2005). On the other hand, in low-context cultures,
meaning is communicated explicitly in the message (Mazaheri, Richard,
Laroche, & Ueltschy, 2014). Examples of low-context cultures are
 3 CULTURE AND FACE ENACTMENT 49

Germany, the United States, and Switzerland. Examples of high-context

cultures are China, Japan, and Taiwan.
Individualistic cultures are also low-context cultures and collectivistic
cultures are also high-context cultures (Rallapalli & Montgomery, 2015;
Ting-Toomey, 1988). This rule-of-thumb makes it possible for one to refer
to Hofstede’s (2001) rankings on individualism to first see which cultures
are individualistic and which cultures are collectivistic. Then, it is possible
to determine if cultures are high-context or low-context on the basis of
their level of individualism or collectivism.
Unlike high-context cultures, low-context cultures place great emphasis
on explicitness and physical, personal belongings, referred to by Hall
(1976) as “extensions”. An example of an extension is one’s car, which, to
some, is “sacred” (Goffman, 1967). The importance of belongings is so
important to members of low-context cultures, that they are considered to
be part of their face (Hofstede, 1997). Given the importance of extensions,
the practice referred to as “ritual avoidance”—where it is assumed to be
improper to move another’s property—is a type of deference specific to
low-context cultures. Ritual avoidance is important to low-context culture
members because extensions like one’s possessions are considered an
extension of the person’s self (Hall, 1976).
In high-context cultures like Japan, however, this is not the case. In fact,
Hall (1976) reported that in Japan, his things were often moved from
room to room in the hotel he was staying at without warning. This
occurred when the hotel management decided that his hotel room was
needed for other guests. Therefore, whereas an individual’s possessions are
valued as an extension of the person in low-context cultures, they are not
significant in high-context cultures, where the situation is of prime
importance. Additionally, in high-context cultures, adherence to thrift is
more prevalent so that the importance of possessing belongings is alto-
gether minimized, unlike in low-context cultures (Akgunes, Culpepper, &
Austin, 2012).
Finally, the contextual rules of collectivistic high-context cultures are
not always apparent to those from low-context cultures because they are
generally unobservable (Hall, 1976). Thus, it is important to be aware of
the distinctive features of collectivistic cultures that are frequently unno-
ticeable to people from individualistic cultures. This is partly due to dif-
ferent communication goals. High-context Chinese communication, for
example, focuses on maintaining and cultivating relationships (Lyu, 2012),
in contrast to low-context Americans, who believe the major purpose of
50 R.S. MERKIN

communication is to exchange information (Scollon & Scollon, 1994).

Members of high-context cultures also prefer less confrontational com-
munication during face-threatening contexts than members of low-context
cultures (Chua & Gudykunst, 1987).
For example, the most preferred organizational-change communication
in the United States tends to be direct, clear, and explicit (Harris, Cole,
Fillmer, & Self, 2004). However, when organizations communicate
change messages that overlap with bad-news messages, those from
high-context cultures may experience a face-threat that obscures the
message. Thus, in a more high-context culture, bad-news messages would
likely be communicated indirectly by preceding the bad news with a buffer
and rationale. Similarly, high-context messages might include a show of
good will (Cardon & Philadelphia, 2015; DeKay, 2012; Jansen & Janssen,
2013) and be employed subtly. Finally, a bad-news message could be
conveyed by giving an explanation before the bad news (Jansen & Janssen,
2013). Such high-context messages could be missed by those from
low-context cultures who are more used to direct solution-oriented
communication.
Another example of high-context communication exhibited by those
from collectivistic cultures is the preferred use of deception to avoid being
honest or direct with another person when the truth could be
face-threatening. A specific example of this might be the choice to use an
indirect language style to conceal a person’s perceived shortcomings. This
may occur if, perhaps, a Chinese national (high-context and collectivistic)
feels uncomfortable saying “no” or “I don’t understand” because this is
considered a sign of weakness (Levitt, 2015). Many frustrations and
misunderstandings result from the high-context use of indirect language.
Nevertheless, it is difficult to communicate directly when direct commu-
nication is also perceived as face-threatening. It is also important not to
create face-threats for others by communicating too directly.

The Collectivistic Concept of Face

The stakes of losing face are also higher when one’s self is interconnected
to a group. In fact, Kitayama, Snibbe, Markus, and Suzuki (2004) point
out that as a general rule, members of collectivistic cultures have an
interdependent view of self and, thus, have little need for separation from
others. As Fig. 3.1 illustrates, one’s view of self affects one’s view of face.
Correspondingly, members of collectivistic cultures emphasize other-face
 3 CULTURE AND FACE ENACTMENT 51

maintenance, while those from individualistic cultures emphasize both self-

and other-face maintenance (Hatfield & Hahn, 2014). So, in the case of
US business colleagues exerting American demands of “fair” trade practices
to the Chinese government, they are concerned with both their (self) face
and their country’s (other) face. On the other hand, those from the col-
lectivistic Chinese government are primarily concerned with the face of the
Chinese people, not others such as US trade representatives. This situation
is an example of how those from collectivistic cultures distinguish between
in-groups and out-groups—favoring their in-groups and competing with
their out-groups (Triandis, 1987). In-groups consist of “groups of inter-
dependent people who interact over a substantial period of time, and who
can be identified by others as group members” (Triandis, 1987, p. 266). In
cultures that emphasize interdependence among in-group members as in
collectivistic societies, within corporations, it is possible that subjective
norms may trigger employment decisions that promote in-group favoritism
or nepotism (Wated & Sanchez, 2015).
Addressing issues such as favoritism can be tricky because face is such a
dominant concern in interdependent cultures (Kim & Sharkey, 1995).
Although the concept of face originated many years ago with the Chinese
(Ho, 1976), Western research inquiries into this process, for the most part,
began with Goffman’s (1955, 1967) work. Based on a segment of
Goffman’s (1955, 1967) principles of face, Brown and Levinson (1987)
developed a theory of linguistic politeness or deference. This theory con-
tains widely used conceptualizations of face in the literature. Specifically,
Brown and Levinson’s two conceptualizations are: (a) positive face or “the
want of every person, to be approved of by at least some others” and
(b) negative face or “the want of every ‘competent’ adult that his actions be
unimpeded by others” (p. 67). Positive face reflects affiliation needs, and
negative face reflects autonomy needs.
Similarly, Tannen (2005) states that human beings decide what to say
based on face wants that fluctuate between needs for independence and
community (p. 22). This idea corresponds to Scollon and Scollon’s con-
cepts of deference and solidarity (1994, p. 144). Likewise, Brown and
Levinson’s (1987) notions of negative face and positive face, as indicated
above, also correspond to the individualism-collectivism divide.
Although communication researchers have expounded further on
Brown and Levinson’s (1987) definitions (Fukushima, 2002; Ginsburg,
Vleuten, Eva, & Lingard, 2015; Sriubaitė, 2014) and have found universal
support for their theory (Kiyama, Tamaoka, & Takiura, 2012), there
52 R.S. MERKIN

appears to be some question as to whether negative face is universal

(Matsumoto, 1988, 2003; Watts, 2003; Gan, David, & Dumanig, 2015).
Kitayama et al., (2004) describe the Japanese self as interdependent with
no need for separateness from others. Therefore, it is proposed that mis-
communication could occur between members of collectivistic cultures
who do not necessarily understand the need of those from individualistic
cultures for negative face or autonomy. In addition to not understanding
individualists’ need for autonomy, collectivists also place their focus outside
themselves (Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998).
Collectivistic in-group/out-group distinctions. Ting-Toomey (1988)
pointed out that collectivistic cultural members are only concerned with
the others’ face. This “other” refers to the person’s in-group but not their
out-group with whom they compete (Das & Sahoo, 2015). In collectivistic
cultures, social relationships are predetermined by those defined as part of
one’s in-group. An example of an in-group for members of collectivistic
Japanese culture is their early friendships and work associates. As a con-
sequence of their collectivism, although this is changing, most Japanese
stay in the same job their entire lives (Endo, Delbridge, & Morris, 2015;
Thomas, 2013; Hirokawa, 1981; Hirokawa & Miyahara, 1986). Persons,
therefore, have faith that their fellow in-group members will be unendingly
loyal to them in return. Thus, in-group relationships provide collectivistic
cultural members with mutual support (Fitzsimmons & Stamper, 2014).
Since the Japanese have an interdependent orientation (Kitayama, et al.,
2004), their own independent self is not as important to them as it is to
individualists. However, members of individualistic cultures are concerned
with both their own face as well as that of others’. Accordingly, members of
individualistic cultures, apply the same value standards to all. People from
collectivistic cultures, however, have different values with respect to their
in-groups and out-groups (e.g., Scollon, Scollon, & Jones, 2011) and treat
them differently.
Members of collectivistic societies view those regarded as their
out-group with either indifference or antagonism (Triandis, 1987).
Although communication within collectivistic in-groups is extensive,
communication may or may not take place between members of collec-
tivistic cultures and their out-groups (Kim & Leung, 2000; Triandis,
1987). Researchers point out that in collectivistic societies, people are
trained to cooperate with members of few in-groups and to compete with
everyone else (Das & Sahoo, 2015). Hence, the strategies members of
 3 CULTURE AND FACE ENACTMENT 53

collectivistic cultures use towards their out-groups are likely to be com-

petitive and/or uncooperative.
For example, it has become well-known that the Japanese are unable to
assimilate outsiders into Japan or to deal easily with outsiders in the eco-
nomic marketplace (Tanabe, 2013). Moreover, in keeping with their col-
lectivistic values, long-term, implicit employment arrangements in Japanese
organizations necessitate employees to devote time and effort in forming
and maintaining social relationships as well as showing their commitment,
determination, and loyalty in daily organizational interactions (Peltokorpi,
2013). In Japan, relationships reinforcing in-group bonds based on trust,
loyalty, and seniority are the norm (Olcott, 2009). Consequently, Japanese
employees tend to stay in their organizations because their tsukiai, or
obligatory personal in-group relationships, are essential to getting work
done (Peltokorpi, 2013).
Furthermore, the Japanese employment system has been characterized
by lifelong employment and seniority promotion (Keizer, 2008; Schoppa,
2006; Wolff, 2009). In kind, employees in collectivist countries tend to
prefer fewer and more intimate in-group relationships around them
(Ramesh & Gelfand, 2010). This prevalence of in-group workgroups,
therefore, operates exclusively and consequently managers of Japanese
organizations often withhold access to communication from out-group
members (e.g., Americans). For instance, in Japanese firms, crucial meet-
ings can take place among members of in-groups exclusively (e.g., after
hours in a bar). Then, the next day, members of the out-group (e.g., the
American employees) may be informed of the company’s “new policy”
which was decided by the in-group the night before (Robinson, 2011).
This antagonism in some Japanese companies has become so severe that
employees have complained of “bias” and “lack of transparency” (Vo &
Stanton, 2011). Thus, in-group harmony is often maintained by out-group
disparagement and contempt (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2014).
Collectivistic emphasis on harmony. Besides their emphasis on in-groups,
collectivistic cultures value harmony and consensus as an ultimate goal in
society (Merkin, 2015; Ting-Toomey, 1994). This is because harmony
gives face which founds good relationships. Hofstede (1997) explained
that in collectivistic cultures, such as China, the Confucian ethic of har-
mony is found in the maintenance of everyone’s face in the sense of dignity
and prestige (Xiaohong & Qingyuan, 2013).
Many from collectivistic cultures believe that the great disrupter of
society is confrontation, which could potentially lead to conflict and social
54 R.S. MERKIN

disorganization (Brett, Behfar, & Sanchez-Burks, 2014). Therefore,

members of collectivistic cultures use accommodating communication
behaviors such as indirectness and politeness to maintain hierarchical
relationships (Bjorge, 2014; Merkin, 2012), and to prevent communica-
tion breakdowns or face loss.
Ting-Toomey (1988, 2007) illuminated this idea by contrasting how a
position of strength and firmness is important in individualistic cultures for
the negotiation of conflict situations. In collectivistic cultures, however,
in-groups where members feel they are equal and connected (horizontal
collectivism) practice cooperation and avoid conflict management styles are
used less (Boroş, Meslec, Curşeu, & Em, 2010). On the other hand, when
people view themselves as unequal and independent (vertical individual-
ism), an avoidance style of conflict management is more frequently used
(Boroş et al., 2010). Hofstede (1997) pointed out that the Japanese find
ultimate satisfaction in belonging. When people maintain themselves
within expected social roles, they are practicing the ideal of harmony and
order (Merkin & Shah, 2014; Misztal, 2013). Thus, in collectivistic cul-
tures when social order is maintained, there is happiness for all.
Collectivistic harmony based on hierarchy. The collectivistic pursuit of
harmony is based on hierarchy. In fact, being part of a collectivistic culture
requires a moderately high to high power distance or an acceptance of an
unequal distribution of power (Hofstede, 2001). Most researchers
acknowledge that Asians are more concerned than Westerners with
establishing their hierarchical positioning in relationships (Hofstede, 1997;
van Schalkwyk, 2011). In fact, Matsumoto (1988) suggested that the loss
of face in collectivistic cultures is associated with “the perception by others
that one has not comprehended and acknowledged the structure and
hierarchy of the group” (p. 405).
Those from collectivistic cultures (e.g., Japan, China) vary their level of
politeness depending on who they are speaking to hierarchically (Ota &
Giles, 2011). For example, of late, the Chinese online ritual called sao yi sao
takes place when associates exchange QR codes (identifiers that allow
others to place a person on a status hierarchy) on WeChat, a Chinese
messaging app (Lawrence & Chen, 2016). Another such ritual is carried
out when two Japanese meet each other and exchange name cards to
determine where they stand in relation to one another. After this takes
place, the person who has the greater status outstretches his or her hand
over the less important person’s hand (Kublin, 1987). Once people know
each other’s status, communication can continue based on hierarchical
 3 CULTURE AND FACE ENACTMENT 55

notions attached to a person’s status. This orientation towards status and

establishment of differences in power seems to be equivalent to masculinity
(Hofstede, 2001), the second dimension of the facework model.
While the Japanese appear to be primarily collectivist on the surface,
with their emphasis on harmonious conciliatory communication, they are
also highly masculine (Jackson & Tomioka, 2004; Nemoto, 2013). This is
evidenced by their competitive favoring of in-groups and active mainte-
nance of hierarchical status relationships (Keizer, 2008; Schoppa, 2006;
Wolff, 2009). Thus, an additive model employing both the continuums of
individualism and masculinity explains the case of Japan more compre-
hensively than do examinations of collectivism alone.

MASCULINITY-FEMININITY
The dimension of masculinity, elaborated on by Minkov, Hofstede, and
Hofstede (2010), refers to the dominant sex-role patterns in societies. Just
as male communication is oriented toward status and power (Kunsmann,
2013; Tannen, 1990), masculine cultures emphasize competition and
strength. “In very masculine cultures, the gap between women’s and men’s
values is very large or hierarchical” (Hofstede, 2011). Masculine cultures
are characterized by distinct social gender roles. For example, in masculine
cultures, men are assertive, tough, and focused on material success; while
women are more modest, tender, and concerned with solidarity, equality,
and quality of life (Hofstede, 2001). Those from masculine cultures also
possess a concern for status, performance, and competition among col-
leagues. Conflicts in masculine cultures are resolved by fighting them out
(Hofstede, 2001). This may explain why many cultures that value the
masculine idea of hierarchy fear conflict so much. If being original and
speaking one’s mind leads to conflict, it could lead to all-out war.
In contrast, those from feminine cultures stress the value of relation-
ships. In feminine cultures, women’s and men’s values vary much less.
Those from feminine cultures communicate with an objective of equality
(Merkin, 2005b). The process of leveling (Hofstede, 2001) describes this
process of equalization. Leveling means that one does not attempt to
outshine others. The masculine idea of hierarchy, on the other hand,
stresses that excelling is important and individuals try to be the best.
Leveling functions to cut down barriers of distance (such as status and
hierarchy). Moreover, in feminine societies where gender roles overlap,
expectations are equal for both men and women. Both men and women
56 R.S. MERKIN

are presumed to be modest, tender, and concerned with quality of life in

feminine societies (Hofstede, 2001). Moreover, Hofstede (2001) descri-
bed feminine cultures as having an interdependence ideal and masculine
cultures as having an independence ideal. Above all, in feminine countries,
differences in sex roles do not mean differences in power. But members of
masculine cultures believe that men should dominate in all settings
(Rutherford, 2015). This is evidenced by findings indicating that citizens of
masculine cultures tend to use more direct and competitive facework
strategies (Merkin, 2005b) and fewer indirect facework strategies.
On the other hand, facework strategies have been found to be highly
culture-specific (Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; Siebold & Busch, 2015;
Yamagishi, Hashimoto, & Schug, 2008). It is, therefore, difficult to analyze
such strategies. Given the inability of outsiders to readily decode the
facework strategies of a culture unknown to them, an approach to iden-
tifying the motivation or function of the predictors of facework behavior
will be presented to increase understanding of how multiple factors are at
play during face-threatening situations.
Uncovering the function of cultural predictors could illuminate why
particular subsequent facework behaviors tend to be carried out. Because
the following model is additive, in cases where a particular culture scores
unusually high on one of the predictors and moderate or low on the other
predictor, one could conceivably predict the types of subsequent facework
likely to result. Thus, the following approach exemplifies how the study of
facework can be undertaken using a functional approach. This functional
approach will be presented by demonstrating two extreme prototypical
examples.

THE FUNCTIONAL APPROACH

Shimanoff (1994) pointed out that it is important to examine politeness
strategies, a form of facework, on the basis of the function or goal of
discourse (or speech). This approach focuses on the goal of the commu-
nication. What is the speaker trying to accomplish? In the study of dis-
course analysis, it has been common to analyze a person’s communication
based on the number of occurrences of certain linguistic forms, such as tag
questions (such as isn’t it? added to the end of a question) or disclaimers
(such as I’m not an expert but… that softens a claim). This same type of
accounting is also used by some for the analysis of facework strategies. For
example, how many direct/indirect or social/antisocial strategies were
 3 CULTURE AND FACE ENACTMENT 57

used? Counting incidences of strategies have reached inconclusive results

when used in politeness research (Shimanoff, 1994). Also, results attained
through analyses of linguistic forms (as will be shown below) could indicate
opposite results.

Feminine Cultures Can Appear to Be Masculine

The case of Israel suggests the need to concentrate on the function of
discourse. Israeli culture is considered to be feminine (Hofstede, 2007).
This is evidenced by Tannenbaum et al. (1974) finding that Israelis exhibit
low levels of adherence to hierarchy. Tannenbaum et al. found this lack of
tolerance for hierarchy to be reflected communicatively by the display of
high levels of organizational participation. What’s more, among Israeli
organizations, there is a high level of participation in global civil society
networks (Gidron, Bar, & Katz, 2004), indicating Israel’s feminine values
of caring for others and support for quality of life (Hofstede, 2001).
Finally, Hofstede indicated that Israel holds a very low power distance
score (Hofstede, 2013), which indicates that they have little tolerance for
inequality, and therefore display the feminine value of egalitarianism.
Katriel (1986, 2015) described a particular use of speech employed by
Sabra (Israeli born) Israelis called dugri speech, which refers to “talking
straight to the point” (p. 10). This direct speech form is considered by
politeness theorists to be impolite (Brown & Levinson, 1987) and lin-
guistically masculine (Itakura & Tsui, 2004; Lakoff, 1975; Wetzel, 1988).
However, upon further investigation, dugri speech, though direct, does
not cause a high face-threat level. Rather, dugri speech is perfectly polite in
that it is both self-face and other-face affirming within the Israeli Sabra
community (Katriel, 2004, 2015). What occurs is that a type of disclaimer
is placed before imparting the direct speech (i.e., “let me tell you dugri…”)
which mitigates the social costs of the message. The direct comment that
generally follows equalizes the two people through a description of what
the speaker really thinks. The implication is that the individuals taking part
in the interaction are close enough and reasonable enough to have such a
frank discussion. Dugri speech, therefore, functions as an equalizer and acts
to bond the two interacting parties. It is, therefore, a feminine commu-
nication behavior, notwithstanding the initial impression that direct speech
acts are masculine. The effect of the strategy of dugri speech cannot be
understood by analyzing the type of speech act, e.g., direct versus indirect,
but rather in analyzing the aim of the process enacted, namely, leveling
58 R.S. MERKIN

(Hofstede, 2001). In short, if researchers were to analyze this direct lin-

guistic form out of context instead of assessing the goal of the commu-
nication, which is leveling, they could draw opposite conclusions from
what is actually taking place.

Masculine Cultures Can Appear to Be Feminine

Japanese culture is highly masculine (Hofstede, 2001; Nemoto, 2013).
However, the use of differential language, in keeping with Confucian ideals
of modesty, is present among members of collectivistic Japanese culture as
well (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 2003; Holmes, 2013). As a result, many
Japanese use linguistically feminine communication strategies (Lakoff,
1975; Lauwereyns, 2002; Tamaoka, Lim, Miyaoka, & Kiyama, 2010).
Examples of Japanese communication strategies are indirectness, polite-
ness, tact (Kublin, 1987; Lan, 2015), conformity and dependence
(Ishii-Kuntz, 1989), the use of honorific forms and consideration to
stimulate personal relationships (Lin, 2013). Although these strategies
appear to be feminine, a more thorough examination suggests that mas-
culine characteristics are the driving force behind such accommodating
communication behaviors.
Specifically, the conciliatory strategies utilized by the Japanese are
designed to create harmony between people. This harmony is strived for in
order to maintain a Confucian value of hierarchical social ties. For example,
the Japanese employ a well-known decision-making process called the ringi
system in which reports are circulated among the whole group for approval
to strengthen the harmonious relationship among group members
(Diefenbach, 2015; Leung, Koch, & Lu, 2002). Social ties, according to
Confucianism, are based on an ideal of ordered human feeling or hierarchy
(DeVos, 1985). The goal or function of Japanese harmonious communi-
cation is to maintain a masculine hierarchical idea. Hence, a surface con-
sideration of the strategies’ linguistic forms would disguise Japan’s
masculine hierarchical aspect as feminine harmony.
Knowledge of the function of a culture’s discourse together with the
proposed facework model could help predict the types of facework cultural
members are likely to carry out. The equation is individualism-collectivism
plus masculinity-femininity equals likely facework outcomes. The results
are particularly likely in cases where one predictor is strong and the other
one is not. The additive model is presented based on this assumption. Two
extreme prototypical examples follow which illuminate this idea. The first
 3 CULTURE AND FACE ENACTMENT 59

example discusses Japan, a culture possessing strong masculinity charac-

teristics and weak individuality characteristics (Hofstede, 2001). The sec-
ond is Denmark, a culture possessing a strong feminine component and a
moderate individuality (or collectivistic) component (Hofstede, 2001).

The Effect of Two Predictors on Facework Strategies

The terms individualism and masculinity represent the respective contin-
uums: (a) individualism-collectivism and (b) masculinity-femininity.
Therefore, a culture low in individualism would be collectivistic and a
culture low in masculinity would be feminine. Below are examples of
functional level calculations.

High Femininity þ Moderate Individualism ¼ Feminine Facework

Denmark is a highly feminine country plus a moderately individualistic

country (Hofstede, 2001). In Denmark, Brouwer et al., (1979) found that
males and females used equally polite strategies when asking for tickets and
directions. In the management context, male and female managers used
the same levels of politeness as well (Ladegaard, 2011), despite the fact that
the credibility of female managers was sometimes questioned more.
Brouwer (1982) also found that males and females in Denmark employed
an equal number of polite forms such as please, thank you, and greetings.
Finally, Danish respondents were shown to communicate using a process of
leveling by making linguistic choices that act to construct a more equal
relationship in addition to softening the effects of social hierarchies (Huls,
Backus, Klomps, & Jørgensen, 2003). Because femininity is characterized
by both genders using the same strategies, the function of the strategies
used by members of Danish culture appears to reflect the femininity of this
culture.
Although the above studies on Denmark were limited by not incorpo-
rating facework strategies other than politeness, the results still suggest that
the cultural influence of a highly feminine dimension and a moderately
individualistic dimension produces more feminine facework strategies. The
following example illustrates how the cultural influence of a very weak
masculinity or highly feminine dimension plus a moderately individualistic
dimension result in a tendency to use more face strategies reflecting fem-
inine communication behaviors.
60 R.S. MERKIN

High Masculinity and Moderate Collectivism equals Masculine

Facework.
Japan is a highly masculine plus a moderately collectivistic culture
(Hofstede, 2001). Cocroft and Ting-Toomey (1994) found that Japanese
men are more likely to use antisocial, order, and self-presentative facework
strategies than are Japanese females. Japanese politeness studies have also
shown that females are more polite than men (Ciot, Sonderegger, &
Ruths, 2013; Ide, 1982, 2006, Lin, 2013; Wolff, 2015). They use more
honorifics, they do not use vulgar speech, and they use more “softening”
forms than men (Ide, 1982, 2006) such as indirect communication,
smiling, and using the word “please” instead of using imperatives (Richards
& Schmidt, 2014). The Japanese are also more likely than US Americans to
employ corrective responses of apology and remediation (Cupach &
Imahori, 1993). However, Japanese females also use even more humble
forms than men (Tao, 2010, 2012).
The above studies show that there are clear discrepancies between the
communication of males and females in Japan. Such wide discrepancies or
hierarchical differences between genders characterize masculinity, the sec-
ond proposed predictor of facework. The following example illustrates how
the cultural influence of a strong masculinity dimension and a moderately
collectivistic dimension produces facework strategies reflecting masculine
communication behaviors. Actually, despite the fact that Japan is a mod-
erately collectivistic culture, the resulting strategies were not of a collec-
tivistic nature.

How Two Predictors Explain the Case of Collectivistic Japan?

In this additive model, occurrences of strong predictors, when together
with moderate predictors, predict overwhelming effects in the stronger
predictor’s direction. The case of the highly masculine plus moderately
collectivistic Japan just discussed demonstrated an overwhelmingly mas-
culine result. The presence of Japan’s strong masculinity dimension could
have masked Japan’s more moderately collectivistic effects. Masculinity is
connected to independence, a form of individualism (Hofstede, 2001;
McGrath & O’Toole, 2014) as well as assertiveness (de Mooij, 2013). In
fact, researchers have pointed out that masculinity-femininity is sometimes
confused with individualism-collectivism (Hofstede, 1998; Nelson, Brunel,
Supphellen, & Manchanda, 2006). Thus, findings showing Japan’s high
individuality (Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994) might really be a reflection
 3 CULTURE AND FACE ENACTMENT 61

of its high masculinity dimension. The additive model below, therefore,

could possibly account for the finding that Japan is more individualistic
than the United States (Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994)—though subse-
quent researchers found Japan to actually be more collectivistic than the
US (Ralston, Holt, Terpstra, & Kai-Cheng, 2008).
The additive model (below) helps to explain how members of collec-
tivistic cultures who also have a moderate to high masculinity component
also tend to enact more masculine facework strategies (Triandis et al.,
1988). Examples of collectivistic cultural members’ masculine strategies
include favoring their in-groups, ignoring or antagonizing members of
their out-groups (Triandis et al., 1988; Gaertner & Dovidio, 2014), using
indirect facework (Lan, 2015), and using harmonious accommodating
communication to maintain the hierarchical status quo in relationships
(Leung, Koch, & Lu, 2002; Merkin, 2015). The particulars above also
illustrate how the additive model can help explain the process of facework
more fully.

How Two Predictors Explain the Individualistic United States?

The United States is a highly individualistic plus a moderately masculine
culture (Hofstede, 2001). Face maintenance for high-status individuals in
individualistic societies is not a difficult task. Individualistic high-status
members have considerable amounts of money and possessions, which are
important in maintaining face in individualistic low-context societies.
Because US Americans are highly individualistic, they are also independent-
minded (Hofstede, 2001). Consequently, despite their emphasis on “might
makes right” in the workplace, US Americans tend to believe that they are
also highly egalitarian (Scollon & Scollon, 1994).
Using a functional approach of analysis, one can identify individualism as
the underlying goal of US American facework. Whereas US American
facework strategies may appear egalitarian or feminine, in actuality they are
not. The United States is a masculine culture, therefore, members of this
culture have hierarchical goals of status (Hofstede, 1997). Thus, the
strategies used by US Americans can be discerned more accurately
employing a functional analysis of facework.
For example, although people may be curious about individuals who
“do their own thing”, in the US, the person’s “thing” could place him or
her into a particular social class. US American talk shows focus on the most
individualistic types of people they can find in order to arouse US American
62 R.S. MERKIN

interest. However, individualistic expressions such as large face tattoos,

strong smells, and unkempt hair are all judged as deviating from the norm
by many US Americans. It appears that the masculine component of US
American culture puts an individual into a particular slot on a status hier-
archy. This is the opposite of egalitarianism, which is a feminine-leveling
behavior. According to Hofstede (2001), masculine societies tend to have
little sympathy for the weak. Masculine cultures are also characterized by
explicit hierarchical differences that are actively maintained. Despite US
Americans’ interest in individuality, their accompanying hierarchical views,
which stem from the masculine dimension of their culture, affect their
consideration of another’s face. Therefore, US Americans are a lot less
egalitarian than they think (Scollon & Scollon, 1994). In fact, the United
States is actually a patriarchal society (Cohen, 2012).
In individualistic cultures, high-status members (white males) are more
likely to enact face individualistically than low-status members (Lykes,
1985). This is because high-status members of individualistic cultures
generally have plenty of the low-context possessions necessary to enact
their face in a typically individualistic manner (Hofstede, 1997; Souiden,
M’Saad, & Pons, 2011). For example, a high-status person in Highland
Park, Illinois, an upper-class neighborhood in suburban Chicago, would
have to drive a nice car because that car is his or her face (Hofstede, 2001).
Individuals of lower status in the United States, such as African
Americans and women, might also be expected to enact face independently
in their individualistic society. However, given the hierarchical (masculine)
nature of the United States, lower status members may be regarded as
individualistic, but may actually be more on the collectivistic end of the
individualism continuum. This is because lower status groups have inter-
action experiences that do not allow them to use individualistic facework
strategies. Lykes (1985) pointed out that lower status members of indi-
vidualistic societies tend to have to develop a more collectivistic self and use
more collectivistic communication in order to cope with society’s stifling
treatment of them.
For example, corporations often practice a form of autocratic manage-
ment (Gorden & Infante, 1991; Popescu, Tomoiu, & Andreea, 2012). As
a result, in some cases, women of lower socioeconomic status have found
that they cannot rise within their organization or increase their compen-
sation higher unless they connect themselves with a male mentor
(Dougherty, Dreher, Arunachalam, & Wilbanks, 2013; Hennig, 1967).
Mentoring is a collectivistic activity. Therefore, in order for women to cope
 3 CULTURE AND FACE ENACTMENT 63

within masculine hierarchical structures, there are times when they cannot
enact their face individualistically.
It has been demonstrated that facework strategies are an interactional
process (Canelon, Ryan, Iriberri, & Eryilmaz, 2015; Neuliep, & Johnson,
2016; Ting-Toomey, 1994, 2014). Individuals project their face but then
are forced to amend their previous conceptions of their face based on
others’ reactions to their presentation. Thus, when women originally
enacted individualistic facework such as assertiveness in organizations but
were oppressed by masculine society, they decided to change their face-
work strategies by using more collectivistic mentoring strategies. It is this
two-way process that has changed initially individualistically-socialized
individuals into more collectivistic entities.
Like members of collectivistic cultures, lower status groups also com-
municate more like high-context cultures. This is because their facework
experiences have enabled them to develop an ability to read interactional
situations better than dominant white male constituencies. For example,
lower status members (women) of American society are better nonverbal
decoders of embarrassment than men (Keltner, 1995; Schmid, Mast,
Bombari, & Mast, 2011). Thus, in individualistic cultures, status differ-
ences also appear to influence how well individuals decode facework
strategies (Amarasinghe, 2012).
This discussion demonstrates how status differences influence how
members of individualistic cultures use individualism in their facework.
Hofstede (2001) found the United States to be a relatively masculine
society, therefore, hierarchical differences exist. Nonetheless, given its very
high ranking on individuality (Hofstede, 2001), the United States became
the first country to initiate the women’s movement, which reflects indi-
vidualism. On the other hand, masculine hierarchical status differences can
still be observed in America. Therefore, the case of the United States
further illustrates how two distinct predictors of face predict the kinds of
facework individuals utilize. In sum, individualism and masculinity addi-
tively affect facework strategies preferred by members of different cultures.
The additive model below is presented in order to explain the process of
facework more comprehensively.

Conclusion
The need for improved intercultural interactions has increased since the
world has become more global. Therefore, the consequences of face loss
64 R.S. MERKIN

need to be considered through the study of global facework. Because the

rules of face vary according to culture (Matsumoto, 2003; Ting-Toomey,
1994), the model below explains facework interactions according to
national cultural differences.
Culture is embodied in a person’s self, which affects the conception of
face, which in turn, is enacted through facework strategies. The self is
composed of two elements, individualism and masculinity (Doney et al.,
1998; Hofstede, 2011; Merkin, 2005b). Since masculinity is connected to
independence (Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994), a form of individualism
(Hofstede, 2001), it could be that previous findings that Japan has high
individuality (Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994) might really reflect its high
masculinity. The presence of Japan’s strong masculinity dimension could
have masked Japan’s more moderate collectivistic effects in producing
masculine facework strategies. Therefore, the effects of masculinity, the
second aspect of self, may have been overlooked in previous studies because
masculinity-femininity is sometimes confused with individualism-
collectivism (Hofstede, 1998; Nelson, Brunel, Supphellen, & Manchanda,
2006).
The results of functional analyses can also exhibit opposite results from
analyses based on linguistic forms. Examples from both ends of the con-
tinuum of masculinity and femininity showed how the functional approach
could be implemented. This approach was also explained in the contexts of
the collectivistic Japanese and the individualist United States cultures.
Thus, analyses of facework predictors can be carried out using a functional
approach. Specifically, when analyzing a particular culture’s facework, that
culture’s masculinity and individualism level [based on Hofstede’s (2001)
scores] should be ascertained. Then, the goals corresponding to a culture’s
dimensions ought to be kept in mind (e.g., the goal of independence
would be apparent in highly masculine cultures). Facework could then be
analyzed on the basis of a culture’s communication goals or functions. This
method of facework analysis is useful because it provides interpretations
that go beyond the mere surface manifestations of discourse (Shimanoff,
1994). Hence, analyses testing the functional approach can be combined
with the model below.
 3 CULTURE AND FACE ENACTMENT 65

CULTURAL MODEL OF FACEWORK

The individualistic–collectivistic self plus the masculine–feminine
self-combines to equal the total self. These communicate outwardly and
influence the presentation of face. Thus, one’s total self affects one’s face,
which is negotiated through facework. Facework consists of an individual’s
unique facework strategies which interact with the environment (e.g., the
situation) and other parties. Strategies listed correspond to the aspect of
face as noted and are most likely to be used depending on the level of the
cultural dimensions that underlie the self. These strategies are a few among
other possible strategies used in facework, but are generally more likely to
be used depending on cultural proclivities. Masculine strategies include
distancing, direct, and in-group strategies. Feminine strategies include
leveling, harmony-maintaining, and indirect strategies. Individualistic
strategies include high-status, low-status, and direct strategies.
Collectivistic strategies include indirect and harmony-maintaining strate-
gies. Power distance strategies (cooperative, direct, indirect), uncertainty
avoidance strategies (aggression, ritualistic, harmonious) and
long/short-term-oriented strategies (cooperative and harmonious) are
reactive and are used to negotiate responses to others presentations.

CASE STUDY 1: TOSHIBA

LOSS OF FACE
Problem Statement
Recently, Mr. Hisao Tanaka CEO of Toshiba Computer Company, lost
face by having to step down from his job for inciting subordinates to cook
the firm’s books and inflate profits by 1.2 billion dollars throughout the
years leading up to 2014. Traditionally, Japanese corporate culture has
been one of obedience and loyalty of lower-level employees to higher-level
employees. In response to management’s demand for impossible profit
targets, subordinate employees at Toshiba were forced to decide how to
reach such goals. In order to avoid reporting losses that “were so embar-
rassing that they could not announce them,” (A load of Tosh, 2015)
subordinates decided to do whatever they could to meet their supervisor’s
unmanageable goals. Without being given explicit instructions, employees
decided to overstate profits, and to book profits too early, in so doing,
pushing back losses. Another Japanese-managed firm, Olympus Camera,
had a similar accounting scandal break out in 2011, in which employees
66 R.S. MERKIN

covered up 1.7 billion dollars in investment losses. Toshiba’s fall occurred

just as foreign investors were becoming less skeptical about Japanese cor-
porate governance. Some believe that the Japanese scandals occurred as a
result of a lack of transparency in the continued flow of appointments of
new bosses, who follow the same broken management structure. The
tradition in Japan is that old bosses are given the prerogative to appoint
their successors, thereby sidestepping the company’s board. According to
George Olcott, a member of several Japanese boards, the company would
do well to hold Toshiba’s top brass accountable by regulators, owners, and
the firm itself.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

1. What cultural characteristics explain the assumptions and practices

carried out in Toshiba’s corporate culture?
2. What should Toshiba do to ensure a fair and transparent nomination
process for a new boss?
3. How should Toshiba’s top management fix their accounting
problem?
4. What facework strategies should Toshiba employ to improve their
reputation?

REFERENCES
Akgunes, A., Culpepper, R., & Austin, S. F. (2012). Negotiations between Chinese
and Americans: Examining the cultural context and salient factors. The Journal
of International Management Studies, 7(1), 191–200.
A load of Tosh. (2015, July 25). Corporate Japan is reeling after a big accounting
scandal at Toshiba. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/news/
business/21659758-corporate-japan-reeling-after-big-accounting-scandal-
toshiba-load-tosh.
Alves, J. C., Lovelace, K. J., Manz, C. C., Matsypura, D., Toyasaki, F., & Ke, K.
(2006). A cross-cultural perspective of self-leadership. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 21(4), 338–359.
Amarasinghe, A. D. (2012). Understanding intercultural facework behaviours.
Journal of International Communication, 18(2), 175–188.
Aoki, M., & Jinglian, W. (2012). The Chinese economy: A new transition. London:
Palgrave McMillan.
 3 CULTURE AND FACE ENACTMENT 67

Arrindell, W. A., van Well, S., Kolk, A. M., Barelds, D. P., Oei, T. P., Lau, P. Y., et al.
(2013). Higher levels of masculine gender role stress in masculine than in feminine
nations: A thirteen-nation study. Cross-Cultural Research, 47(1), 51–67.
Bargiela-Chiappini, F., & Haugh, M. (2009). Face, communication and social
interaction. London: Equinox.
Baskerville, R. F. (2003). Hofstede never studied culture. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 28(1), 1–14.
Bello, R. S., Brandau-Brown, F. E., Zhang, S., & Ragsdale, J. D. (2010). Verbal
and nonverbal methods for expressing appreciation in friendships and romantic
relationships: A cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 34(3), 294–302. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.02.007.
Bjørge, A. K. (2014). Discourse strategies for cross-cultural communication. In B.
Gehrke & M.-T. Claes (Eds.), Global leadership practices: A cross-cultural
management perspective (pp. 67–84). New York: Palgrave-MacMillan.
Boroş, S., Meslec, N., Curşeu, P. L., & Em, W. (2010). Struggles for cooperation:
Conflict resolution strategies in multicultural groups. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 25(5), 539–554. doi:10.1108/02683941011048418.
Brett, J., Behfar, K., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2014). Managing cross-culture conflicts: A
close look at the implication of direct versus indirect confrontation. In O. B. Ayoko,
N. M. Ashkanasy, & K. A. Jehn (Eds.), Handbook of conflict management research
(pp. 136–154). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.
Brouwer, D. (1982). The influence of the addressee’s sex on politeness in language
use. Linguistics, 20, 697–711.
Brouwer, D., Gerritsen, M., & DeHaan, D. (1979). Speech differences between
women and men: On the wrong track. Language in Society, 8, 33–50.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage
(Vol. 4). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Canelon, J., Ryan, T., Iriberri, A., & Eryilmaz, E. (2015). Conflicts on team
satisfaction and face loss and the moderating role of face work behaviors in
online discussions. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 19(3), 45–61.
Cardon, P. W., & Philadelphia, M. (2015). The role of motivational values in the
construction of change messages. Business and Professional Communication
Quarterly, 78(2), 215–230. doi:10.1177/2329490614558921.
Chen, G., Watkins, D., & Martin, R. A. (2013). Sense of humor in China: The role
of individualism, collectivism, and facework. Psychologia: An International
Journal of Psychological Sciences, 56(1), 57–70. doi:10.2117/psysoc.2013.57.
China’s Smog Splits Families as Toxic Pollution Extracts. (2014, April 7). Bloomberg
Business. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014–04-
07/china-s-smog-splits-families-as-toxic-pollution-extracts-costs.
Cho, M. K., & Sillars, A. (2015). Face threat and facework strategies when family
(health) secrets are revealed: A comparison of South Korea and the United
States. Journal of Communication, 65(3), 535–557. doi:10.1111/jcom.12161.
68 R.S. MERKIN

Chua, E. G., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1987). Conflict resolution styles in low- and
high-context cultures. Communication Research Reports, 4, 32–37.
Ciot, M., Sonderegger, M., & Ruths, D. (2013). Gender inference of twitter users
in non-english contexts. In EMNLP (pp. 1136–1145).
Cocroft, B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Facework in Japan and the United States.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 469–506.
Cohen, P. (2012, November 19). America is still a patriarchy. http://www.
nexis.com.remote.baruch.cuny.edu/results/shared/controller/enhpermalink.
do?permaLinkInfoKey=0_T22658888222&selThresholdvalue=undefined.
Cupach, W. R., & Imahori, T. T. (1993). Managing social predicaments created by
others: A comparison of Japanese and American facework. Western Journal of
Communication, 57, 431–444.
Dartey-Baah, K. (2013). The cultural approach to the management of the
international human resource: An analysis of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions.
International Journal of Business Administration, 4(2), 39.
Das, N., & Sahoo, F. M. (2015). Cultural typologies in Odisha: An empirical study.
Journal of Contemporary Psychological Research, 2(1), 63.
DeKay, S. H. (2012). Where is the research on negative messages? Business
Communication Quarterly, 75, 173–175.
de Mooij, M. (1998). Masculinity/femininity and consumer behavior. In G.
Hofstede & G. Hofstede (Eds.), Masculinity and femininity: The taboo
dimension of national cultures (pp. 55–73). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
de Mooij, M. (2013). On the misuse and misinterpretation of dimensions of
national culture. International Marketing Review, 30(3), 253–261.
Diefenbach, T. (2015). Inclusiveness and exclusiveness of Japanese-style manage-
ment abroad: Some evidence from Southeast Asia. The South East Asian Journal
of Management, 9(1), 52.
Diener, E., & Diener, M. (2009). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and
self-esteem. In E. Diener & E. Diener (Eds.), Culture and well-being: The
collected works of Ed Diener (pp. 71–91). New York, NY: Springer
Science + Business Media. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-2352-0_4.
Doney, P. M., Cannon, J. P., & Mullen, M. R. (1998). Understanding the
influence of national culture on the development of trust. Academy of
Management Review, 23(3), 601–620.
Donnelly, J. (2013). Universal human rights in theory and practice. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Dorfman, P., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., Dastmalchian, A., & House, R. (2012).
GLOBE: A twenty year journey into the intriguing world of culture and
leadership. Journal of World Business, 47(4), 504–518.
Dougherty, T. W., Dreher, G. F., Arunachalam, V., & Wilbanks, J. E. (2013).
Mentor status, occupational context, and protégé career outcomes: Differential
returns for males and females. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 514–527.
 3 CULTURE AND FACE ENACTMENT 69

Dubina, I. N., & Ramos, S. J. (2013). Entrepreneurship and national culture

(According to Hofstede’s model). In Encyclopedia of creativity, invention,
innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 634–638). New York: Springer.
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and gender. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Endo, T., Delbridge, R., & Morris, J. (2015). Does Japan still matter? Past
tendencies and future opportunities in the study of Japanese firms. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 17(1), 101–123.
Erez, M. (2009). Make management practice fit national cultures and the global
culture. In E.A. Lock (Ed.). Handbook of principles of organizational behavior:
Indispensable knowledge for evidence-based management (2nd ed., pp. 615–643).
West Sussex. UK: Wiley.
Erez, M. (2011). Cross-cultural and global issues in organizational psychology.
In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology
(Vol. 3, pp. 807–854). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Fang, T. (2010). Asian management research needs more self-confidence:
Reflection on Hofstede (2007) and beyond. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 27(1), 155–170.
Fang, T. (2012). Yin Yang: A new perspective on culture. Management and
Organization Review, 8(1), 25–50.
Fischer, R., Vauclair, C. M., Fontaine, J. R., & Schwartz, S. H. (2010). Are
individual-level and country-level value structures different? Testing Hofstede’s
legacy with the Schwartz Value Survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41
(2), 135–151.
Fisher, D. M. (2014). A multilevel cross-cultural examination of role overload and
organizational commitment: Investigating the interactive effects of context.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4), 723–736. doi:10.1037/a0035861.
Fitzsimmons, S. R., & Stamper, C. L. (2014). How societal culture influences
friction in the employee–organization relationship. Human Resource
Management Review, 24(1), 80–94.
Fukushima, S. (2002). Requests and culture: Politeness in British English and
Japanese. Bern: Peter Lang.
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2014). Reducing intergroup bias: The common
in-group identity model. Hove East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
Gan, A. D., David, M. K., & Dumanig, F. P. (2015). Politeness strategies and
address forms used by Filipino domestic helpers in addressing their Malaysian
employers. Language in India, 15(1), 46–73.
Gidron, B., Bar, M., & Katz, H. (2004). The Israeli third sector: Between welfare
state and civil society. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
Ginsburg, S., Vleuten, C., Eva, K. W., & Lingard, L. (2015). Hedging to save face:
A linguistic analysis of written comments on in-training evaluation reports.
Advances in Health Sciences Education. doi:10.1007/s10459-015-9622-0.
70 R.S. MERKIN

Glazer, S., & Beehr, T. A. (2005). Consistency of implications of three role

stressors across four countries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 467–
487. doi:10.1002/job.326.
Goffman, E. (1955). On face work. Psychiatry, 18, 213–231.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual. New York: Doubleday.
Gorden, W. I., & Infante, D. (1991). Test of a communication model of
organizational commitment. Communication Quarterly, 39, 144–155.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.
Harris, P. R., Moran, R. T., & Moran, S. V. (2004). Managing cultural differences.
Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Hatfield, H., & Hahn, J. (2014). The face of others: Triadic and dyadic interactions
in Korea and the United States. Journal of Politeness Research: Language,
Behavior, Culture, 10(2), 221–245. doi:10.1515/pr-2014-0010.
Hennig, M. (1967). The managerial women. Garden City, NY: Anchor
Press-Doubleday.
Hirokawa, R. Y. (1981). Improving intra-organizational communication: A lesson
from Japanese management. Communication Quarterly, 30, 35–40.
Hirokawa, R. Y., & Miyahara, A. (1986). A comparison of influence strategies
utilized by managers in American and Japanese organizations. Communication
Quarterly, 34, 250–265.
Ho, D. (1976). On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology, 81, 867–
884.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in
work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (1998). Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of national
cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: International differences in
work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2006). What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers’ minds versus
respondents’ minds. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 882–896.
Hofstede, G. (2007). Asian management in the 21st century. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 24, 411–420.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context.
Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). doi:10.9707/2307-0919.
1014.
Hofstede, G. (2013). Hierarchical power distance in forty countries. Organizations
alike and unlike. In C. J. Lammers & D. J. Hickson (Eds.), Organizations like
and unlike (pp. 97–119). London: Routledge.
 3 CULTURE AND FACE ENACTMENT 71

Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede’s culture dimensions an

independent validation using Rokeach’s value survey. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15(4), 417–433.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural
roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 5–21.
Hofstede, G., & Minkov, M. (2010). Long-versus short-term orientation: New
perspectives. Asia Pacific Business Review, 16(4), 493–504.
Haugh, M., & Watanabe, Y. (2009). Analysing Japanese ‘face-in-interaction’:
Insights from intercultural business meetings. Equinox Publishing, 78–95.
Holmes, J. (2013). Women, men and politeness. Routledge.
Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J. N. (1992). Interpersonal underpinnings of request
strategies: general principles and differences due to culture and gender. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2), 246.
House, R. J., Brodbeck, F. C., & Chhokar, J. (2007). Culture and leadership across
the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
House, R. J., Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M., Hanges, P. J., & de Luque, M. F. S.
(2014). Strategic leadership across cultures: GLOBE study of CEO leadership
behavior and effectiveness in 24 countries. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.).
(2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies.
Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
House, R., Javidan, M., & Dorfman, P. (2001). Project GLOBE: an introduction.
Applied Psychology, 50(4), 489–505.
Huls, E., Backus, A., Klomps, S., & Jørgensen, J. N. (2003). Adolescents involved
in the construction of equality in urban multicultural settings. Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 24(1–2), 102–125.
Hsu, S. Y., Woodside, A. G., & Marshall, R. (2013). Critical Tests of Multiple
Theories of Cultures’ Consequences Comparing the Usefulness of Models by
Hofstede, Inglehart and Baker, Schwartz, Steenkamp, as well as GDP and
Distance for Explaining Overseas Tourism Behavior. Journal of Travel Research,
52(6), 679–704.
Ide, S. (1982). Japanese sociolinguistics politeness and women’s language. Lingua,
57, 357–385.
Ide, S. (2006). Wakimae no Goyooron [Pragmatics of wakimae]. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Inkeles, A., & Levinson, D. (1969). National character: The study of modal
personality and sociocultural systems. In G. Lindsey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The
handbook of social psychology (pp. 418–492). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ishii-Kunst, M. (1989). Collectivism or individualism? Changing patterns of
Japanese attitudes. Sociology and Social Research, 73, 174–179.
Itakura, H., & Tsui, A. B. M. (2004). Gender and conversational dominance in
Japanese conversation. Language in Society, 33, 223–248.
72 R.S. MERKIN

Jackson, K., & Tomioka, M. (2004). The changing face of japanese management.
London: Routledge.
Jansen, F., & Janssen, D. (2013). Effects of directness in bad-news e-mails and
voice mails. Journal of Business Communication, 50, 362–382.
Kaasa, A., Vadi, M., & Varblane, U. (2016). A new dataset of cultural distances for
European countries and regions. Research in International Business and
Finance, 37, 231–241.
Kanagaretnam, K., Lobo, G. J., Ma, C., & Zhou, J. (2016). National culture and
internal control material weaknesses around the world. Journal of Accounting,
Auditing and Finance, 31(1), 28–50. doi:10.1177/0148558X14560897.
Kane, T. R., Suls, J., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1977). Humour as a tool of social
interaction. In A. J. Chapman & H. C. Foot (Eds.), It’s a funny thing, humour
(pp. 13–16). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Katriel, T. (1986). Talking straight: Dugri speech in Israeli sabra culture. London:
Cambridge University Press.
Katriel, T. (2004). Dialogic moments: From soul talks to talk radio in Israeli culture.
Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
Katriel, T. (2015). Dugri. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie, & T. Sandel (Eds.), The
international encyclopedia of language and social interaction (pp. 493–498).
Boston: Wiley.
Keizer, A. (2008). Non-regular employment in Japan: Continued and renewed
dualities. Work, Employment and Society, 22(3), 407–425.
Keltner, D. (1995). Signs of appeasement: Evidence for the distinct displays of
embarrassment, amusement, and shame. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68, 441–454.
Kim, Y., Kim, H., Lee, D., & Ahn, J. (2016). Promoting giving campaigns in
university websites: A cross-cultural comparison between the United States and
South Korea. Journal of Promotion Management, 22(1), 122–136. doi:10.
1080/10496491.2015.1107015.
Kim, M. S., & Leung, T. (2000). A multicultural view of conflict management
styles: Review and critical synthesis. In M. Roloff (Ed.), Communication
Yearbook 23 (pp. 227–270). New York: Routledge.
Kim, M. S., & Sharkey, W. F. (1995). Independent and interdependent construals
of self: Explaining cultural patterns of interpersonal communication in
multi-cultural organizational settings. Communication Quarterly, 43(1), 20–38.
Kitayama, S., Snibbe, A. C., Markus, H. R., & Suzuki, T. (2004). Is there any
“free” choice? Self and dissonance in two cultures. Psychological Science, 15(8),
527–533.
Kiyama, S., Tamaoka, K., & Takiura, M. (2012). Applicability of Brown and
Levinson’s politeness theory to a non-western culture. SAGE Open, 2(4),
2158244012470116.
 3 CULTURE AND FACE ENACTMENT 73

Kluckhohn, C. (1951). Values and value-orientations in the theory of action: An

exploration in definition and classification. In T. Parsons & E. Shils (Eds.),
Toward a general theory of action (pp. 388–433). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Kublin, K. (1987). The Japanese negotiation style: Cultural and historic roots.
Industrial Management, 29, 18–23.
Kunsmann, P. (2013). Gender, status and power in discourse behavior of men and
women. Linguistik Online, 5(1).
Ladegaard, H. J. (2011). Doing power at work: Responding to male and female
management styles in a global business corporation. Journal of Pragmatics,
43(1), 4–19.
Lakoff, R. T. (1975). Language and women’s place. New York: Harper Colophon
Books.
Lan, H. (2015). Conflict management in intercultural marriage between Chinese
female and Japanese male: A pilot study. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/
11470/94.
Lawrence, D., & Chen, L. (2016). The People’s Republic of WeChat. Bloomberg
Businessweek, 4479, 64–66.
Lauwereyns, S. (2002). Hedges in Japanese conversation: The influence of age, sex
and formality. Language Variation and Change, 14, 239–259.
Leung, K., Koch, P. T., & Lu, L. (2002). A dualistic model of harmony and its
implications for conflict management in Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 19(2–3), 201–220.
Levitt, S. R. (2015). Cultural factors affecting international teamwork dynamics.
International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change in Organizations:
Annual Review, 13, 9–23.
Lin, T. (2013). The concepts of “politeness”: A comparative study in chinese and
japanese verbal communication. Intercultural Communication Studies, 22(2),
151–165.
Lin, Y., Li, Y., & Hou, X. (2015). Utilitarian orientation, long-term orientation,
and performance: evidence from Chinese millennial-generation employees.
Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 43(9), 1463–1476.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Tracy, S. J., & Alberts, J. K. (2007). Burned by bullying in the
American workplace: Prevalence, perception, degree and impact. Journal of
Management Studies, 44(6), 837–862. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00715.x.
Lykes, M. B. (1985). Gender and individualistic vs. collectivist bases for notions
about the self. In A. J. Stewart & M. B. Lykes (Eds.). Gender and personality:
Current perspectives on theory and research (pp. 268–295). Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Lyu, J. C. (2012). A comparative study of crisis communication strategies between
Mainland China and Taiwan: The melamine-tainted milk powder crisis in the
74 R.S. MERKIN

Chinese context. Public Relations Review, 38(5), 779–791. doi:10.1016/j.

pubrev.2012.07.003.
Manos, R., Drori, I., Shoham, A., & Aharonson, B. S. (2015). National culture and
national savings: iIs there a link? International Review of Applied Economics, 29
(4), 455–481. doi:10.1080/02692171.2015.1016405.
Manrai, L. A., & Manrai, A. K. (2011). Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions and
Tourist Behaviors: A Review and Conceptual Framework. Journal of Economics,
Finance & Administrative Science, 16(31), 23–48.
Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Burlington,
MA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness
phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 403–426.
Matsumoto, Y. (2003). Reply to Pizziconi. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1515–1521.
Mazaheri, E., Richard, M. O., Laroche, M., & Ueltschy, L. C. (2014). The
influence of culture, emotions, intangibility, and atmospheric cues on online
behavior. Journal of Business Research, 67(3), 253–259.
McGrath, H., & O’Toole, T. (2014). A cross-cultural comparison of the network
capability development of entrepreneurial firms. Industrial Marketing
Management, 43(6), 897–910. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2014.05.004.
McSweeney, B., (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their
consequences: A triumph of faith—a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1),
89–118.
Merkin, R. S. (2004). Cultural long-term orientation and facework strategies.
Atlantic Journal of Communication, 12(3), 163–176.
Merkin, R. S. (2005a). The utility of verifying Hofstede’s cultural dimensions.
International and Intercultural Communication Annual, 28, 257–273.
Merkin, R. S. (2005b). The influence of masculinity-femininity on cross-cultural
facework. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 34(3/4), 267–
289.
Merkin, R., & Ramadan, R. (2010). Facework in Syria and the US: A cross-cultural
comparison. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(6), 661–669.
Merkin, R. (2012). Middle Eastern impression-management communication.
Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of Comparative Social Science, 46(2), 109–
132. doi:10.1177/1069397111424867.
Merkin, R., Taras, V., & Steel, P. (2014). State of the art themes in cross-cultural
communication research: A systematic and meta-analytic review. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 38, 1–23.
Merkin, R. S. & Shah, M. K. (2014). The impact of sexual harassment on job
satisfaction, turnover intentions, and absenteeism: findings from Pakistan
compared to the United States. SpringerPlus, 3, 215–227. doi:10.1186/
2193-1801-3-215
 3 CULTURE AND FACE ENACTMENT 75

Merkin, R. S. (2015). The relationship between individualism/collectivism:

Consultation and harmony needs. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 39.
Mikelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2001). Bullying in Danish work-life: Prevalence
and health correlates. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
10, 393–413.
Minkov, M. (2007). What makes us different and similar: A new interpretation of
the world values survey and other cross-cultural data. Sofia: Klasika i Stil.
Minkov, M. (2011). Cultural differences in a globalizing world. United Kingdom:
Emerald.
Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2010). Hofstede’s fifth dimension: New evidence
from the world values survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 3–14.
doi:10.1177/0022022110388567.
Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2012). Is national culture a meaningful concept?
Cultural values delineate homogeneous national clusters of in-country regions.
Cross-Cultural Research, 46(2), 133–159.
Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2014). Nations versus religions: Which has a stronger
effect on societal values? Management International Review, 54(6), 801–824.
Mirabela, M., & Madela, A. (2013). Cultural dimensions and work motivation in
the European Union. Annals of the University Of Oradea, Economic Science
Series, 22(1), 1511–1519.
Misztal, B. (2013). Trust in modern societies: The search for the bases of social order.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Nelson, M. R., Brunel, F. F., Supphellen, M., & Manchanda, R. V. (2006). Effects
of culture, gender, and moral obligations on responses to charity advertising
across masculine and feminine cultures. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(1),
45–56.
Nemoto, K. (2013). When culture resists progress: Masculine organizational
culture and its impacts on the vertical segregation of women in Japanese
companies. Work, Employment and Society, 27(1), 153–169. doi:10.1177/
0950017012460324.
Neuliep, J. W., & Johnson, M. (2016). A cross-cultural comparison of Ecuadorian
and United States face, facework, and conflict styles during interpersonal
conflict: An application of face-negotiation theory. Journal of International and
Intercultural Communication, 9(1), 1–19.
Neuman, J. H. (2012). Gender and sex differences in the forms of workplace
aggression. In S. Fox, T. R. Lituchy, S. Fox & T. R. Lituchy (Eds.), Gender and
the dysfunctional workplace (pp. 14–28). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
doi:10.4337/9780857932600.00008.
Olcott, O. (2009). Whose company is it? Changing CEO ideology in Japan. In D.
H. Whittaker & S. Deakin (Eds.), Corporate governance and managerial reform
in Japan (pp. 192–221). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
76 R.S. MERKIN

Ota, H., & Giles, H. (2011). A good story is not enough. In Y. Matsumoto (Ed.),
Faces of aging: The lived experiences of the elderly in Japan (pp. 238–262).
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Peltokorpi, V. (2013). Job embeddedness in Japanese organizations. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(8), 1551–1569. doi:10.1080/
09585192.2012.723636.
Popescu, D., Tomoiu, O., & Andreea, C. (2012). Trends in small and
business-sized enterprises management. In Proceedings of the 1st International
Conference on Tourism and Economic Development (TED ‘11) (pp. 408–412).
WSEAS Press.
Pressentin, M. (2015). Universal leadership approaches abd cultural dimensions: The
expression of Asian leadership traits. Amity Global Business Review, 10, 19–38.
Rallapalli, K. C., & Montgomery, C. D. (2015). Marketing strategies for
Asian-Americans: Guidelines based on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. In
Minority marketing: Research perspectives for the 1990s (pp. 73–77). Springer
International Publishing.
Ralston, D. A., Holt, D. H., Terpstra, R. H., & Kai-Cheng, Y. (2008). The impact
of national culture and economic ideology on managerial work values: A study
of the United States, Russia, Japan, and China. Journal of International Business
Studies, 39(1), 8–26.
Ramesh, A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). Will they stay or will they go? The role of job
embeddedness in predicting turnover in individualistic and collectivistic cultures.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 807–823.
Richard, E. M., & McFadden, M. (2015). Saving face: Reactions to cultural norm
violations in business request emails. Journal of Business and Psychology. doi:10.
1007/s10869-015-9414-9.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (2014). Language and communication. London:
Routledge.
Robinson, P. (2011). Surfacing important but invisible issues in American
companies in Japan. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 81(3), 73–99.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
Rui, J., & Stefanone, M. A. (2013). Strategic self-presentation online: A
cross-cultural study. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 110–118. doi:10.
1016/j.chb.2012.07.022.
Rutherford, S. (2015). Gendered organisational cultures, structures and processes:
The cultural exclusion of women in organisations. In R. J. Burke & D. A. Major
(Eds.), Gender in organizations: Are men allies or adversaries to women’s career
advancement (pp. 193–216). Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Schoppa, L. (2006). Race for the exits: The unraveling of Japan’s system of social
protection. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
 3 CULTURE AND FACE ENACTMENT 77

Schmid, P. C., Mast, M. S., Bombari, D., & Mast, F. W. (2011). Gender effects in
information processing on a nonverbal decoding task. Sex Roles, 65(1–2), 102–
107.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (1994). Face parameters in east-west discourse. In S.
Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The challenge of facework (pp. 133–158). Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Scollon, R., Scollon, S. W., & Jones, R. H. (2011). Intercultural communication: A
discourse approach. New York, NY: Wiley.
Schwartz, S. J. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values:
Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–65). New York: Academic
Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism and collectivism: New cultural
dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, Ç. Kağıtçıbaşı, S. Choi, & G.
Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications
(pp. 85–119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). Cultural value differences: Some implications for work.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48, 23–47.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a
similarities perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 268–290.
Schwartz, S. H. (2006). Value orientations: Measurement, antecedents and
consequences across nations. In R. Jowell, C. Roberts, R. Fitsgerald, & G.
Eva (Eds.). Measuring attitudes cross-nationally-lessons from The European Social
Survey. London, U.K: Sage.
Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online
Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 11.
Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein,
C., et al. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 663–688. doi:10.1037/a0029393.
Schwartz, S. H. (2014). Rethinking the concept and measurement of societal
culture in light of empirical findings. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(1),
5–13. doi:10.1177/0022022113490830.
Shao, R., Rupp, D. E., Skarlicki, D. P., & Jones, K. S. (2013). Employee justice
across cultures: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 39(1), 263–
301. doi:10.1177/0149206311422447.
Shimanoff, S. B. (1994). Gender perspectives on facework. In S. Ting-Toomey
(Ed.), The challenge of facework (pp. 159–208). Albany: State University of New
York Press.
Siebold, K., & Busch, H. (2015). (No) need for clarity: Facework in Spanish and
German refusals. Journal of Pragmatics, 75, 53–68.
Smith, G. (2006). Erving Goffman. London: Routledge.
78 R.S. MERKIN

Souiden, N., M’Saad, B., & Pons, F. (2011). A cross-cultural analysis of consumers’
conspicuous consumption of branded fashion accessories. Journal of
International Consumer Marketing, 23(5), 329–343.
Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., & Sparks, K. (2001). An international study of the
psychometric properties of the Hofstede Values Survey Module 1994: A
comparison of individual and country/province level results. Applied Psychology,
50(2), 269–281.
Sriubaitė, J. (2014). Face-saving and face-threatening acts in art reviews. Language
in Different Contexts/Kalba Ir Kontekstai, 6(1, Part 1&2), 332–340.
Sullivan, D., Young, I. F., Landau, M. J., & Stewart, S. A. (2014). The
dramaturgical perspective in relation to self and culture. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 107(5), 767–790. doi:10.1037/a0037904.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand. New York: William Morrow.
Tannen, D. (2005). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends (2nd ed.).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tannenbaum, A. S., Kavcic, B., Rosner, M., Vianello, M., & Wieser, G. (1974).
Hierarchy in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tamaoka, K., Lim, H., Miyaoka, Y., & Kiyama, S. (2010). Effects of
gender-identity and gender-congruence on levels of politeness among young
Japanese and Koreans. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 20, 23–45.
Tao, L. (2010). Politeness in Chinese and Japanese verbal communication.
Intercultural Communication Studies, 16(2), 37–54.
Tao, L. (2012). A Comparative study of perceived politeness in Chinese and
Japanese verbal communication. Intercultural Communication Studies, 21(2),
185–200.
Tanabe, S. (Ed.). (2013). Japanese perceptions of foreigners. Long Island City, NY:
Apollo Books.
Taras, V., Rowney, J., & Steel, P. (2009). Half a century of measuring culture:
Approaches, challenges, limitations, and suggestions based on the analysis of
112 instruments for quantifying culture. Journal of International Management,
15(4), 1091 50–75.
Taras, V., Kirkman, B., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the impact of culture’s
consequences: A three-decade multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s
cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 405–439.
Thomas, J. E. (2013). Making Japan work. London: Routledge.
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. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles. In Y. Y. Kim & W.
B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213–235).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
 3 CULTURE AND FACE ENACTMENT 79

Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Face and facework: An introduction. In S. Ting-Toomey

(Ed.), The challenge of facework (pp. 307–340). Albany: State University of New
York Press.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory.
In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.). Theorizing about intercultural communication
(pp. 211–234). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2007). Intercultural conflict training: Theory-practice
approaches and research challenges. Journal of Intercultural Communication
Research, 36(3), 255–271. doi:10.1080/17475750701737199.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2014). Managing identity issues in intercultural conflict
communication: Developing a multicultural identity attunement lens. Oxford
handbook of multicultural identity, 485–506.
Triandis, H. (1987). Collectivism vs. individualism. In C. Bagley & G. Verma
(Eds.), Personality, cognition and values: Cross-cultural perspectives on childhood
and adolescence. London: MacMillan.
Triandis, H., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988).
Collectivism vs. individualism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-in-group
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323–338.
Trompenaars, F. (1994). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in
global business. Chicago, IL: Irwin.
Xiaohong, W. E. I., & Qingyuan, L. I. (2013). The Confucian value of harmony
and its influence on Chinese social interaction. Cross-Cultural Communication,
9(1), 60–66.
Van de Vliert, E. (1998). Gender role gaps, competitiveness, and temperature.
In G. Hofstede & G. Hofstede (Eds.), Masculinity and femininity: The taboo
dimension of national cultures (pp. 117–129). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
van Schalkwyk, G. J. (2011). Saving face: Hierarchical positioning in family-school
relationships in Macao.
Vo, A., & Stanton, P. (2011). The transfer of HRM policies and practices to a
transitional business system: The case of performance management practices in
the US and Japanese MNEs operating in Vietnam. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 22(17), 3513–3527. doi:10.1080/09585192.
2011.560876.
Wated, G., & Sanchez, J. I. (2015). Managerial tolerance of nepotism: The effects
of individualism–collectivism in a Latin American context. Journal of Business
Ethics, 130(1), 45–57. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2195-7.
Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wetzel, P. J. (1988). Are powerless communication strategies the Japanese norm?
Language in Society, 17, 555–564.
Wolff, B. (2015). I am man, hear me swear. Psychology Today, 48(4), 18.
Wolff, L. (2009). The death of lifelong employment in Japan? Corporate governance
in the 21st century: Japan’s gradual transformation, 53.
80 R.S. MERKIN

Würtz, E. (2005). A cross-cultural analysis of websites from high-context cultures

and low-context cultures. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
11(1), article-13.
Yamagishi, T., Hashimoto, H., & Schug, J. (2008). Preferences versus strategies as
explanations for culture-specific behavior. Psychological Science, 19(6), 579–584.
Yang, K. S. (1981). Social orientation and individual modernity among Chinese
students in Taiwan. Journal of Social Psychology, 113, 159–170.
Yang, N. (2010). The work–family relationship in China: Cultural tradition,
socio-economic changes, and policy implications. In N. Chinchilla, M. Las
Heras, & A.D. Masuda (Eds.). No matter where you are: A practical guide to help
organizations deal with the workforce challenge (pp. 157–175). Amherst, MA:
HRD Press.
Yang, L. Q., Spector, P. E., Sanchez, J. I., Allen, T. D., Poelmans, S., Cooper, C.
L., ... & Antoniou, A. S. (2012). Individualism–collectivism as a moderator of
the work demands–strains relationship: A cross-level and cross-national exam-
ination. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(4), 424–443.
 CHAPTER 4

Individualism-Collectivism and Saving

Face

This chapter will discuss the details of the cultural dimension

individualism-collectivism by describing its salient features and then
focusing on how the need for being consulted and getting feedback
(individualists) versus how the need for harmony (collectivists) are likely to
be executed through communication to save face in multiple situations.
According to extant research, people are likely to prefer corresponding
consultation and harmonious facework depending on their individualistic
and collectivistic cultural values. A discussion of individualistic and col-
lectivistic values follows.
Although there is some evidence that opposes the view that individualism
and collectivism are opposites (Taras, Kirkman, & Steel, 2010), for the
purpose of clarity, individualism will be treated as the opposite of collec-
tivism in this chapter. Also, since this book is based on Hofstede’s original
model that regarded individualism and collectivism as two poles of a single
construct, and this idea is consistent with the methodology of earlier cul-
tural meta-analyses (e.g., Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002; Steel &
Taras, 2010; Taras, et al., 2010), it is more congruent to retain this
framework. Moreover, far more scholars belong to the pro-Hofstede side
than do not (Jones, 2007). Finally, Hofstede is the most widely cited view of
culture (Bond, 2002). Therefore, this outlook will continue to be upheld in
this discussion. For a sampling of Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov’s (2010)
updated cultural dimension scores see Table 4.1.
Overall, individualism and collectivism reflects some of the most man-
ifest differences between the East and the West (Hofstede, 2007). What’s

© The Author(s) 2018 81

R.S. Merkin, Saving Face in Business,
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59174-6_4
82 R.S. MERKIN

Table 4.1 Individualism scores by country

Country Individualism Country Individualism

United States 91 Iran 41

Australia 90 Philippines 32
United Kingdom 89 Hong Kong 25
Netherlands 80 Chile 23
France 71 China 20
Norway 69 Singapore 20
Germany 67 South Korea 18
India 48 Taiwan 17
Argentina 46 Pakistan 14
Japan 46 Venezuela 12

Notes Scores range from 0–120 with higher scores indicating more individualism
Geert Hofstede, Gert Jan Hofstede, Michael Minkov, “Cultures and Organizations, Software of the
Mind”, Third Revised Edition, McGraw Hill 2010, ISBN 0-07-166418-1. ©Geert Hofstede B.V. quoted
with permission

more, individualism and collectivism are the most documented and rec-
ognized cultural dimension predominantly used to carry out organizational
research (Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007; Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson,
2006). Finally, individualism-collectivism is an example of national culture
which generally is defined as values, beliefs, norms, and behavioral patterns
of a national group (Hofstede, 1980, 2001). Such constructs impact the
business decisions of multinationals because of the global marketplace for
their products and services.
For example, international managers often make business decisions based
on the erroneous assumption that existing conditions at home are the same as
existing conditions abroad. When this does not turn out to be the case, there
can often be a loss of face for the actors concerned, as well as a loss of capital
and reputation for a firm. The stakes are high, so it is worthwhile to under-
stand that business climates vary. For example, outsiders did not know that
local poultry producers in a small collectivistic town make sure to keep the
business that they have within their in-group. This focus resulted in unfair
conditions for others trying to break into their market from abroad (Ricks,
2006). Such conditions needed to be scoped out in advance through com-
munications with local business people. Understanding the thinking of those
who are actively involved in one’s area of business is crucial. Those who are
individualistic would be less likely to think that a business would encompass
 4 INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM AND SAVING FACE 83

an unequal playing field or have in-group concerns because they do not

distinguish between in-groups and out-groups the way collectivists do.
To be specific, individualism is the relationship between individuals and
the collectivity that dominates in their society (Hofstede, 2001).
Individualists base their identity on their self alone. In fact, some indicate that
individualism versus collectivism refers to a need for getting ahead versus a
need to belong (Li & Harrison, 2008). So, individualists are inclined to
self-promote while collectivists are inclined to emphasize group harmony.
Clearly, self-promotion of the overt kind could be embarrassing to engage in
when the normative communication climate is to be modest. Indeed,
self-promotion can lead to lower levels of social acceptance (Anderson,
Srivastava, Beer, Spataro, & Chatman, 2006). In addition, Sekine (2016)
and Triandis (1990) highlight the competitive nature of autonomous indi-
vidualistic cultures that may also result in more conflictual, less cooperative
relationships. Likewise, Chatman and Barsade (1995) found that individu-
alists were more competitive than collectivists notwithstanding the nature of
the task they were assigned. Part of the individualistic need to self-promote is
to feel consulted about policies at work and to assure the opportunity to
manage their identity and self-promote at work. Along with wanting to be
consulted, individualists feel the need to receive feedback so that they can
self-promote in a constructive pro-social and face-giving way.
While individualism has been shown to be positively related to
self-promotion, collectivism has been shown to be positively related to the
propensity to use deception in addition to sensitivity and face-saving
concerns (Merkin, Taras, & Steel, 2014; Gelbrich, Stedham, & Gäthke,
2016). Given collectivistic sensitivity and face-saving concerns, they
actively promote harmony (Merkin, 2015). For this to occur, harmony is
sometimes promoted through cooperation. Indeed, findings show that
personalities having collectivistic tendencies reciprocate cooperation with
more cooperation, however, individualists do not share this need to
reciprocate since their focus is on their self alone (Chatman & Barsade,
1995).
Harmony is stressed among collectivists—particularly between their
in-group—because they prefer a tightly knit framework in a society wherein
individuals can expect their relatives or in-group members to look after them
in exchange for unquestioning loyalty (Hofstede, 1980, 2001). In-groups
consist of “groups of interdependent people who interact over a substantial
period of time, and who can be identified by others as group members”
(Triandis, 1987, p. 266). In collective cultures, social relationships are
84 R.S. MERKIN

predetermined by those defined as part of one’s in-group. An example of an

in-group for members of the collective Japanese culture is their early
friendships and work associates. For example, in collectivistic Japan, many
people stay in the same job their entire lives (Hirokawa, 1981). Individuals,
therefore, have faith that their loyalty will be returned to them by their fellow
in-group members in the future. This tacit understanding among in-group
members provides associates in collectivistic cultures with mutual support
(Koerner, 2013; Triandis, 1987).
According to Yang (1981), collectivism is “a tendency for a person to act
in accordance with external expectations or social norms, rather than
internal wishes or personal integrity” (pp. 159–160). Similar to the Asian
maxim “the nail that sticks up gets hammered down”, collectivists mini-
mize individual attention (DeFrank, Matteson, Schweiger, & Ivancevich,
1985; Warner & Shields, 2013). Finally, to achieve harmony, individuals in
collectivistic face-promoting cultures endorse positive self-regard, in order
not to disturb the existing situation by imposing on the norms of existing
social hierarchies (Lee, Leung, & Kim, 2014). Collectivists believe that
respect is reserved for those in high status positions so that individuals
should present themselves with modesty (Haugh, 2004). Below is an
example of how an individualistic misunderstanding of collectivistic values
could lead to all-out war.
In the 1980s, when Dow chemical attempted to merge its wholly-owned
Korean subsidiary (Dow Korea) with its 50/50 joint venture, Korean Pacific
Chemical Corporation (KPCC), the merger made money for about 2 years.
However, Dow’s chemical plants began losing money after oil prices
increased in 1978, which increased the costs of its petrochemicals. Dow’s
agreement with KPCC included fixed prices which were 50–75% higher than
world prices (Shorrock, 1982). In business, those from individualistic
cultures tend to attack problems directly. If businesses are losing money,
they fire people and act swiftly to avert losses. However, in collectivistic
South Korea, the hierarchy of four government-appointed directors of
KPCC, two of whom were retired generals, had to be maintained. In
addition, maintaining harmony and preventing a loss of face for the directors
of the South Korean subsidiary was essential. Unfortunately, Dow’s US
parent company went to court in South Korea and Switzerland to force the
removal of the South Korean managers responsible for the company’s losses.
This publicized action threatened the face of KPCC’s in-group as well as
their established status hierarchy and obviously threatened the harmony of
the merger. In retaliation, KPCC went to court to force the replacement of
 4 INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM AND SAVING FACE 85

Dow’s appointee to the KPCC Board of Directors partly to save their face.
What is more, since collectivistic cultures emphasize following the group,
empathy, and dependence (Ahuja, Zhang, & van der Schaar, 2014;
Ishii-Kuntz, 1989) the whole KPCC group could have experienced shame
from the lawsuit perpetrated by Dow.
Besides for experiencing collective shame, those from collectivistic cul-
tures focus on group conformity generally by trying not to “stick out” from
their group and by trying to follow social norms, unlike individualists who
tend to encourage creativity and extroverted self-expression (Misra,
Srivastava, & Misra, 2006). The GLOBE project defines collectivism as
“the degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in
their organizations or families” (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, &
Gupta, 2004, p. 12).
For example, in a collectivistic society an “expert” individualistic
employee asked to help turn around profits in a multinational organiza-
tion’s office may automatically focus on being friendly, open, and funny to
establish rapport. However, gaining respect in collectivistic societies
requires following the social norms of the local corporate culture and
displaying humility and, particularly, impeccable competence.
“Consultants”, therefore, need to establish their face not just by the title of
their position but also through following social norms and establishing
their competence. This is because in collectivist societies, where individuals
are very mindful of the social setting, face is especially important. A fear of
risking a loss of face by giving an incorrect answer, for example, could result
in receiving silent responses during presentations (Curry, 2016). Following
social norms is so important in collectivistic societies because, as discussed
in Chap. 3, collectivist’s face, which is a presentation that actors carry out
as a reflection of their self, is dependent on protecting the status quo for
social norms.
In contrast, when people grow up in an individualistic culture, they are
likely to have an orientation towards an independent self which would be
acted out by presenting their face in a way that reflects this independence.
For example, consultants having an independent orientation would assume
that they would have the ability to manage their identity through pro-social
communication such as building rapport through smiling and being nice
(Merkin et al., 2014). This behavior reflects the individualistic belief “that
each individual at birth possesses an intrinsic value at least theoretically
equal to that of every other person” (Ayers, 1984, p. 19). However, the
perception that favoring in-groups is essential, is in direct contradiction
86 R.S. MERKIN

with individualistic values. One reason that individualists and collectivists

hold different orientations toward strangers begins with their different
views of self.

INDEPENDENT VERSUS INTERDEPENDENT SELF

A significant difference between those with individualistic versus collec-
tivistic orientations is rooted in their divergent conceptions of the self.
A prominent individualistic value is the maintenance of a robust inner
integrity that is not determined by others (Leung & Cohen, 2011). Since
virtues such as uniqueness and autonomy are more emphasized by indi-
vidualists, the individual self tends to exert a higher importance than the
collective self as in the groups that one belongs to (Kim & Cohen, 2010;
Kim & Markus, 1999). On the other hand, collectivists, who tend to see
things through the lens of their group when viewing themselves and their
immediate situation, see themselves as embedded in their social group
(Cousins, 1989; Morisaki & Gudykunst, 1994) so that their group is really
“them”. Thus, if a person has collectivistic cultural leanings, this person
also would feel obliged to show solidarity with his or her fellow group. For
example, collectivists would feel obliged to spend extra time together with
their in-group. Accordingly, collectivists’ conception of self is more inter-
dependent than their individualistic counterparts’ who define themselves as
separate independent beings (Hofstede, 2001; Markus & Kitayama, 1998;
Triandis, 1995). Marcus and Le (2013) specified that the individualism/
collectivism dimension distinguishes between the individual and the
collective, between independence versus interdependence, between indi-
vidual versus group goals, and between self-enhancement versus group
enhancement. Thus, individualism corresponds to autonomy whereas
collectivism corresponds to embeddedness (Dirilen‐Gumus, 2016). This
explains findings that show that individualistic employees experience
greater subjective well-being when they are afforded job autonomy unlike
collectivistic employees (Wu, Luksyte, & Parker, 2015).
Differences in individualism and collectivism also affect employees and
their leaders. For example, the GLOBE research project conducted an
extensive study which concluded that leaders need to take the cultural
context of the workplace such as the societal and organizational norms,
values, and beliefs of the people being led into account when making
effective managerial decisions (Hoppe, 2007). Part of how GLOBE
 4 INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM AND SAVING FACE 87

researchers consider leadership effectiveness across cultures is through their

nine classifications of culture (i.e., power distance, uncertainty avoidance,
collectivism 1 (institutional), collectivism 2 (in-group), assertiveness, gen-
der egalitarianism, future orientation, and performance orientation) which
are similar to and actually quantitatively reduce to Hofstedes’ cultural
dimensions (Hofstede, 2006). GLOBE researchers use their set of cultural
indicators to contemplate similarities and/or differences in norms, values,
beliefs, and practices among societies (Chhokar, Brodbeck, & House,
2013; House et al., 2004, 2014). The two cultural classifications they term
as collectivism 1 and collectivism 2 are defined as the degree to which
organizational and societal institutional practices encourage and reward
collective distribution of resources and collective action, and the degree to
which individuals express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in their organi-
zations or families respectively (Hoope, 2007; House et al., 2004).
The GLOBE team matched their nine cultural classifications with 71
leadership styles using data collected across 61 countries. Findings of their
study classified societies according to their preference for different leader-
ship traits. For example, some traits of universally outstanding leaders
include trustworthiness; being just, honest, and encouraging; using fore-
sight; and showing a positive dynamic. Yet, how these traits are conveyed
and communicated could differ markedly from society to society. For
example, for a leader to be described as decisive in the US, he or she is
expected to make swift decisions. Being decisive in Germany, however, is
likely to mean being extra deliberate and precise when making a decision
(Hoppe, 2007). Examples of traits that preclude a leader from becoming
outstanding include being a loner, acting asocial, being indirect or non-
explicit, or acting noncooperatively. Finally, culturally contingent leader-
ship characteristics, a concept which is opposed to the idea that successful
leadership characteristics are universal, include being cautious, compas-
sionate, domineering, elitist, enthusiastic, evasive, formal, and habitual
(Chhokar, et al., 2013; House et al., 2004). Cultural dimensions affect
culturally contingent leadership characteristics (House et al., 2004). For
example, Iranian American leaders can attribute a portion of their success
to some culturally contingent leadership characteristics identified as family
orientation and humility (Tripathi, Prabhakar, & Liddle, 2015).
Successful leadership traits are identified across cultures by the GLOBE
researchers, and leaders can use these insights to interact with other-culture
employees with more finesse and more consideration of face-saving. This is
important because leaders who do not have the characteristic to allow their
88 R.S. MERKIN

employees to save face will experience repercussions in the aftermath of

poor decisions. Findings show that employees avoid communicating
upward because they do not want to bear the brunt of their superior’s
anger, be viewed negatively, or be responsible for causing their superior to
lose face (Athanassiades, 1973; Milliken, Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003;
Tynan, 2005). In order to avoid face threats, it is essential for leaders to be
culturally sensitive and to communicate appropriately based on the context
and organizational culture of the business at hand. Individualistic
employees may need autonomy in the workplace regardless of the supe-
rior’s style of leadership. In fact, individualists tend to have only one
dominant business behavior, and the ideal is to behave professionally
composed and objectively at all times (Halub et al., 2012). On the other
hand, collectivistic leaders need to address in-group behavior in collec-
tivistic cultures. Acceptance is characteristically different for those who are
part of their subjective and relational in-groups than for those outside their
objective in-groups. Face, to some, reflects an understanding of one’s place
in a social hierarchy so that leaders are required to respect the pecking
order based on a member’s position in an in-group at work (Matsumoto,
1988)
Although those from collectivistic embedded cultures agree with the
notion that employees make up an in-group in which their manager is an
integral part, in independent individualistic cultures, where everyone is
supposedly considered to be an equal member on the same playing field,
individual initiative and autonomy are respected and valued (Singelis,
1994) instead. In kind, subordinates in individualistic cultures tend to
prefer a less personal relationship with their manager, in order to maintain
their independence and autonomy (Jung & Avolio, 1999) and instead
prefer privacy (Hall, 1976; Milberg, Burke, Smith, & Kallman, 1995) and
alone “down” time with their families (Hochschild, 2003; Robinson &
Godbey, 2010).
Since they are expected to take care of themselves alone (Hofstede,
2001), individualists also do not depend on their managers when pursuing
their personal development (Oyserman et al., 2002). In fact, such “inter-
ference” would be considered out of bounds for managers in individualistic
cultures. However, the opposite is the case among employees from col-
lectivistic cultures possessing an interdependent view of self, where it is
considered reasonable for managers to provide personal training to
employees (Ye, Wang, Wendt & Euwema, 2016).
 4 INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM AND SAVING FACE 89

Thus, people with more collectivistic tendencies are more positively

influenced by a paternalistic leader than people who have individualistic
tendencies (Cem Ersoy, Born, Derous, & Molen, 2012). Moreover, col-
lectivistic leaders are sometimes expected to be responsible for their sub-
ordinates’ personal problems and career development (Jung, Bass, & Sosik,
1995). For example, supervisory support for better work-life balance had a
stronger protective effect for collectivistic Taiwanese than individualistic
British employees (Luo et al., 2009).
In fact, collectivistic subordinates tend to be more likely to appreciate
their manager’s care and support, because they actually seek such advice
and guidance from their supervisors (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2008).
Eastern leaders emphasize the collective by expressing high levels of
commitment to their organization; consequently, they often consider
individualistic Western approaches as being “less human” and more
focused on “process” and “contract” (Connor Yi & Iyengar, 2013).
Given these collectivistic characteristics, it is understandable why find-
ings show that managers in collectivistic cultures display more managerial
coaching behaviors towards their subordinates than those in individualistic
cultures (Ye, Wang, Wendt, Wu, & Euwema, 2016). In fact, this collec-
tivistic managing principle is reflective of how the family has been the
organizing principle of collectivistic Chinese society, where a peaceful
society is built on family life as an extended, established unit of numerous
generations living under one roof, each with a separate social role and
standing (Blau, 2016).
Hence, in collectivistic cultures, which emphasize interdependence
among organizational members, employees are likely to have closer
interpersonal relationships given their greater sensitivity to others’ feelings
and concerns (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Merkin et al., 2014). As a result,
manager’s in collectivistic cultures pay more attention to their subordi-
nates’ job-related issues and use coaching to help them resolve concerns
(Ye et al. 2016). An example of this is the perception that their supervisor–
subordinate relationships in organizations are comparable to father–son
relationships in families.

IN-GROUPS VERSUS OUT-GROUPS

Overall, the collectivism dimension has been shown to be a good predictor
of cooperation (Jackson, Colquitt, Wesson, & Zapata-Phelan, 2006).
More specifically, research indicates that leaders of collectivistic embedded
90 R.S. MERKIN

(interdependent) cultures are significantly more cooperative than leaders in

individualistic autonomous (independent) cultures (Dirilen‐Gumus,
2016). However, collectivists distinguish between in- and out-group
members in situations requiring cooperation (Imai & Gelfand, 2009).
Triandis et al. (1988) point out that people in collectivistic societies “are
trained to cooperate with members of few in-groups and to compete with
everyone else” (p. 60). In collectivistic cultures, in-group members enjoy
real-world and spiritual support in addition to shared beneficial relations
(Chang, 1999; Lu, 1998), while out-group members do not have access to
these benefits, and may even experience opposition or aggression from the
collectivists (Shi, 2011). The strategies members of collective cultures use
towards members of their out-groups, therefore, are likely to be more
competitive and/or uncooperative.
For example, the Japanese have trouble integrating foreigners into Japan
or dealing without difficulty with outsiders in the financial market
(Krugman, 2007). Japanese organizations often suppress communication
from out-group members such as Americans (Elfenbein, 2015). Meetings
after hours often take place in Japan among members of in-groups exclu-
sively (e.g., after work in a night club between Japanese employees and their
superiors) and are often followed by members of the out-group feeling left
out of understandings about issues they were not consulted about because
the in-groups met earlier and agreed among themselves about policies the
night before (Fang, 2012). Thus, we have seen that in-group harmony is
maintained by out-group disparagement and contempt (DeVos, 1985).
Although members of collectivistic cultures have different values (standards)
with respect to their in-groups and out-groups (Hofstede, 1980), members
of individualistic cultures are concerned with both their own face and the
others’ face as well. Accordingly, members of individualistic cultures, apply
the same value standards to all (both their in-groups and their out-groups).
Individualists apply equal standards to all because they base their identity on
their own accomplishments and experience.

COLLECTIVISTIC OTHER-FACE VERSUS INDIVIDUALISTIC

SELF-FACE FOCUS
While individualists focus is on their self alone, collectivists focus on main-
taining the other person’s face and/or are mutual-face oriented (Gao &
Ting-Toomey, 1998; Zhang, Ting‐Toomey, & Oetzel, 2014). On the other
hand, those in individualistic cultures, who have independent selves, tend to
 4 INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM AND SAVING FACE 91

show more concern for upholding their own face and reputation (often
through self-promotion) as opposed to that of others (Ting-Toomey, 2005).
Hence, differences in conceptions of self and corresponding face based on
individualism, as opposed to collectivism, are reflected in different commu-
nication (Morisaki & Gudykunst, 1994). For example, this is reflected when
US emissaries go to places such as China or Japan and demand fair trade
practices, showing concern for both their self-face (self) and their country’s
face (other)—but the emphasis is on their self-face. Nevertheless, those with a
collectivistic orientation are primarily concerned with the face of their own
people, making trade negotiations that much trickier.
Lee et al., (2014) emphasize that one’s self is defined and evaluated in
collectivistic “face” cultures through the eyes of others. That is, as Kim and
Cohen (2010) contended, information from “a third person viewpoint
comes to define the self because face is bestowed by others on the basis of
others’ consensus judgments about the self” (Kim & Cohen, 2010,
p. 539). Given the nature of face cultures, in which the “self” is defined and
evaluated by individuals’ perceptions of how they are viewed by others,
individuals behave, feel, and think differently as a function of whether or
not they are observed by others. In contrast, those from individualistic
cultures view the self as holding an intrinsic value that is not supposed to be
judged by other people (Kim & Cohen, 2010; Ijzerman & Cohen, 2011).
In other words, persons from a dignity or individualistic (versus face)
cultures are less concerned about how they are viewed by others and,
therefore, whether the situation is private or public is less likely to affect
them. A dignity culture is one in which the inalienable worth of the
individual is central. Consequently, those from dignity cultures do not
believe that their worth is given or taken by others; as a result, a person
with a sense of dignity would not be particularly distressed by affronts
(Ijzerman & Cohen, 2011). Accordingly, people with a sense of dignity are
sturdy and their sense of worth keeps them from behaving according to the
whims of the situation (Ijzerman & Cohen, 2011). As a result, paying
attention to whether or not a situation is public or private is crucial when
communicating with collectivists.
Other studies (e.g., Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Kitayama, Markus,
Tummala, Kurokawa, & Kato, 1990; Ross, Xun, & Wilson, 2002) have
identified cultural differences in the perspective that people take when they
construe events. When shopping, for example, customers from individual-
istic cultures have higher service expectations than customers from collec-
tivistic cultures who feel more uncomfortable when they are waited on
92 R.S. MERKIN

because it makes them stick out (Sharma, Chen, & Luk, 2012). On the other
hand, Cohen and Gunz (2002), found that when participants in their study
imagined a situation in which they were the center of attention, Americans
(who are typically individualistic) described the event from a first person
perspective whereas Chinese (who are typically collectivistic) were more
likely to describe it from a third person’s perspective. Both this and other
research (Cohen & Gunz, 2002; Ross et al., 2002) suggest that a collec-
tivistic orientation encourages a shift to a more self-effacing or adaptable
perspective, even in the absence of external requirements to do so.
Although chronic collectivistic and individualistic orientations can be
the result of a persons’ cultural background, they can also be elicited based
on the situation (Lee, Aaker, & Gardner, 2000). For example, individu-
alistic or collectivistic responses can be activated by inducing individuals to
use first person singular or first person plural pronouns when describing an
irrelevant unimportant task (e.g., Gardner, Gabriel, & Lee, 1999;
Kemmelmeier, 2003; Kühnen & Oyserman, 2002; Trafimow, Triandis, &
Goto, 1997; Vohs & Heatherton, 2001). However, all persons tend to
spontaneously interpret an event with reference to themselves, the first
time they receive information about it. Although some individuals maintain
an egocentric perspective when they construe the event’s implications to
form a judgment, others shift to more flexible perspectives. This flexibility,
which is presumably acquired through learning, can often be traced to
social and cultural norms that reinforce perspective switching. In this
regard, researchers have identified cultural differences in both individuals’
social orientation and their temporal orientation (Hofstede 1991, 2001;
De Mooij & Hofstede, 2011; Triandis, 1995).
A collectivistic social orientation increases people’s tendency to take
others’ goals and needs into account rather than focusing on themselves
alone (Wong & Wyer, 2016). Those possessing a collectivistic perspective
also adapt on a long-term temporal orientation that encourages them to
focus on the past and future in addition to their immediate setting when
communicating with others (Bearden, Money, & Nevins, 2006; Hofstede
& Bond, 1988). Furthermore, given that people with interdependent
collectivistic orientations think of themselves as part of their group, they
also tend to focus on both the long-term nature and connectedness of their
relationships by being sensitive to others’ feelings and needs more than
individualists do (Singelis, Triandis, & Bhawuk, 1995; Zhang et al., 2014).
Thus, collectivists are relatively more likely to interpret social cues and
inferences from the perspective of others (Cohen & Gunz, 2002).
 4 INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM AND SAVING FACE 93

Given this tendency to be sensitive to others, it is not unheard of for

those from collectivistic cultures to restrain themselves from saying no or
bearing bad news (Holmes, Marra, & Schnurr, 2008; Kawabata &
Gastaldo, 2015). ‘‘I leave it to you to figure out’’ is an expression typically
used by sophisticated, middle-class persons in collectivistic Japan. In
response, it is reasonable to assume that collectivists using ambiguous
expressions do not wish to give direct answers and instead expect other
parties to the conversation to understand this and stop probing, or com-
municate indirectly so that they can save face and preserve dignity.
Another example of the collectivistic concern for others is the case of
Kibun practiced in collectivistic South Korea. Kibun is a term that means
emotion or, more specifically, feeling a sense of balance and having a good
attitude (Lee, 2012). This mindset influences the way South Koreans run
their businesses (Chaney and Martin, 2011). In South Korea, many people
share the same perspective of trying to balance Kibun in both their per-
sonal life and the business world. It is not just about their Kibun but also
about others (Hakimey & Yazdanifard, 2015). Collectivistic South
Koreans believe that it is impolite to disrupt other people’s Kibun. In
South Korean culture, people cannot be self-interested but have to con-
sider others. When doing something, they must respect and keep other
people’s feelings and opinions in mind during interactions. This is often
accomplished by avoiding saying “no” or imparting bad news so as to avoid
hurting other’s Kibun. By doing this, they assure that harmony is created.
Thus, Kibun is especially important to keep in mind when conducting
business interactions with South Koreans (Lee, 2012).
In sum, collectivists’ deep sensitivity to maintaining harmony and social
network relationships motivates them to avoid conflicts by giving and
saving the face of others. Consequently, collectivistic face is not
self-oriented, but earned through interactions with the community (Shi,
2011). Such other-oriented concerns are much less prevalent in individu-
alistic societies, which are characterized by a focus on personal interests and
self-promotion (O’Mara, Gaertner, Sedikides, Zhou, & Liu, 2012) as
opposed to a concern for others (Takai & Lee, 2003).

INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM AND FACE

“Face is an image of the self, delineated by approved social attributes”
(Goffman, 2005, p. 5). More specifically, an individualistic expression of
the self is reflected in an individualistic independent face more likely to
94 R.S. MERKIN

focus on self-promotion or efforts to stand out or to be superior to others

(De Mooij, 2005). To individualists, face is located in the flow of the
events of an encounter and is presented through communication, which
can be adjusted depending on the situation (Goffman, 2005). Collectivistic
face, on the other hand, is the respectability people can claim for them-
selves by their relative position in their social network (Ho, 1976), that is,
within an interdependent hierarchy, depending on the appropriate actu-
alization of the person’s role. Face is a form of exchange within a social
context where obligations must be fulfilled to maintain face (Ho, 1976).
The amount of face one can claim in collectivistic cultures depends on
one’s hierarchical position within a cultural network. Accordingly, if one
exceeds the allotted amount, he or she is socially penalized because the act
is considered a violation of the designated societal harmony or hierarchy
(Lee, Leung, & Kim, 2014).
While individualistic face is enacted through self-promoting acts, col-
lectivistic face is more fixed based on people’s positions in their hierarchy
(Matsumoto, 1988). In addition, collectivists’ face is more important and
more likely to be threatened because unlike the case of individualists, their
face cannot be negotiated. Furthermore, in collectivistic cultures, a person
is supposed to act in accordance with their group’s expectations, rather
than from internal wishes (Shi, 2011). If someone contradicts or violates
socially expected behavioral norms, the person will lose face and subse-
quently suffer from censure by the group for depraved or socially dis-
agreeable behavior (Hu, 1944; Shi, 2011). Once someone loses face, their
social image can be shattered and not repaired. Henceforth, it becomes
very difficult to regain respect and social integrity in the community in the
future, to the point where it may even be challenging to function normally,
much less with pride. The risk of such stark social punishment usually acts
as a deterrent that regulates collectivists’ social behavior to follow socially
recognized requirements of conduct (Yu, 2003). As described above,
collectivists engage in more harmonious communication to head off any
complications that might lead to a loss of face for themselves and others
(Halub, Sauber, & Stück, 2012). In fact, studies show that there is a
positive correlation between cultural collectivism and other communica-
tion that is likely to promote harmony such as cooperative behavior
(Dirilen‐Gumus, 2016; Jackson et al., 2006; Marcus & Le, 2013) and
agreement (Smith, 2011).
In sum, in collectivistic cultures, harmony is the process whereby face is
regulated in a given social structure (Earley, 1997; Hashimoto &
 4 INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM AND SAVING FACE 95

Yamagishi, 2013; Lee et al., 2014). Individualistic face is negotiated

through interaction reflecting an independent self. Individualists are less
concerned about the face of individuals with whom they interact because as
research indicates, they are less sensitive and have fewer face-saving con-
cerns than collectivists (Merkin et al., 2014). On the other hand, collec-
tivistic face is relatively stable because it is connected to a person’s position
in a social system. Face that reflects an interdependent self is affected by
evaluations and judgments of others, particularly members of their
in-group (Halub et al., 2017). Thus, collectivists view themselves as
interdependent with their social environments, as opposed to the individ-
ualists who view themselves as independent and separate from the people
around them (Halub et al. 2012).
The principles above explain how the concepts of self and face are also
reflected in different superior/subordinate perspectives about jobs. For
example, as in Chinese society, which is inclined to follow Confucian tradi-
tions (Zhang & Cheng, 2006) advocating subordinating the individual to
the group or the community (Mao, 1994, p. 460), the collectivistic Japanese
hold that changing employers because of personal needs and goals is con-
sidered an admission of failure, which conveys a loss of face to the one who
could not cooperate with the organization harmoniously. It is also consid-
ered a failure to the organization when someone leaves as well, because it
implies that the organization produced a disorderly misfit (Varner & Beamer,
2005). This idea is in sharp contrast to how individualistic employees (e.g.,
from the US, Canada, and Western Europe) feel little loyalty to their work
group or employer and look for jobs based on their individual needs. This is
exemplified by the characterization of one of the highest forms of pro-social
behavior to individualistic employees as being employee citizenship behaviors.
Employee citizenship behaviors are behaviors that go beyond the basic
requirements of the job, and, to a large extent, are discretionary; they are of
benefit to the organization (Dzansi, & Dzansi, 2010; Lambert et al., 2006,
p. 503) but likely to be expected in collectivistic organizations.
Individualistic employees tend to go to work at the company that offers
them the best employment conditions, salary, and/or chances of success.
To an individualist, a good job offer provides individual rewards such as
bonuses for individual achievement, interesting and challenging work,
advancement, etc. Otherwise, such employees prepare to go elsewhere, as
opposed to collectivists who tailor their expectations to the job (Shi, 2011;
Varner & Beamer, 2005). Such behavior is also reflective of individualistic
self-promotion.
96 R.S. MERKIN

INDIVIDUALISM AND SELF-PROMOTION

Studies indicate that individualism versus collectivism helps explain differ-
ences in preferences between cultural members to engage in
self-promotion (Chang, 2008; Sedikides, Gaertner, & Toguchi, 2003). In
line with their cultural values, individualists tend to stand out and
self-promote more than those with collectivistic orientations (De Mooij,
2005; Lee et al., 2014; Merkin & Ramadan, 2016; Tassell, Flett, & Gavala,
2010). In agreement with their views about saving face, those from indi-
vidualistic cultures are more likely to seek gains by promoting their face
because of their view that face is negotiable (Merkin et al., 2014).
Individualists tend to be more approach-oriented in gaining face (Lee
et al., 2014). In contrast, since the consequences of losing face are so much
greater, those from collectivistic cultures are more likely to emphasize
avoiding face loss as a form of preventative action (Elliot, Chirkov, Kim, &
Sheldon, 2001; Lee et al., 2014; Scholer & Higgins, 2011). This is carried
out by not self-promoting but instead by engaging in harmony strategies
that do not disrupt the hierarchical order (Merkin, 2015). The idea is that
there is only so much face one can gain, so it is not worth it to collectivists
to promote face because face already gained could also be lost if it is not
protected (Kim, Cohen, & Au, 2010). However, given their collectivism, it
is only acceptable for those from collectivistic societies to self-promote for
the sake of their group (Merkin et al., 2014).
On the other hand, individualism entails independence, both in terms of
self-sufficiency and striving for personal interests, without taking others very
much into account (Hofstede, 2001) and self-promotion which is a com-
municative expression of personal self-interest (Merkin et al., 2014). More
specifically, self-promotion is “the extent to which individuals report positive
self-perceptions” (Kim & Chiu, 2011, p. 1097). Some researchers under-
stand self-promotion to be a culturally universal human motivation whose
expression is dependent on situational factors (Brown, 2010; Sedikides &
Strube, 1997), while others theorize that self-promotion is more
culture-specific (e.g., Heine & Hamamura, 2007). For example, psychol-
ogists assert that Western cultures are characterized by a self-promotion
motive because of their individualism. This manifests itself in other traits
such as agency or independence (O’Mara et al., 2012).
Just as individualists are more likely to be activists, they are also more
likely to feel engaged at work through participative consultation, which they
consider to be empowering. In fact, individualists tend to negotiate their
 4 INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM AND SAVING FACE 97

identity through self-centered agency (Bandura, 2001)—that people should

promote their own welfare over the interests of their group (Hofstede,
1983). To feel engaged at work, individualists often prefer to be consulted
when things happen (such as a new procedure) at the workplace (Hofstede,
1980; Merkin, 2015). In fact, findings show that individualism and con-
sultation needs are directly related, demonstrating that individualists’ face
feels threatened when they are not consulted directly about work matters
that affect them (Merkin, 2015). This, however, is not the case with col-
lectivists. Therefore, not consulting individualists in the workplace can lead
to a loss of face, which those from collectivistic cultures might not under-
stand because they feel that the group is primary and they do not need or
want to be individually consulted to feel included.
In collectivistic Eastern cultures, for example, self-promotion has been
conceived of as less necessary because of their collectivistic values of personal
and group harmony (O’Mara et al., 2012). This was corroborated in a
recent meta-analytic study showing that East Asians do not self-enhance
(Heine & Hamamura, 2007). Another example is how the Chinese were
shown to be more likely to self-enhance by strongly disagreeing with neg-
ative items as opposed to strongly agreeing with the positive self-enhancing
items (Lee et al., 2014), so that the message conveyed is more subtle and
indirect. Then again, other scholars assert that because those from collec-
tivistic cultures do not overtly promote themselves—humility is too
important—instead they self-promote subtly and for their in-group as
opposed to their self exclusively (Merkin et al., 2014).
This is because a group-serving bias assists them in maintaining lasting
relationships with others, whereas the promotion of an individual
self-serving bias might risk the stability and quality of their relationships
(Lee et al., 2014). Thus, as is seen in Chinese culture, social harmony may
be upheld and the face of all protected, even though beneath such seem-
ingly smooth interactions there may be manipulation, frustration, and
turbulence (Chang, 1999; Shi, 2011). Hence, self-promotion is carried out
differently in individualistic and collectivistic cultures because of their
varying sense of self, in order to uphold their different views of face. The
blatant self-promotion carried out in individualistic cultures is blunted in
many collectivistic cultures by the covarying Confucian concept of har-
mony. However, collectivistic self-promotion is still communicated subtly
for the sake of the in-group or by denying the possession of negative traits,
while Western Europeans and Americans do so by assuming positive traits
(Kim, et al., 2010).
98 R.S. MERKIN

COLLECTIVISM AND HARMONY

Those from collectivistic cultures value harmony and consensus as an
ultimate goal in society (Ting-Toomey, 1994). The Confucian ethic of
harmony is found in the maintenance of everyone’s face to the universal
ideals of dignity and prestige (Hofstede, 1991). Research indicates that
there is a positive relationship between collectivism and harmony needs
(Merkin, 2015) because harmony is fundamental to the collectivistic
concern for face (Kim & Nam, 1998; Stewart, 2016). Collectivists prior-
itize developing harmony within the group and building good relationships
with others, particularly with their in-group associates, because the col-
lectivistic self is informed and defined by others’ judgments (Kim, Lee, &
Gim, 2011; Lee et al., 2014). To negotiate those judgments, collectivists
use communication to manage face by furthering the harmony of the
group. For example, collectivists can restrict their self-enhancement or
self-efface to appear modest. Also, humility is more likely to operate as a
distinguishing social norm, and complying with this norm of humility
increases positive self-regard, whereas violating it decreases positive
self-regard (Lee et al., 2014). In addition, collectivists, who also endorse
group cohesiveness (Lee et al., 2014), are more likely to promote con-
currence using more cooperative (Eby & Dobbins, 1997) as well as har-
monious (Holmes et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2014) strategies to save face
(Merkin, 2015) and to gain personal benefits, social support, and resources
(Shi, 2011). Consequently, the purpose of maintaining harmony for col-
lectivists is to preserve their membership in the community, or to keep
good relationships with others to maintain in-group status and corre-
sponding face (Shi, 2011; Stewart, 2016).
Collectivistic harmony is expressed as humility. For example, collec-
tivistic Chinese participants reported increased implicit self-esteem when
they were instructed to be as modest as possible, but not when they were
instructed to self-enhance. Moreover, in collectivistic cultures, which
endorse the norm of modesty, individuals who self-enhance are perceived by
their boss as more likely to derail (Cullen, Gentry, & Yammarino, 2015). In
contrast, American participants did not show this tendency, which indicates
that holding a modest attitude increases one’s positive self-regard only in
collectivistic cultures (Lee et al., 2014). Moreover, in individualistic cultures
where autonomy and individuality are much more valued than others’
judgments, the emphasis on preserving group harmony is less integral to
individuals’ identities (Kim, et al., 2010). It should be noted that
 4 INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM AND SAVING FACE 99

individualists use both self-promotion and humility in the service of

self-presentation (Gelfand, et al., 2007; Sezer, Gino, & Norton, 2015)
Some specific examples of the different cultural approaches can be seen
in the area of rewards and employee motivation. While bonuses for a single
individual or for only the top 15% of a group can be appropriate for
individualistic employees, such practices can be very unsuitable in a col-
lectivistic culture. In fact, these kinds of rewards could be seen as ultimately
demeaning the value of the rest of the group by singling out an individual
or small group. It is therefore important for highly individualistic American
companies to carefully think through their use of reward programs such as
“Employee of the Month” before implementing them in collectivistic
business settings (Halub et al., 2012).

COLLECTIVISM HARMONY AND LONG-TERM FOCUS

Whereas individualist cultures are more short-term oriented, collectivistic
cultures are more long-term oriented (Goodrich & De Mooij, 2014;
Hofstede & Bond, 1988). Along these lines, both individualists and col-
lectivists tend to take a short-term egotistical perspective in initial meetings
with others while collectivists then shift their perspective (to assure that
long-term harmony and face is established) whereas individualists do not.
Even when harmony is not a possible outcome, collectivists suppress their
emotions for the sake of long-term benefits and shift to other strategies to
do so (Arens, 2012).
In contrast, findings show that when individuals from Western indi-
vidualistic cultures practice suppression, they experience worse mental
health. However, the reverse was found in Eastern collectivistic individuals.
Under the same conditions, they had higher flexibility in the use of sup-
pression (Arens, 2012; Arens, Balkir, & Barnow, 2013). When collectivists
follow their expected social roles, they are practicing the ideal of harmony
and order (Chang & Holt, 1994; DeVos, 1985). Thus, in collectivistic
cultures, when social order is maintained, there is likely to be happiness for
all (Hofstede, 1991).

COLLECTIVISM HARMONY AND HIERARCHY (STATUS)

In collectivistic cultures, people are deeply involved with each other (Hall,
1976). Due to this intimate interconnectedness, a structure of social
hierarchy exists, and individuals’ inner emotions are suppressed using
100 R.S. MERKIN

strong self-control (Hall, 1976). Collectivistic harmony is based on status

differentiation. Humility-based harmony is internalized among individuals
in collectivistic cultures. As a result, those from collectivistic cultures
comport themselves so as not to exceed their socially granted face to keep
the hierarchy and resulting harmony intact (Kurman & Sriram, 2002;
Lalwani, Shavitt, & Johnson, 2006). An example of this is how China’s
president, Xi Jinping, promotes a harmonious China by advocating family
values to his citizens (Blau, 2016) and citizens are expected to comply with
this to maintain the social order.
In contrast, claiming more face than one is granted by others is con-
sidered a violation of the hierarchical system, and therefore, a disruptor of
harmony (Kim & Cohen, 2010; Kim, et al., 2010; Kwan et al., 1997;
Leung & Cohen, 2011). Individuals who do not comply with the norm of
modesty in some collectivistic societies, for example, are implicitly criticized
by others, while those who submit are evaluated favorably corresponding
with their status (Bond, Leung, & Wan, 1982; Yoshida, Kojo, & Kaku,
1982).
Matsumoto (1988) suggested that the loss of face in collective cultures
is associated with “the perception by others that one has not compre-
hended and acknowledged the structure and hierarchy of the group”
(p. 405). Thus, face, which is a crucial value in collectivistic cultures, is
determined by others and assigned in fixed amounts based on one’s
implicit status within the group (Kim, et al., 2010). For example, East
Asians tend not to over-claim the amount of face already conferred by
others, because doing so will lead them to be socially criticized based on
existing group hierarchy norms (Lee et al., 2014). Given that the behavior
of collectivists is regulated by their role obligations (Markus & Kitayama,
1991), those with a collectivistic orientation also tend to believe that every
person has inherent value based on the position they hold in a social
hierarchy. Moreover, this position has a value that is accepted and is not
supposed to be judged by others (Ho, 1976; Kim & Cohen, 2010; Lee
et al., 2014). Though losing face is quite easy, gaining face is not, because
it is bestowed by others based on how well one serves ones’ hierarchically
structured role assigned within society (Lee et al., 2014).
Because those from collectivistic cultures pursue harmony based on a
differentiation between social status levels, most researchers acknowledge
that collectivistic Asians are more concerned with establishing their hier-
archical positioning in relationships than individualistic Westerners are
(Hofstede, 1991; Liu, 2015; Vargas & Kemmelmeier, 2013). The
 4 INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM AND SAVING FACE 101

collectivistic Japanese, for example, have a strong sensitivity to status dif-

ferences and therefore practice more face-saving and receiver-centered
communication (Peltokorpi & Froese, 2014). Hence, they vary their level
of politeness depending on the status of the person to whom they speak, so
that more honorific forms would be used when interacting with an
addressee of higher status (one who is more powerful or older) or when
interacting in a formal setting (Kublin, 1987; Masao, 1973; Saito, 2010).
Thus, when two Japanese meet, for example a superior and a subordinate,
they bow to each other but the subordinate, because he/she is the person
of lower status, bows deeper than the higher status superior. Additionally,
in Japanese business meetings, most often the main contact person from
the host company introduces the other members of the group, starting
with the most senior personnel. During meetings in Japan, the highest
ranking person will likely make opening remarks, followed by his or her
second-in-command, who will then begin the meeting (Aki, Hiro, &
Chapin, 2015). This orientation towards status and establishment of dif-
ferences in power is necessary for all to uphold face.
Knowing how to communicate can make or break a deal between
business partners of different cultures. For instance, in China, company
hierarchy is much more important than in many Western countries. Not
only are bosses placed on a higher pedestal, but the difference between
levels of management is much more delineated and significant. Many
Chinese bosses and managers presume subordinates will show them respect
and in most cases expect that they will obey them without question.
Accordingly, not showing adequate respect in a public settings causes the
target to lose face. Generally speaking, if someone can establish rapport
using humor in another culture, they are able to negotiate the relationship
with effective facework (Wang, 2014). In fact, if done correctly, trying to
connect during business meetings through humor could be a good idea
(Wang, 2014). On the one hand, humor could result in greater rapport
and inclusion but it could also result in exclusion and misunderstanding
(Rogerson-Revell, 2007; Spencer-Oatey, 2006). In Britain, the norm is to
establish rapport by joking about the absurdity of life and status differences;
so that when George, a British businessman, made such a joke at the
beginning of a regular sales meeting in attempts to establish rapport with
his Chinese counterparts, it fell flat (Spencer-Oatey & Xing, 2003). During
his welcome speech, George neglected to consider the status and face
concerns of his Chinese counterparts by not sufficiently using
other-ingratiating and self-deprecating language, consequently, the
102 R.S. MERKIN

Chinese participants felt slighted (Spencer-Oatey & Xing, 2003). This

example shows that when communicating with those from collectivistic
cultures, it is crucial to use accommodating communication behaviors such
as indirectness, politeness, and sensitivity to face to maintain well-defined
status relationships (Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; Merkin, et al., 2014).

COLLECTIVISM, HARMONY AND HIGH-CONTEXT

COMMUNICATION
Finally, given that those from low-context cultures are not particularly
change-averse, it should be pointed out that cultures who prefer harmony
and order are particularly averse to making changes. Stewart (2016)
experienced this when he found that harmony and getting quickly to
harmony were more important than positive change in his organizational
development attempts to help a business in collectivistic Myanmar. Any
kind of organizational change effort for establishments made up of those
with harmony needs requires messages promoting an objective of making
things orderly and systematic to create the best results for the organization
as a whole (Stewart, 2016). This is because the value of group harmony
strongly inhibits open disagreement and generative conflict. The need for
systematic order reflects collectivists’ belief that confrontation is the great
disrupter of society, which in turn, could result in social disorganization
(DeVos, 1985).
For collectivists, their relationship with others is an essential part of the
self. Fitting in with the group is more important than being unique. As a
result, interpersonal harmony is of overriding importance, and group
interests and goals take precedence over those of individuals (Barkema,
Xiao-Ping, George, Yadong, & Tsui, 2015). To uphold harmony, to avoid
disruptions to defined status relationships, and to prevent communication
breakdowns that could result in a loss of face, collectivists prefer to use high
context communication (Stewart, 2016; Hall, 1968). High-context com-
munication relies on implication instead of explication. In cultures that
focus on using high-context communication there are more nonverbal cues
that do not depend heavily on verbal expression (Hall, 1976). For example,
a wry smile is a typical nonverbal facial expression high-context collectivists
use when they feel embarrassed (Kawabata & Gastaldo, 2015). Whereas a
low-context communicator might be likely to joke about their embar-
rassment instead because focusing on the self does not necessarily cause
 4 INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM AND SAVING FACE 103

individualists to lose face. So as not to stand out, people in high-context

cultures communicate with nonverbal embedded messages and imply
meanings using gestures, inferences, and even silence instead of words (Bai,
2016; Hall & Hall, 1990). Thus, high-context communicators express and
understand meanings by depending on contextual cues to avoid conflict or
humiliation, whereas low-context communicators tend to use explicit and
coded messages (spoken language and written words) while relying less on
the context or situation itself while transmitting meaning (Gudykunst &
Matsumoto, 1996; Hall & Hall, 1990; Barkema et al., 2015). Members of
low-context cultures value explicit rules and adherence to those rules, frank
discussions, and overt unambiguous communication (Hall & Hall, 1990).
Similar to Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, even though all cultures contain
characteristics of both high-context and low-context communication, most
messages can be placed along a ranking continuum and, within each cul-
ture, one orientation (low-context versus high-context communication)
tends to dominate (Hall & Hall, 1990; Bai, 2016).
As previously stated, individualistic cultures are also low-context cultures
and collectivistic cultures are also high-context cultures (Hall, 1976;
Liginlal, Rushdi, Meeds, & Ahmad, 2014; Merkin, 2015; Ting-Toomey,
1988). In fact, recent research has continued to substantiate this. In par-
ticular, Barkema et al. (2015) found that people in China and Chile
(high-context collectivistic cultures) relied more on contextual cues in
communication than did people in the United States (low-context indi-
vidualistic culture). The same findings were corroborated in collectivistic
Korea (Kang, 1988; Merkin, 2009). Findings show that expatriates from
Western countries are often found to disregard and/or misinterpret mes-
sages communicated by members of high-context cultures (Komisarof,
2009; Peltokorpi, 2007) because Westerners do not always realize the
implicit meaning of subtle cues that those from high-context cultures are
communicating without words (Hall, 1976).
Given these communication differences, business leaders, for example,
need to frame strategies for collectivistic high-context employees in a way
that supports norms that both maintains the collective identity of the group
and accomplishes tasks. For example, collectivists tend to prefer harmony,
mutual consensus, and an obliging style over open conflict (Stewart, 2016;
Ting-Toomey et al., 1991). Managers can promote effective communica-
tion in other contexts by creating task designs that honor interdependence,
and by balancing the need for saving face with implicit communication while
allowing for open communication (Sauquet & Bonet, 2003). Successful
104 R.S. MERKIN

approaches that incorporate harmony have to be indirect (Guo & Uhm,

2014). Thus, face-threat issues such as conflicts can be constructively
resolved through informal networks or by using indirect high-context
communication. It is possible for individualists to communicate indirectly
with patience and effort and it is important to do so because taking the time
to establish harmonious relationships through indirect communication
could make conducting business more efficient and effective in the long run.
For individualists, because the self is an independent entity that has a set
of unique characteristics, self-interest and individual goals take priority over
group interests and goals. This means that getting work done is more
important than maintaining group harmony (Barkema et al., 2015). Thus, in
low-context cultures, solution orientations are frequently used to resolve
conflicts; but in high-context cultures indirect strategies are more commonly
used (Chua & Gudykunst, 1987). In low-context cultures, people are highly
individualized, and there is relatively little involvement with others, resulting
in very little social hierarchy and minimal interference by society on indi-
viduals’ lives (Hall, 1976). Examples of individualistic low-context cultures
include Germany, Scandinavia, and North America, while examples of
high-context cultures include Japan, China, and Korea. When conducting
business with international teams, communication should be accommo-
dated to suit the participants for business interactions to be successful.

CASE STUDY 2: PARKER PEN: THE NEED

FOR CONSULTATION/FEEDBACK AND THE LOSS OF FACE
In the 1980s, after about a century of dominating the fine writing
instrument market, Parker Pen experienced a period of crisis. Parker was
facing three areas of competition. First, the Japanese had taken a large
portion of the low-end market and were mass marketing inexpensive and
disposable pens and were progressively eroding Parker Pen’s market share
in USA and Europe. Second, American brands such as Paper Mate, Bic,
and Pentel had produced a consequential position in the low-end sector
and was increasingly carving away at Parker Pen’s customer base. Third, in
the high-end European market sector which had been Parker Pens’ main
target sector, the competitors became filled with esteemed German brands
such as Montblanc and A.T. Cross.
In response, the Parker Pen Company streamlined their product line
globally by using a single international marketing strategy in all locations.
This strategy worked fine for collectivists who prefer to belong to a group
 4 INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM AND SAVING FACE 105

and stand by harmonious agreement however, the morale of individualistic

managers plummeted because they were not consulted and their personal
initiative was taken away. This policy resulted in profit losses and man-
agement uprisings that caused the company to change their strategy to
allow those managers in different areas to decide their own promotional
strategies (Ricks, 2006).
This regionalization had its constructive aspects in that tastes tended to
vary from country to country. Thus, local advertising campaigns, for
example, could become culture-specific. People have different perceptions
of what pens are for from place to place; therefore, making marketing local
could allow managers to more appropriately decide what pitches would be
most successful. For example, Germans buy pens for achieving style and the
perfect weight and dimensions for writing comfort while the French tend
to prefer fountain pens (Kashani, 1990). It was crucial for the Parker Pen
Company to obtain greater clarity of its brand positioning and image.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

1. Do you agree with Parker Pen’s strategy to localize marketing to

allow individualistic managers to feel empowered by being consulted
and thereby saving face?
2. What do you think the reaction of collectivistic managers will be to
Parker Pen’s strategy of decentralization?
3. Do you believe this strategy will be successful? Why or why not?
4. What were the cultural implications of the company changing
strategies?
5. What would you do to solve the Parker Pen Company’s problem
with competition?

REFERENCES
Aki, T., Hiro, M., & Chapin, M. (2015). Tips for doing business and collaborations
in Japan. Review of Ophthalmology, 22(8), 4–5.
Anderson, C., Srivastava, S., Beer, J. S., Spataro, S. E., & Chatman, J. A. (2006).
Knowing your place: Self-perceptions of status in face-to-face groups. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1094–1110. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.
91.6.1094.
106 R.S. MERKIN

Arens, E. A. (2012). Unpacking cultural differences in emotion regulation.

In S. Barnow & N. Balkir (Eds.), Cultural variations in psychopathology: From
research to practice (pp. 115–134). Copenhagen, Denmark: Hogrefe.
Arens, E. A., Balkir, N., & Barnow, S. (2013). Ethnic variation in emotion
regulation do cultural differences end where psychopathology begins? Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(3), 335–351.
Athanassiades, J. C. (1973). The distortion of upward communication in
hierarchical organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 16(2), 207–226.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in
organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Ayers, E. (1984). Vengeance and justice. Oxford: New York, NY.
Bai, H. (2016). A cross-cultural analysis of advertisements from high-context
cultures and low-context cultures. English Language Teaching, 9(8), 21.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual
Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1–27.
Barkema, H. G., Xiao-Ping, C., George, G., Yadong, L., & Tsui, A. S. (2015). West
meets East: New concepts and theories. Academy of Management Journal,
58(2), 460–479. doi:10.5465/amj.2015.4021.
Bearden, W. O., Money, B. R., & Nevins, J. (2006). Multidimensional versus
unidimensional measures in assesing national culture values: The Hofstede VSM
94 exemple. Journal of Business Research, 195–203.
Blau, R. (2016). A nation of individuals. The Economist, 420(8997), 3–16.
Bond, M. H., Leung, K., & Wan, K. C. (1982). How does cultural collectivism
operate? The impact of task and maintenance contributions on reward
distribution. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13, 186–200.
Bond, M. H. (2002). Reclaiming the individual from Hofstede’s ecological analysis -
A 20-year odyssey: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin,
128(1), 73–77.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. L. (1996). Who is this ‘‘we’’? Levels of collective
identity and self- representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71,
83–93.
Brown, J. D. (2010). Across the (not so) great divide: Cultural similarities in
self-evaluative processes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(5), 318–
330. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00267.x
Cem Ersoy, N., Born, M. P., Derous, E., & Molen, H. T. (2012). The effect of
cultural orientation and leadership style on self- versus other-oriented organi-
zational citizenship behaviour in Turkey and the Netherlands. Asian Journal of
Social Psychology, 15(4), 249–260. doi:10.1111/j.1467-839X.2012.01380.x.
Chaney, L., & Martin, J. (2011). Intercultural business communication (5th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Chang, E. C. (2008). Self-criticism and self-enhancement: Theory, research, and
clinical implications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
 4 INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM AND SAVING FACE 107

Chang, H. (1999). The ‘well-defined’ is ‘ambiguous’ indeterminacy in Chinese

conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 535–556.
Chang, H., & Holt, G. R. (1994). A Chinese perspective on face as interrelational
concern. In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The challenge of facework (pp. 95–132).
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Chatman, J. A., & Barsade, S. G. (1995). Personality, organizational culture, and
cooperation: Evidence from a business simulation. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 40, 423–443.
Chhokar, J. S., Brodbeck, F. C., & House, R. J. (Eds.). (2013). Culture and
leadership across the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies.
New York: Routledge.
Chua, E. G., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1987). Conflict resolution styles in low and
high-context cultures. Communication Research Reports, 4, 32–37.
Cocroft, B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Facework in Japan and the United States.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 469–506.
Cohen, D., & Gunz, A. (2002). As seen by the other…: Perspectives on the self in
the memories and emotional perceptions of Easterners and Westerners.
Psychological Science, 13(1), 55–59.
Connor, J., Yi, M., & Iyengar, R. (2013). When East meets West. T + D, 67(4),
54–59.
Cousins, S. D. (1989). Culture and self-perception in Japan and the United States.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 124–131. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.56.1.124.
Cullen, K. L., Gentry, W. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (2015). Biased self-perception
tendencies: self-enhancement/self-diminishment and leader derailment in
individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 64(1), 161–207. doi:10.1111/apps.12026.
Curry, C. D. (2016). Prepare for arrival. (Cover story). TD: Talent Development,
70(5), 30–35.
DeFrank, R. S., Matteson, M. T., Schweiger, D. M., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1985).
The impact of culture on the management: Practices of American and Japanese
CEOs. Organizational Dynamics, 13, 62–75.
De Mooij, M. (2005). Global marketing and advertising: Understanding cultural
paradoxes. Newbury Park: Sage.
De Mooij, M., & Hofstede, G. (2011). Cross-cultural consumer behavior: A review
of research findings. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 23(3/4),
181–192. doi:10.1080/08961530.2011.578057.
DeVos, G. (1985). Dimensions of self in Japanese culture. In A. J. Marsella, G.
DeVos, & F. L. K. Hsu (Eds.), Culture and self: Asian and Western perspectives
(pp. 141–184). New York: Travistock.
Dirilen-Gumus, O. (2016). Cross-cultural comparison of political leaders’ opera-
tional codes. International Journal of Psychology. doi:10.1002/ijop.12264.
108 R.S. MERKIN

Dzansi, D. Y., & Dzansi, L. W. (2010). Understanding the impact of human

resource management practices on municipal service delivery in South Africa: An
organizational justice approach. African Journal of Business Management, 4(6),
995.
Earley, P. C. (1997). Face, harmony, and social structure. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Eby, L. T., & Dobbins, G. H. (1997). Collectivistic orientation in teams: An
individual and group-level analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 275–295.
Elfenbein, H. A. (2015). In-group advantage and other-group bias in facial
emotion recognition. Understanding facial expressions in communication
(pp. 57–71). India: Springer.
Elliot, A. J., Chirkov, V. I., Kim, Y., & Sheldon, K. M. (2001). A cross-cultural
analysis of avoidance (relative to approach) personal goals. Psychological Science,
12, 505–510.
Fang, T. (2012). Yin Yang: A new perspective on culture. Management and
organization Review, 8(1), 25–50.
Gao, G., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1998). Communicating effectively with the Chinese.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gardner WL, Gabriel S, Lee A. (1999). “I” value freedom, but “we” value
relationships: Self-construal priming mirrors cultural differences in judgment.
Psychological Science, 10, 321–326.
Gelbrich, K., Stedham, Y., & Gäthke, D. (2016). Cultural discrepancy and national
corruption: Investigating the difference between cultural values and practices
and its relationship to corrupt behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26(2), 201–
225. doi:10.1017/beq.2016.29.
Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational
behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 479–514.
Goffman, E. (2005). Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. Chicago:
Aldine Transaction.
Goodrich, K., & De Mooij, M. (2014). How ‘social’ are social media? A
cross-cultural comparison of online and offline purchase decision influences.
Journal of Marketing Communications, 20(1–2), 103–116.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Matsumoto, Y. (1996). Cross-cultural variability of
communication in personal relationships. In W. B. Gudykunst, S.
Ting-Toomey, & T. Nishida (Eds.), Communication in personal relationships
across cultures (pp. 19–56). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Guo, T., & Uhm, S. Y. (2014). Society and acculturation in Asian American
communities. In Neuropsychology of Asians and Asian-Americans (pp. 55–76).
New York: Springer.
Hakimey, H., & Yazdanifard, R. (2015). The Review of Mokbang (Broadcast
Eating) phenomena and its relations with South Korean culture and society.
International Journal of Management, Accounting & Economics, 2(5), 444–456.
 4 INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM AND SAVING FACE 109

Hall, E. T. 1968. Proxemics. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.
Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1990). Understanding cultural differences. Yarmouth,
ME: Intercultural Press.
Halub, H., Sauber, A., & Stück, J. (2012). The Turk and the Yankee:
A Cross-Cultural Comparison between Turkish and American Managers.
Journal of the Indiana Academy of the Social Sciences, 15, 21–36.
Halub, H., Sauber, A., & Stück, J. (2017). The Turk and the Yankee:
A Cross-Cultural Comparison between Turkish and American Managers.
Journal of the Indiana Academy of the Social Sciences, 15(1), 3.
Hashimoto, H., & Yamagishi, T. (2013). Two faces of interdependence: Harmony
seeking and rejection avoidance. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 16(2),
142–151.
Haugh, M. (2004). Revisiting the conceptualisation of politeness in English and
Japanese. Multilingua, 23(1/2), 85–109.
Heine, S. J., & Hamamura, T. (2007). In search of East Asian self-enhancement.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 4–27.
Hirokawa, R. Y. (1981). Improving intra-organizational communication: A lesson
from Japanese management. Communication Quarterly, 30, 35–40.
Ho, D. Y. F. (1976). On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology, 81,
867–884.
Hochschild, A. R. (2003). The managed heart: Commercialization of human
feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in
Work-related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories.
Journal of International Business Studies, 14(2), 75–89.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institu-
tions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2006). What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers’ minds versus
respondents’ minds. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 882–896.
Hofstede, G. (2007). Asian management in the 21st century. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 24, 411–420.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural
roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 5–21.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations:
Software for the Mind, Third Edition. McGraw–Hill.
Holmes, J., Marra, M., & Schnurr, S. (2008). Impoliteness and ethnicity: Maori
and Pakeh a discourse in New Zealand workplaces. Journal of Politeness
Research, 4, 193–219.
110 R.S. MERKIN

Hoppe, M. H. (2007). Culture and leader effectiveness: The GLOBE study.

Central European Journal of Communication.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004).
Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. London:
Sage.
House, R. J., Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M., Hanges, P. J., & de Luque, M. F. S.
(2014). Strategic leadership across cultures: GLOBE study of CEO leadership
behavior and effectiveness in 24 countries. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hu, H. C. (1944). The Chinese concept of ‘face’. American Anthropologist, 46,
45–64.
Ijzerman, H., & Cohen, D. (2011). Grounding cultural syndromes: Body
comportment and values in honor and dignity cultures. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 41(4), 456–467. doi:10.1002/ejsp.806.
Imai, L., & Gelfand, M. J. (2009). Interdisciplinary perspectives on culture,
conflict, and negotiation. In R. S. Bhagat & R. M. Steers (Eds.), Cambridge
handbook of culture, organizations, and work (pp. 334–372). Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge University Press.
Ishii-Kunst, M. (1989). Collectivism or individualism? Changing patterns of
Japanese attitudes. Sociology and Social Research, 73, 174–179.
Jackson, C. L., Colquitt, J. A., Wesson, M. J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2006).
Psychological collectivism: A measurement validation and linkage to group
member performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 884–899.
Jones, M. L. (2007). Hofstede - Culturally questionable? Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Oxford Business & Economics Conference. Oxford, UK.
Jung, D., Bass, B. M., & Sosik, J. J. (1995). Bridging leadership and culture:
A theoretical consideration of transformational leadership and collectivistic
cultures. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 2, 3–18.
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Effects of leadership style and followers’ cultural
orientation on performance in group and individual task conditions. The
Academy of Management Journal, 42, 208–218.
Kang, S. P. (1988). Korean culture, the Seoul Olympics, and world order. Korea
and World Affairs, 12, 347–362.
Kashani, K. (1990). Why does global marketing work—or not work? European
Management Journal, 8(2), 150–155.
Kawabata, M., & Gastaldo, D. (2015). The less said, the better: Interpreting silence
in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(4), 1–9.
doi:10.1177/1609406915618123.
Kemmelmeier, M. (2003). Individualism and attitudes toward affirmative action:
Evidence from priming experiments. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25(2),
111–119.
 4 INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM AND SAVING FACE 111

Koerner, E. F. (2013). Ferdinand de Saussure: Origin and development of his

linguistic thought in western studies of language (Vol. 7). Germany:
Springer-Verlag.
Kim, Y.-H., & Cohen, D. (2010). Information, perspective, and judgments about
the self in face and dignity cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36,
537–550.
Kim, Y.-H., Cohen, D., & Au, W.-T. (2010). The jury and abjury of my peers: The
self in face and dignity cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98,
904–916.
Kim, J., Lee, S., & Gim, W. (2011). Culture and self-presentation: Influence of
social interactions in an expected social relationship. Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, 14, 63–74.
Kim, H., & Markus, H. R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity?
A cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 785.
Kim, J. Y., & Nam, S. H. (1998). The concept and dynamics of face: Implications
for organizational behavior in Asia. Organization Science, 9(4), 522–534.
Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of culture’s
consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural
values framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 285–320.
Kitayama, S., Markus, H., Tummala, P., Kurokawa, M., & Kato, K. (1990).
Culture and self-cognition. Unpublished manuscript.
Koerner, E. F. (2013). Ferdinand de Saussure: Origin and development of his
linguistic thought in western studies of language (Vol. 7). Germany:
Springer-Verlag.
Komisarof, A. (2009). Testing a modified interactive acculturation model in Japan:
American-Japanese coworker relations. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 33, 399–418.
Krugman, P. (Ed.). (2007). Trade with Japan: Has the door opened wider?.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kublin, K. (1987). The Japanese negotiation style: Cultural and historic roots.
Industrial Management, 29, 18–23.
Kühnen, U., & Oyserman, D. (2002). Thinking about the self influences thinking
in general: Cognitive consequences of salient self-concept. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 38(5), 492–499.
Kurman, J., & Sriram, N. (2002). Interrelationships among vertical and horizontal
collectivism, modesty, and self-enhancement. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 33, 71–86.
Kwan, V. S., Bond, M. H., & Singelis, T. M. (1997). Pancultural explanations for
life satisfaction: adding relationship harmony to self-esteem. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 73(5), 1038.
112 R.S. MERKIN

Lalwani, A. K., Shavitt, S., & Johnson, T. (2006). What is the relation between
cultural orientation and socially desirable responding? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 90, 165.
Lambert, E. G., Pasupuleti, S., Cluse-Tolar, T., Jennings, M., & Baker, D. (2006).
The impact of work-family conflict on social work and human service worker job
satisfaction and organizational commitment: An exploratory study.
Administration in Social Work, 30(3), 55–74.
Lee, C. Y. (2012). Korean culture and its influence on business practice in South
Korea. The Journal of International Management Studies, 7(2), 184–191.
Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). The pleasures and pains of
distinct self-construals: The role of interdependence in regulatory focus. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1122–1134.
Lee, H. I., Leung, A. K., & Kim, Y. (2014). Unpacking East–West differences in
the extent of self-enhancement from the perspective of face versus dignity
culture. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(7), 314–327. doi:10.1111/
spc3.12112.
Leung, A. K.-Y., & Cohen, D. (2011). Within-and between-culture variation:
Individual differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity cultures.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 507–526.
Li, J., & Harrison, J. R. (2008). National culture and the composition and leadership
structure of boards of directors. Corporate Governance: An International Review,
16(5), 375–385. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8683.2008.00697.x.
Liginlal, D., Rushdi, M., Meeds, R., & Ahmad, R. (2014). Localization for a high
context culture: An exploratory study of cultural markers and metaphors in
Arabic E-Commerce websites. E-Commerce, E-Business and E-Service, 1, 21.
Liu, J. (2015). Globalizing indigenous psychology: An East Asian form of
hierarchical relationalism with worldwide implications. Journal for the Theory of
Social Behaviour, 45(1), 82–94.
Lu, X. (1998). An interface between individualistic and collectivistic orientations in
Chinese cultural values and social relations. The Howard Journal of
Communication, 9(2), 91–107.
Luo, L., Shu-Fang, K., Cooper, C. L., Allen, T. D., Lapierre, L. M., O’Driscoll, M.,
et al. (2009). Work resources, work-to-family conflict, and its consequences:
A Taiwanese-British cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Stress
Management, 16(1), 25–44. doi:10.1037/a0013988.
Mao, L. M. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed.
Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 451–486.
Marcus, J., & Le, H. (2013). Interactive effects of levels of individualism–
collectivism on cooperation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 34, 813–834.
 4 INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM AND SAVING FACE 113

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for
cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1998). The cultural psychology of personality.Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(1), 63–87.
Masao, K. (1973). Indigenous barriers to communication. Japan Interpreter, 8, 96–108.
Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness
phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(4), 403–426.
Merkin, R. (2009). Korean and American communication practices. Journal of
Intercultural Communication, 20.
Merkin, R. (2015). The relationship between individualism/collectivism: consul-
tation and harmony needs. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 39.
Merkin, R., Taras, V., & Steel, P. (2014). State-of-the-art themes in cross-cultural
communication research: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 38, 1–23. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.10.004.
Merkin, R. S., & Ramadan, R. (2016). Communication practices in the US and
Syria. SpringerPlus, 5(1), 845.
Milberg, S. J., Burke, S. J., Smith, H. J., & Kallman, E. A. (1995). Values, personal
information privacy, and regulatory approaches. Communications of the ACM,
38(12), 65–74.
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of
employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why.
Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1453–1476. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.
00387.
Misra, G., Srivastava, A. K., & Misra, I. (2006). Culture and facets of creativity. The
international handbook of creativity, 421–455.
Morisaki, S., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1994). Face in Japan and the United States.
In S. Ting-Toomey & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The challenge of facework:
Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues (pp. 47–93). Albany, NY, US: State
University of New York Press.
O’Mara, E. M., Gaertner, L., Sedikides, C., Zhou, X., & Liu, Y. (2012).
A longitudinal-experimental test of the panculturality of self-enhancement:
Self-enhancement promotes psychological well-being both in the West and the
East. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(2), 157–163.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individ-
ualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and
meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72.
Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2008). Paternalistic leadership: A review and
agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 34, 566–593.
Peltokorpi, V. (2007). Intercultural communication patterns and tactics: Nordic
expatriates in Japan. International Business Review, 16, 68–82.
114 R.S. MERKIN

Peltokorpi, V., & Froese, F. (2014). Expatriate personality and cultural fit: The
moderating role of host country context on job satisfaction. International
Business Review, 23(1), 293–302.
Ricks, D. A. (2006). Blunders in international business. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
Robinson, J., & Godbey, G. (2010). Time for life: The surprising ways Americans
use their time. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.
Rogerson-Revell, P. (2007). Humour in business: A double-edged sword: A study
of humour and style shifting in intercultural business meetings. Journal of
Pragmatics, 39, 4–28.
Ross, M., Xun, W. Q. E., & Wilson, A. E. (2002). Language and the bicultural self.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1040–1050. Journal of
Pragmatics, 42(12), 3271–3282. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.014.
Saito, J. (2010). Subordinates’ use of Japanese plain forms: An examination of
superior–subordinate interactions in the workplace. Journal of Pragmatics, 42
(12), 3271–3282. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.014
Sauquet, A., & Bonet, E. (2003). Implications of national cultural impacts for
conflict resolution and team learning in Spain: Observations from a comparative
case study. Advances In Developing Human Resources, 5(1), 41–63. doi:10.
1177/1523422302239182.
Scholer, A. A., & Higgins, E. T. (2011). Promotion and prevention systems:
Regulatory focus dynamics within self-regulatory hierarchies. In K. D. Vohs and
R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and
applications (pp. 143–161).
Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., & Toguchi, Y. (2003). Pancultural self-enhancement.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 60.
Sedikides, C., & Strube, M. J. (1997). Self-evaluation: To thine own self be good,
to thine own self be sure, to thine own self be true, and to thine own self be
better. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 209–269.
Sekine, K., & Bonanno, A. (2016). The contradictions of neoliberal agri-food. W.
Va.: West Virginia University Press.
Sezer, O., Gino, F., & Norton, M. I. (2015). Humblebragging: A distinct–and
ineffective–self-presentation strategy. Harvard Business School Marketing Unit
Working Paper, (15–080), 15–080.
Sharma, P., Chen, I. N., & Luk, S. K. (2012). Exploring the role of IND–COL as a
moderator in the comprehensive service evaluation model. Journal of
International Consumer Marketing, 24(1/2), 129–142. doi:10.1080/
08961530.2012.650143.
Shi, X. (2011). The impact of face on Chinese students’ simulated negotiation
practices with Americans. Language & Intercultural Communication, 11(1),
26–40. doi:10.1080/14708477.2010.517846.
 4 INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM AND SAVING FACE 115

Shorrock, T. (1982). Dow fights with Korean partners. Slams Business Climate.
Multinational Monitor, 3, 9.
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent
self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580–591.
Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., & Bhawuk, D. P. (1995). Horizontal and vertical
dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement
refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29(3), 240–275.
Smith, A. (2011). The influence of education on conflict and peace building.
Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring
Report.
Spencer-Oatey, H., & Jianyu, X. (2003). Managing rapport in intercultural
business interactions: A comparison of two Chinese-British welcome meetings.
Journal of Intercultural Studies, 24(1), 33.
Spencer-Oatey, H., & Xiong, Z. (2006). Chinese students’ psychological and
sociocultural adjustments to Britain: An empirical study. Language, Culture and
Curriculum, 19(1), 37–53.
Steel, P., & Taras, V. (2010). Culture as a consequence: A multilevel multivariate
meta-analysis of the effects of individual and country characteristics on
work-related cultural values. Journal of International Management, 16,
211–233.
Stewart, S. (2016). At play in the Fields of OD. OD Practitioner, 48(3), 22–30.
Available from: Academic Search Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 11,
2016.
Takai, J., & Lee, P. (2003). Japanese directness and indirectness across situations:
Focusing on refining the ingroup–outgroup distinction. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the International Communication 1085 Association.
Retrieved 19 September, 2010, from http://www.Allacademic.com.San
Diego, CA
Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the impact of culture’s
consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s
cultural value dimensions: Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 405–439.
Tassell, N. A., Flett, R. A., & Gavala, J. R. (2010). Individualism/collectivism and
academic self-enhancement in New Zealand Māori University Students. Journal
of Pacific Rim Psychology, 4(02), 138–151.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles. In Y. Y. Kim & W.
B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213–235).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). The challenge of facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal
issues. Albany: SUNY Press.
Ting‐Toomey, S. (2005). Identity negotiation theory. The International encyclopedia
of interpersonal communication.
116 R.S. MERKIN

Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Soo Kim, H., Lin, S. L., et al.
(1991). Culture, face maintenance, and styles of handling interpersonal conflict:
A study in five cultures. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2(4),
275–296.
Trafimow, D., Silverman, E. S., Fan, R. M-t., & Law, J. S. F. (1997). The effects of
language and priming on the relative accessibility of the private self and the
collective self. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 107–123.
Triandis, H. (1987). Collectivism vs. individualism. In C. Bagley & G. Verma
(Eds.), Personality, cognition and values: Cross-cultural perspectives on childhood
and adolescence. London: MacMillan.
Triandis, H., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988).
Collectivism vs. individualism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323–338.
Triandis, H. C. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism.
In J. Berman (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 41–133). Lincoln,
NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Tripathi, S., Prabhakar, G. P., & Liddle, J. (2015). Leadership insights from the
top: Exploring leadership through the narratives of CEOs in India.
International Journal of Public Leadership, 11(3/4), 126–146.
Tynan, R. (2005). The effects of threat sensitivity and face giving on dyadic
psychological safety and upward communication. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 35(2), 223–247. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02119.x.
Vargas, J. H., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2013). Ethnicity and contemporary American
culture a meta-analytic investigation of horizontal–vertical individualism–
collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(2), 195–222.
Varner, I., & Beamer, L. (2005). Nonverbal Language in Intercultural
Communication. Intercultural Communication in the Global Workplace,
175–203.
Vohs, K. D., & Heatherton, T. F. (2001). Self-Esteem and threats to self:
implications for self-construals and interpersonal perceptions. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1103.
Wang, Y. (2014). Humor in British academic lectures and Chinese students’
perceptions of it. Journal of Pragmatics, 68, 80–93.
Warner, L. R., & Shields, S. A. (2013). The intersections of sexuality, gender, and
race: Identity research at the crossroads. Sex roles, 68(11–12), 803–810.
Wong, V. C., & Wyer, R. J. (2016). Mental traveling along psychological distances:
The effects of cultural syndromes, perspective flexibility, and construal level.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(1), 17–33. doi:10.1037/
pspa0000048.
 4 INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM AND SAVING FACE 117

Wu, C., Luksyte, A., & Parker, S. (2015). Overqualification and subjective
well-being at work: The moderating role of job autonomy and culture. Social
Indicators Research, 121(3), 917–937. doi:10.1007/s11205-014-0662-2.
Yang, K. S. (1981). Social orientation and individual modernity among Chinese
students in Taiwan. The Journal of Social Psychology, 113(2), 159–170.
Ye, R. M., Wang, X. H. F., Wendt, J. H., Wu, J., & Euwema, M. C. (2016).
Gender and managerial coaching across cultures: female managers are coaching
more. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(16),
1791–1812.
Yoshida, T., Kojo, K., & Kaku, H. (1982). A study on the development of
self-presentation in children. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 30,
30–37.
Yu, M. (2003). On the universality of face: Evidence from Chinese compliment
response behavior. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1679–1710.
Zhang, D., & Cheng, Y. (2006). An overview of Chinese culture. Beijing: Chinese
People University Press.
Zhang, Q., Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (2014). Linking emotion to the
conflict face-negotiation theory: A US–China investigation of the mediating
effects of anger, compassion, and guilt in interpersonal conflict. Human
Communication Research, 40(3), 373–395.
 CHAPTER 5

Individualism-Collectivism Applied
to Direct Versus Indirect Facework

DIRECT COMMUNICATION
Members of individualist low-context cultures are primarily motivated by
their own individualistic goals, tend to emphasize group harmony less, and
accept conflict in business relationships more readily. They also tend to
have only one set of behaviors for both public and private settings, unlike
their collectivistic counterparts (Stewart, 2016). Researchers have found
that low-context individualists prefer using direct communication (Cocroft
& Ting-Toomey, 1994; Gudykunst & Matsumoto, 1996; Merkin, Taras,
& Steel, 2014; Shulruf, Hattie, & Dixon, 2007). Whether people choose
direct or indirect communication indicates how straightforward they
choose to be when interacting with others. Direct communication styles
can be defined as messages that have the meaning included within them
(Hammer & Rogan, 2002). Examples of direct communication styles
include reasoned arguments, direct statements, and emotional expressive-
ness (Hammer, 2005), as well as contestive and confrontational interac-
tions as in the case of New Zealanders (Holmes, Marra, & Schnurr, 2008).
Clarity is emphasized in individualist cultures (Fitzsimmons & Stamper,
2014; Kim, 1994). In order to be clear, individualists tend to use
straightforward, dominating communication (Fitzsimmons & Stamper,
2014; Gudykunst, 2003).
Those with individualistic orientations tend to have more confidence in
their own abilities and consequently pay more attention to themselves
(Lam, Chen, & Schaubroeck, 2002), which makes them less likely to

© The Author(s) 2018 119

R.S. Merkin, Saving Face in Business,
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59174-6_5
120 R.S. MERKIN

consider others. This is evidenced by findings that show that individualism

is positively related to direct communication and self-promotion, and
negatively related to sensitivity and face-saving concerns and the propensity
to use deception (Gelbrich, Stedham, & Gäthke, 2016; Merkin et al.,
2014).
Given individualists’ belief that they can manage interactions, they have
a stronger need for direct feedback, which enables them to have oppor-
tunities to contribute or respond (Halub, Sauber, & Stück, 2012).
However, in business with those from collectivistic harmonious cultures,
communication is not likely to include feedback in the same open and
immediate way those from direct cultures are used to. American managers
frequently say that the most trying issue for them while working in col-
lectivistic cultures is the lack of such feedback (Halub et al., 2012). In fact,
collectivistic employees rarely receive any consultation attempts or negative
feedback at all (Halub et al., 2012).
Individualists also need to feel that they are consulted in the workplace
about issues that involve them and feel a loss of face when they are not
informed directly and explicitly considered (Merkin, 2015). Being con-
sulted and receiving direct feedback are both direct communication con-
texts that might cause collectivists to cringe and feel face-threatened
because to them, direct communication could lead to a loss of face (Merkin
et al., 2014; Brett et al., 2014). In contrast, individualists find that the
greater use of direct communication strategies helps them to save face. This
is partly due to the fact that individualism often promotes a trusting stance
that leads to better outcomes, assuming that others are reliable (Jarvenpaa,
Tractinsky, & Vitalec, 2000).
Individualists commonly see direct communication as a way to reduce
ambiguity when there is a potential for conflict (Kapoor, Hughes, Baldwin,
& Blue, 2003). If conflict emerges, then the conflict facilitates working out
disagreements directly. However, individualistic communication is
aggressive (Gunkel, Schlaegel, & Taras, 2016; Holt & DeVore, 2005). In
general, individualists tend to be less kind in their dealings with others than
collectivists are (Gómez, Shapiro, & Kirkman, 2000). For example,
low-context individualists tend to use direct expressions of aggression, are
more argumentative (Croucher, Galy-Badenas, Jantti, Carlson, & Cheng,
2016), tend to be more dominating, and tend to use more confrontational
solution-orientated strategies than their collectivistic counterparts
(Meng-Yu, 2009) during conflicts (Gunkel et al., 2016; Holt & DeVore,
2005). Such communication could be easily construed by others as
 5 INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM APPLIED … 121

face-threatening acts (O’Keefe, 1991), particularly by those favoring har-

mony and interconnectedness. Since individualistic face is negotiated
though interaction (Goffman, 2005), direct communication is less
face-threatening to individualists because they believe that their face can be
managed through interaction.
However, collectivists whose face is stuck in status quo relationships
cannot negotiate their face. Thus, they do not share this belief and find
direct communication threatening. Consequently, they try to restrain
direct expressions and statements that could hurt others’ feelings (Holmes
et al., 2008) and sometimes prefer using avoiding facework, which is less
obtrusive (Cho & Sillars, 2015). This explains why collectivism is positively
related to an integrating (problem-solving) style which is indirect and
negatively related to a dominating style of conflict management that is
aggressive. It also explains why feedback is not likely to be accurate when
working in high-context collectivistic cultural environments, where indi-
viduals prefer not to provide each other with possibly face-threatening
authentic and direct feedback (McCormick, Alavi, & Hanham, 2015).
This results in individualists receiving feedback that is not clear enough
to develop an authentic and independent understanding of the situation or
of their performance (McCormick et al., 2015). Evidently, there is variance
in how direct versus indirect expressions are conceived and received across
cultures (Weingart, Behfar, Bendersky, Todorova, & Jehn, 2015; Maddux,
Kim, Okumura, & Brett, 2011). For example, when a conflict is expressed
indirectly, there is more context, culture, and background that the receiver
must be aware of to deduce the communicator’s meaning. Thus, a good
knowledge in interpreting the subtle cues accompanying high-context
communication is essential for individualists working with collectivists. This
idea is often misunderstood by US American leaders, as in the case of
President Bush’s mishap mentioned earlier, when he demanded fair trade
practices from the Japanese elite. Although US Americans may view con-
flict to be used constructively to achieve goals or negotiate conditions, the
risk of losing face is too great for others from collectivistic cultures to
engage in low-context warfare. One Korean collectivist explained that the
avoidance of open and bold negative expressions is rooted in the fear that it
might disrupt the harmony of the group (Nakane, 1972), leading to a
breakdown in communication that could possibly result in a loss of face.
122 R.S. MERKIN

INDIRECT COMMUNICATION
Collectivists prefer diplomatic, face-saving, indirect communication
(Holmes et al., 2008; Kapoor et al., 2003) and high-context communi-
cation (Du-Babcock & Tanaka, 2013) because it helps to maintain rela-
tional harmony (Breland, Treadway, Yang, Shaughnessy, Stepina, &
Moeller, 2011; Holmes et al., 2008; Merkin, 2015). This has been
demonstrated in research on collectivistic Chinese (Hiew, Halford, van de
Vijver, & Liu, 2016), East Asians (Kim, Cohen, & Au, 2010), Koreans
(Merkin, 2009), Maori (Holmes et al., 2008), Japanese (Cocroft &
Ting-Toomey, 1994; Nakai, 2002), and Syrians (Merkin & Ramadan,
2010) for example. The distinguishing factor of indirect communication is
that the meaning is outside the message (Hammer & Rogan, 2002).
Indirect styles include the use of restraint, persuasion through face work
and third parties, ambiguity, vague language, cushioned words, or withheld
information from the recipient (Hammer, 2005; Rodenbach, Rodenbach,
Tejani, & Epstein, 2016). For example, third parties provide a tool for
minimizing the potential for the problem to intensify. Another indirect
style used by the Japanese (among others) is to become evasive when they
are reluctant to answer questions. As a result, several ways to avoid saying
‘‘no’’ are commonly used in Japan (Danielewicz-Betz, 2016; Nakai, 2002).
Indirect and polite ways of rejection are also often used simply to avoid
direct expression. Research shows that collectivistic Japanese respondents
report using more indirect facework strategies as well as more apologies
and remediation than individualistic North American respondents, who are
more willing to use antisocial, direct, competitive, and hostile facework to
manage difficult situations (Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; Merkin &
Ramadan, 2010). Other indirect high-context behaviors that may be used
to maintain face include passive behaviors, such as teasing or poking fun,
that suggest (but do not explicitly identify) a source of conflict as well as
expressing to a third party rather than directly to the other party (e.g.,
talking behind the other party’s back) (Weingart et al., 2015).
Still, to low-context individualists, refusals to answer directly in addition
to unclear facework can actually cause conflicts and diminish harmony
(Hofstede, 1991; Korovyakovskaya & Chong, 2015). This is partly
because those who prefer direct communication suspect deception or
underhandedness when people do not communicate clearly with them. On
the other hand, in collectivistic cultures like Japan, silence is valued and
considered a significant part of communication. Rather than indicating a
 5 INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM APPLIED … 123

lack of information, silence is a culturally grounded part of communication

to the Japanese (Kawabata & Gastaldo, 2015; Nakai, 2002). Since people
are expected to be less assertive, and ambiguity is a common strategy in
communication in collectivistic cultures, using silence is not necessarily a
problem (Kawabata & Gastaldo, 2015; Nakai, 2002).
This is substantiated in research indicating that collectivistic Koreans
create ambiguous messages to obscure their meaning (Lim & Choi, 1996).
Not taking a stand and obscuring ones’ position on an issue helps others
save face and is, therefore, a preferred communication strategy for Koreans
(Park, 1993). For example, Jiang (2006) found differences between Korea
and the US in journalists’ request and refusal strategies in press conferences
in that the journalists from the US, used more direct requests and refusals
to give information. However, the journalists from Korea, while they used
requests instead of refusals, they also used more avoidance strategies or had
insufficient answers to questions they were uncomfortable with. Overall, in
order to avoid a loss of face by maintaining interpersonal harmony and
emotional self-control, indirectness versus directness is the preferred style
of communication for high-context, interdependent, members of Asian
cultures (Kim & Park, 2015).
On the one hand, a lot of the time collectivists use harmony-inducing
indirect conflict resolution strategies such as compromising and avoiding
(withdrawing) strategies (Gunkel et al., 2016; Holt & DeVore, 2005). On
the other hand, sometimes, when they seek eventual benefits for them-
selves, they indirectly provoke conflicts among other competitors while
keeping a low profile to maintain harmonious relationships between all
parties (Shi, 2011). Additionally, in conflict, silence is used to express
different feelings—even feelings of defiance or anger can be expressed
through silence (Lebra, 1987)—in order to avoid direct confrontation and
face loss. There are other times when collectivists use indirect communi-
cation to gain advantage by strategically obscuring their position on issues
while still avoiding conflict where the transgressor could potentially lose
face (Lee, 2008). Such are examples of how high-context communication
can be portrayed by collectivists and at the same time be potentially mis-
read by individualists, who are not clued into such communication.
In addition, with the aim of preventing themselves from losing face,
collectivists are likely to engage in an unrealistic denial of negative traits
(Kim et al., 2010). In contrast, their individualistic counterparts are more
likely to communicate to gain face by projecting an unrealistic adoption of
positive traits (Kim et al., 2010). This is an illustration of how harmony
124 R.S. MERKIN

versus self-promotion is carried out through communicating specific types

of utterances and shows how Asians, for instance, have been known to
prefer indirect and ambiguous communication, which better allows for
saving face, in contrast to the direct and clear communication preferred in
low-context cultures (Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; Merkin, 2005).
Given cultural differences based on the individualism/collectivism
divide, for further clarity, an analysis of a couple of cases of indirect
face-saving communication follow. Surely being unemployed is a
face-threatening situation across cultures. In places like Japan, however,
changing jobs is not considered to be proper behavior and is therefore,
particularly face-threatening (Kawabata & Gastaldo, 2015). Although the
situation is changing, male workers born in 1970 have experienced about
20% fewer years of job tenure than those born in 1944 at a given age, based
on empirical data (Kawaguchi & Ueno, 2013). Although the decline of the
long-term employment relationship is uniformly observed across firm sizes
and industries, losing or changing jobs is still looked down upon in Japan
(Cislo, 2016). Data show changing trends among job changers as well,
discernible in the fraction of voluntary job changes, as well as data that
associate job changes with wage increases. The trends have been stable, so
that workers are experiencing these changes in some numbers (Kawaguchi
& Ueno, 2013). The insecurity associated with the trends away from
lifetime employment have been shown to be significantly associated with
psychological distress (Inoue, Kawakami, Eguchi, & Tsutsumi, 2016).
Challenging employment situations such as being unemployed or poten-
tially in such a state is very threatening to face. Thus, in a case study, the
communication described by a Japanese employee explained how he barely
saved face and how it was easy for companies to fire him because he already
voluntarily changed jobs (Kawabata & Gastaldo, 2015). When prodded
further for details of his experience, the Japanese employee who changed
jobs reverted to the uncertain expression ‘‘I leave it up to your imagina-
tion.’’ At that point the researcher knew that this was a sign of denial to
respond and stopped asking.
A second example of direct and indirect face-saving communication
issues is the case of multicultural business negotiations, particularly when
parties are trying to determine time and price. In negotiating, one tries to
maintain face while also allowing for eventual agreements that include the
other party. For individualists to cope with ambiguous collectivistic com-
munication in daily communication with overseas clients, individualistic
employees found that addressing issues needing clarity via multiple emails
 5 INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM APPLIED … 125

was particularly helpful (Warren, 2014). If, after they tried much writing,
there were items that still could not be resolved, they used the phone
because the added voice cues allowed for greater clarification. Thus, con-
ference calls are reserved for deciding how to handle persistent problems or
yet to be resolved issues which are well known to participants (Warren,
2014). More complete communication cues provided by phone or
in-person meetings reduces the risk of miscommunication and misunder-
standing that could potentially lead to a loss of face. Sharing of related
information before a conference call is an important part of setting the
groundwork for intercultural meetings. Researchers have also found that it
is useful to discuss issues based on graphs and tables that people make
available in advance because they help to reduce ambiguity (Warren,
2014). Frequent preparation is seen as an important ingredient for suc-
cessful conference calls between international participants. If people are still
not clear about something, they can also bring it up again when a meeting
is over with the parties concerned, so as not to feel overly face-threatened.
After the meeting, whatever was discussed must be carefully written down
and confirmed by all members to assure that everyone understands
(Warren, 2014). More specifically, given their natural tendencies, in
cross-cultural dialogs, successful collectivistic Chinese negotiators mainly
concentrate on rational, professional approaches with Westerners, while
successful Westerners focus on effectively coping with Chinese social
standards to allow all to maintain face and accomplish their respective goals
(Sheer & Chen, 2003).

TASK VERSUS RELATIONSHIP ORIENTATIONS

Propelled by individualism and collectivism, the issue of direct and indirect
communication based on a task-oriented versus a relationship-oriented
coordination is one of the single greatest cross-cultural management issues
between professionals in the workplace (Halub et al., 2012). Because
communication is the basis of relationships and human relationships are the
foundation of doing business, this issue overlaps with other areas related to
the individualism-collectivism dimension. Tjosvold (1988a, 1988b) points
out that collectivists perceive their business goals as establishing an inter-
dependence that leads group members to participate in affirmative col-
laborating behaviors. Thus, business cooperation is understood in terms of
actual or perceived goal relationships by high-context collectivists, rather
than by tasks or behaviors. In a high-context collectivistic cultures, role
126 R.S. MERKIN

responsibilities are not limited to task performance, nor are they all officially
stated. For instance, Markus and Kitayama (1991) mention that Asian
employees prefer a manager who demands a lot more than is formally
obligatory in the work, yet extends his care for the person’s personal
matters even outside of work over the Western-type, task-oriented man-
ager (“who separates personal matters from work and demands as much as,
yet not more than, is officially required” p. 241). What is more, expressing
and asserting self-interest is viewed by others in a collectivistic group as a
challenge to and harming of collective wisdom. Still, collectivists can be
driven towards task achievement through personal devotion and attach-
ment to significant others, thereby leading to cognitive trust (Chen, Chen,
& Meindl, 1998).
The classic contrasting case that is likely to take place between indi-
vidualists and collectivists at business lunches occurs when, let’s say, col-
lectivistic Turkish managers begin a business get-together highlighting
nonbusiness aspects of the relationship as opposed to individualistic
Americans who dive right into the details of business deals (Halub et al.,
2012). High-context collectivists take the time to observe their possible
business partners’ manners and nonverbal behavior and indirectly try to
determine if they feel enough trust of the person to continue doing busi-
ness. In contrast, direct individualists go by explicit low-context commu-
nication—meaning that if a contractual agreement is discussed, then the
purpose of the meeting is to sign the contract and go home. If both parties
have already approved the documents before the meeting, they will not
waste time discussing the content again. This low-context approach means
very little to high-context communicators who need to be with their
partners and share “contexts” or experiences with their clients and business
partners. Consequently, the more direct American, who tends to go right
to the task side of business, will often try to leave the socializing, touring,
and other relational activities to the end without understanding that
developing trust comes first to high-context communicators.
The above differences highlight the dissimilarities between low-context
communicators’ task orientation versus high-context communicators’
emphasis on harmonious relationships. Specifically, individualists are more
oriented toward task achievement, sometimes at the expense of relationships,
whereas collectivists put more emphasis on harmonious relationships, some-
times at the expense of task accomplishment (e.g., Chen et al., 1998; Kim,
Triandis, Kagitcibasi, Choi, & Yoon, 1994; Woodard et al., 2016). Findings
bear this conclusion out. Research shows that cognition-based trust is more
 5 INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM APPLIED … 127

positively related to cooperation in an individualistic culture than in a col-

lectivistic culture, while affect-based trust is more positively related to coop-
eration in collectivistic cultures than in individualistic cultures (Chen et al.,
1998; Halub et al., 2012). As a result, the two approaches contradict each
other, given that each participant has a different priority in mind. To avoid
conflict and a resulting loss of face on anyone’s part, the divide needs to be
addressed by means of compromise and self-control. It is therefore necessary
for American managers to realize that when they are joining a drawn-out
social itinerary of formal dinners, personal visits, tours, and so on in a collec-
tivistic society, relationships often are more important than tasks.
Once a relationship has been established, professional and personal
interactions will move more smoothly in future transactions. However, first
impressions are crucial. To start off a first-time business lunch in which a
task-oriented American salesperson pushes his or her product instead of
engaging in small talk about relational matters such as the trip over and
family matters with a collectivistic Turkish counterpart, for example, can
lead to a subtle cross-cultural crisis, with negative reactions from both sides
(Halub et al., 2012). A case study carried out by Halub et al., (2012)
explains clearly that in the case above, the American is puzzled as to why
his/her Turkish counterpart does not seem interested in doing business
and why his/her business partner is communicating in an unfocused and
elusive manner. The Turkish client, on the other hand, feels the American
is too cold, uncaring, and only concerned with making money (Halub
et al., 2012). Thus, both sides need to practice direct/indirect facework
that is the reverse of what they are used to doing. Once this is recognized,
however, business people can strategically control their communication
style by preparing the respective approaches before meetings.

COLLECTIVISM MOVING TOWARDS INDIVIDUALISM AMONG

MILLENNIALS
A discussion of individualism and collectivism is not complete without
considering the issue of globalization and the different values millennials
are adopting in this rapidly changing global landscape. As pointed out by
the Economist, growing individualism in collectivistic societies is trans-
forming every aspect of social behavior (The new class war, 2016). Using
the example of Chinese society, the exploration below will address trends
among collectivistic societies mitigating against traditional collectivism. For
128 R.S. MERKIN

example, the trend of urban migration in search of employment has dis-

rupted the connection of in-group members and their established networks
and has challenged traditional relationships which once served as a basis for
China’s emphasis on guanxi, or personal relationships—which also has
been misunderstood by outsiders as promoting corruption (Xu & Wu,
2016). In China, people used to know most of the people they came across
in their daily life because they were part of the same in-group. They knew
the merchants they purchased goods from and the people they met at
work. They viewed strangers from a distance unless they were introduced
by someone within their in-group. However, these personal networks have
disbanded due to internal mass migration. Presently, most people live far
from where they were born, work for independent firms, and depend on
services operated by strangers (Blau, 2016). Consequently, cultural per-
ceptions vary between the young and older members of society.
Other modern trends are also creating a schism between the young and
an aging society that depends on collectivism to carry them through old
age. Chinese millennials act on new values and goals that are contributing
to the demise of traditional family values, which also strains conventional
notions of trust, rooted in the traditional family structure. Accordingly,
Chinese millennials tend to do what they want as opposed to what they are
told (The new class war, 2016), which is an adoption of individualistic
values (Blair & Madigan, 2016). Moreover, many Chinese millennials no
longer view their role in society to be about accountability to the family
and their broader community but rather about their own rights (Blau,
2016). This is reflected in the trend of Chinese millennials moving away
from the older generations’ idea that adulthood begins with and requires
getting married and having a child (Chen et al., 2016). Unlike past notions
that placing self-interest above the collective was illegitimate, adulthood
among Chinese millennials is now about achieving autonomy and marrying
for love, not responsibility (Zhang, Teng, Chan, & Zhang, 2014). This
change in Chinese millennials’ sense of self is acted out via their presen-
tation of face. Chinese youth uphold face by attaining the mate of their
choice based on their emotions as opposed to their parents’ and society’s
social expectations (Blair & Madigan, 2016).
China’s one-child societal policy has changed how children are viewed
by parents, however, and now each child is regarded as the center of the
family. Consequently, present day Chinese weddings have become focused
on the couple, as opposed to the groom’s parents, as was the previous
convention. There has also been a sexual revolution among young Chinese,
 5 INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM APPLIED … 129

leading the majority of Chinese youngsters to have sex before marriage

(Blau, 2016; Chen et al., 2016). Findings also show that in Shanghai and
Guangzhou, men on average marry at 30 and women at 28, which is later
than in America (Blau, 2016). This trend of defying social hierarchy by
marrying for love is defying another age-old trend where marriage acted as
an economic contract between two families, ensuring the groom’s family
would have heirs. Finally, as education, migration, and contact with diverse
ideas erode traditional norms, divorce rates in China have increased (Jones,
2015). The Chinese national divorce rate is beyond that of Australia and
most of Europe; in parts of China it even now exceeds that in America
(Blau, 2016).
It should be noted, however, that the millennials of China have not
completely abandoned collectivism. For example, 41% of Chinese millen-
nials prefer to have access to a team space (Deloitte, 2013). 71% of mil-
lennials want their coworkers to be a second family (Giang, 2013),
indicating that they want to move from a hierarchical positioning situation
to a more communal workplace (Haworth, 2015), which is still collec-
tivistic. They are also more likely to belong to online social communities
than their older counterparts (Bonhomme, 2015) so, they have not
abandoned community, but the communities they belong to are different
from those of previous generations. Additionally, harmonious values are
still at play with most Chinese millennials. They prefer a balance between
traditional cultural values and global modern society (Giang, 2013).
Harmonious values such as being modest are still valued by Chinese mil-
lennials as well, i.e., they believe that being themselves is more important
than being a big shot (Haworth, 2015).
A similar trend appears to be affecting collectivistic Iranian youth as well,
in both social and business contexts (Ghorbani, Bing, Watson, Davison, &
LeBreton, 2003; Kabasakal, Dastmalchian, & Imer, 2011). Although
Iranian social life appears to be collectivistic (Tamadonfar, 2001), evidence
shows that individualistic values, such as freedom and creativity, can be
harmonized with collectivistic values, such as order and obedience, by
Iranian youth (Ghorbani et al., 2003). This process will have to be finessed
by millennials trying to change the status quo, to assure that those in
authority will not have their face threatened. Indirect communication such
as politeness and restraint may be the key to helping such subtle changes
evolve smoothly over time. Given societal trends, younger collectivists may
use both direct and indirect modes of communication and know how in
the internet age to determine the most appropriate mix of effective
130 R.S. MERKIN

communication strategies within a range of contexts. Today’s milennials

operate in a more globalized business environment. The highly globalized
workplace of the past few decades has promoted some merging among
cultures in terms of the directness of international business communication
(Adair, Hideg, & Spence, 2013; Kankaanranta & Lu, 2013). Thus, a
variety of social, technological, and cultural forces may be altering the
nature of directness in communication among millennials in the future
(Cardon, 2014).

CASE STUDY 3: HAPPY IS CHANGE A LOSS OF FACE

FOR AUTHORITIES?

Seven Iranians youths had a YouTube posting displaying six of them

dancing to the Pharrell Williams’ hit Happy. The Iranian authorities were
informed about the “Happy we are from Tehran” videotape after it received
over 150,000 views. The six actors—three men and three women—were
sentenced to 6 months in prison and 91 lashes. The seventh, who pro-
duced the video, got a 1-year sentence in addition to the lashings.
However, after the video went viral (viewed more that 1.7 million times),
the seven sentences were commuted. They received suspended prison and
lashing sentences which their lawyer said would be in effect as long as they
commit no more offenses against the Islamic Republic during the next 3
years (Stranglin, 2014).
All participants were described as around 25 years old and were incar-
cerated for facilitating an “obscene video clip that offended the public
morals and was released in cyberspace,” according to an Iranian Student
News Agency. The Iranian youths were released on bail after apologizing
on state television, saying they were “tricked” into appearing in what they
said was an audition video not intended for broadcast.
Their arrest became a larger public power struggle between hard-liners
and more moderate factions inside Iran over any effort to relax social
conventions. Even Iranian President Hassan Rouhani tweeted: “Happiness
is our people’s right. We shouldn’t be too hard on behaviors caused by
joy.” Pharrell Williams responded to Iran’s actions on his Twitter account
saying: “It’s beyond sad these kids were arrested for trying to spread
happiness.”
 5 INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM APPLIED … 131

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

1. Do you agree with that the explanation (that they were “tricked”
into appearing in what they said was an audition video not intended
for broadcast) provided to authorities was an indirect strategy to
allow them to get out of trouble while allowing the accusers to save
face?
2. Do you think the Authorities viewed the modernization attempt by
Iranian youth to be a face-threatening situation?
3. What were the cultural implications of the youths’ public apology?
4. Given this public clash, what are the implications for the business
side of YouTube?
5. Should YouTube issue a response to the Iranian authorities? If so,
what kind of response would be appropriate?

REFERENCES
Adair, W. L., Hideg, I., & Spence, J. R. (2013). The culturally intelligent team:
The impact of team cultural intelligence and cultural heterogeneity on team
shared values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 941–962.
Blair, S. L., & Madigan, T. J. (2016). Dating attitudes and expectations among
young Chinese adults: An examination of gender differences. The Journal of
Chinese Sociology, 3(1), 12.
Blau, R. (2016). A nation of individuals. The Economist, 420(8997), 3–16.
Bonhomme, A. (2015). WeChat user global report. https://www.linkedin.com/
pulse/wechat-user-global-report-2015-alexis-bonhomme.
Breland, J. W., Treadway, D. C., Yang, J., Shaughnessy, B. A., Stepina, L. P., &
Moeller, M. (2011). Participation and procedural justice: The role of national
culture. International Journal of Human Resources Development and
Management, 11(2–4), 194–207.
Brett, J., Behfar, K., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2014). Managing cross-culture conflicts:
A close look at the implication of direct versus indirect confrontation.
In O. B. Ayoko and N. M. Ashkanasy (Eds.). Handbook of research in conflict
management, 136–154.
Cardon, P. W. (2014). The role of motivational values in the construction of
change messages. Business Communication Quarterly, 77(4).
132 R.S. MERKIN

Chen, C. C., Chen, X. P., & Meindl, J. R. (1998). How can cooperation be
fostered? The cultural effects of individualism-collectivism. Academy of
Management Review, 23(2), 285–304.
Chen, M., Liao, Y., Liu, J., Fang, W., Hong, N., Ye, X., … & Liao, W. (2016).
Comparison of sexual knowledge, attitude, and behavior between female
Chinese college students from urban areas and rural areas: A hidden challenge
for HIV/AIDS control in China. BioMed Research International.
Cho, M. K., & Sillars, A. (2015). Face threat and facework strategies when family
(health) secrets are revealed: A comparison of South Korea and the United
States. Journal of Communication, 65(3), 535–557. doi:10.1111/jcom.12161.
Cislo, C. (2016, September 15). Japanese employees rarely switch jobs, ask for pay
raises. Bloomberg Markets. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/
news/articles/2016-09-15/japanese-employees-rarely-switch-jobs-ask-for-pay-
raises.
Cocroft, B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Facework in Japan and the United States.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 469–506.
Croucher, S. M., Galy-Badenas, F., Jäntti, P., Carlson, E., & Cheng, Z. (2016).
A test of the relationship between argumentativeness and individualism/
collectivism in the United States and Finland. Communication Research Reports,
33(2), 128–136.
Danielewicz-Betz, A. (2016). Communicating in digital age corporations. London:
Springer.
Deloitte. (2013). It’s (almost) all about me. workplace 2030: Built for us, Genesis, cbre
(2014) Research report. Fast Forward 2030: The Future of work and the workplace.
http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/au/Documents/human-
capital/deloitte-au-hc-diversity-future-work-amp-2013.pdf.
Du-Babcock, B., & Tanaka, H. (2013). A comparison of the communication
behaviors of Hong Kong Chinese and Japanese business professionals in
intracultural and intercultural decision-making meetings. Journal of Business and
Technical Communication, 27(3), 263–287.
Fitzsimmons, S. R., & Stamper, C. L. (2014). How societal culture influences
friction in the employee–organization relationship. Human Resource
Management Review, 24(1), 80–94.
Gelbrich, K., Stedham, Y., & Gäthke, D. (2016). Cultural discrepancy and national
corruption: Investigating the difference between cultural values and practices
and its relationship to corrupt behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26(2), 201–
225. doi:10.1017/beq.2016.29.
Ghorbani, N., Bing, M. N., Watson, P. J., Davison, H. K., & LeBreton, D. L.
(2003). Individualist and collectivist values: Evidence of compatibility in Iran
and the United States. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(2), 431–447.
 5 INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM APPLIED … 133

Giang, V. (2013). 71% of millennials want their co-workers to be a ‘second family.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/millennials-want-to-be-connected-to-their-
coworkers-2013-6#ixzz33YiWZnnm.
Goffman, E. (2005). Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. Chicago:
Aldine Transaction.
Gómez, C., Shapiro, D. L., & Kirkman, B. L. (2000). The impact of collectivism
and in-group/out-group membership on the evaluation generosity of team
members. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1097–1106.
Gudykunst, W. B. (2003). Bridging differences: Effective intergroup communication.
Newbury Park: Sage.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Matsumoto, Y. (1996). Cross-cultural variability of
communication in personal relationships. In W. B. Gudykunst, S.
Ting-Toomey, & T. Nishida (Eds.). Communication in personal relationships
across cultures (pp. 19–56). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gunkel, M., Schlaegel, C., & Taras, V. (2016). Cultural values, emotional
intelligence, and conflict handling styles: A global study. Journal of World
Business, 51(4), 568–585.
Halub, H., Sauber, A., & Stück, J. (2012). The Turk and the Yankee: A
Cross-Cultural Comparison between Turkish and American Managers. Journal
of the Indiana Academy of the Social Sciences, 15, 21–36.
Hammer, M. R. (2005). The intercultural conflict style inventory: A conceptual
framework and measure of intercultural conflict resolution approaches.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(6), 675–695.
Hammer, M. R., & Rogan, R. (2002). Latino and Indochinese interpretive frames
in negotiating conflict with law enforcement: A focus group analysis.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26(5), 551–575.
Haworth. (2015). A Shifting Landscape: Chinese Millennials in the Workplace.
Hiew, D. N., Halford, W. K., van de Vijver, F. R., & Liu, S. (2016).
Communication and relationship satisfaction in Chinese, Western, and inter-
cultural Chinese-Western couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(2), 193–202.
doi:10.1037/fam0000144.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Holmes, J., Marra, M., & Schnurr, S. (2008). Impoliteness and ethnicity: Maori
and Pakeh a discourse in New Zealand workplaces. Journal of Politeness
Research, 4, 193–219.
Holt, J. L., & DeVore, C. J. (2005). Culture, gender, organizational role, and
styles of conflict resolution: A meta-analysis. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 29(2), 165–196.
Inoue, A., Kawakami, N., Eguchi, H., & Tsutsumi, A. (2016). Buffering effect of
workplace social capital on the association of job insecurity with psychological
134 R.S. MERKIN

distress in Japanese employees: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Occupational

Health, 58(5), 460–469.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Tractinsky, N., & Vitalec, M. (2000). Consumer trust in an
internet store. Information Technology and Management, 1, 45–71.
Jiang, X. (2006). Cross-cultural pragmatic differences in US and Chinese press
conferences: The case of the North Korea nuclear crisis. Discourse & Society, 17,
237–257.
Jones, G. W. (2015). Divorce trends and patterns in Asia. In S. R. Quah (Ed.),
Routledge handbook of families in Asia (pp. 332–344). London: Routledge.
Kabasakal, H., Dastmalchian, A., & Imer, P. (2011). Organizational citizenship
behaviour: A study of young executives in Canada, Iran, and Turkey. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(13), 2703–2729.
doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.599943.
Kankaanranta, A., & Lu, W. (2013). The evolution of English as the business lingua
franca: Signs of convergence in Chinese and Finnish professional communica-
tion. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 27(3), 288–307.
Kapoor, S., Hughes, P. C., Baldwin, J. R., & Blue, J. (2003). The relationship of
individualism–collectivism and self-construals to communication styles in India
and the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(6),
683–700.
Kawabata, M., & Gastaldo, D. (2015). The less said, the better: Interpreting silence
in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(4), 1–9.
doi:10.1177/1609406915618123.
Kawaguchi, D., & Ueno, Y. (2013). Declining long-term employment in Japan.
Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 28, 19–36.
Kim, M. S. (1994). Cross-cultural comparisons of the perceived importance of
conversational constraints. Human Communication Research, 21, 128–151.
Kim, Y.-H., Cohen, D., & Au, W.-T. (2010). The jury and abjury of my peers: The
self in face and dignity cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98,
904–916.
Kim, U., Triandis. H. C, Kagitcibasi, C, Choi, S.-G., E. Yoon, G. (Eds.). (1994).
Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and application. Newbury Park:
Sage.
Kim, B. K., & Park, Y. S. (2015). Communication Styles, Cultural Values, and
Counseling Effectiveness with Asian Americans. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 93(3), 269–279. doi:10.1002/jcad.12025.
Korovyakovskaya, I., & Chong, H. (2015). An empirical study of the relationships
between miscommunication and conflict in culturally diverse work groups.
Journal of International Business Research, 14(3), 41–54.
Lam, S. K., Chen, X., & Schaubroeck, J. (2002). Participative decision making and
employee performance in different cultures: The moderating effects of
 5 INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM APPLIED … 135

allocentrism/idiocentrism and efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5),

905–914.
Lebra, T. S. (1987). The cultural significance of silence in Japanese communication.
Multilingua—Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 6,
343–357. doi:10.1515/mult.1987.6.4.343.
Lee, S.-Y. (2008). Mediation techniques of an informal intermediary in
intercultural-interpersonal conflict. Human Communication, 11, 461–482.
Lim, T.-S., & Choi, S.-H. (1996). Interpersonal relationships in Korea. In W.
B. Gudykunst, S. Ting-Toomey, & T. Nishida (Eds.). Communication in
personal relationships across cultures (pp. 122–136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Maddux, W. W., Kim, P. H., Okumura, T., & Brett, J. M. (2011). Cultural
differences in the function and meaning of apologies. International Negotiation,
16, 405–425.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for
cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224.
McCormick, J., Alavi, S. B., & Hanham, J. (2015). The importance of context
when applying social cognitive theory in organizations. In A. Ortenblad (Ed.),
Handbook of research on management ideas and panaceas: Adaptation and
context (pp. 110–129). Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Meng-Yu, L. (2009). On the traditional chinese notion of “harmony”: Resources
to the intercultural communication. China Media Research, 5(1), 55–58.
Merkin, R. (2005). The influence of masculinity-femininity on cross-cultural
facework. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 34, 267–289.
Merkin, R. (2009). Korean and American communication practices. Journal of
Intercultural Communication, 20.
Merkin, R. (2015). The relationship between individualism/collectivism:
Consultation and harmony needs. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 39.
Merkin, R., & Ramadan, R. (2010). Facework in Syria and the U.S. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(6), 661–669.
Merkin, R., Taras, V., & Steel, P. (2014). State-of-the-art themes in cross-cultural
communication research: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 38, 1–23. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.10.004.
Nakai, F. (2002). The role of cultural influences in Japanese communication: A
literature review on social and situational factors and Japanese indirectness.
Intercultural Communication Studies, 14, 99–122.
Nakane, C. (1972). Japanese society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
O’Keefe, B. J. (1991). Message design logic and multiple goals. In K. Tracy (Ed.),
Understanding face to face interaction: Issues linking goals and discourse
(pp. 131–150). Philadephia, PA: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Park, M.-S. (1993). Communication styles in two different cultures: Korean and
American. Seoul, Korea: Han Shin Publishing Company.
136 R.S. MERKIN

Rodenbach, R. A., Rodenbach, K. E., Tejani, M. A., & Epstein, R. M. (2016).

Relationships between personal attitudes about death and communication with
terminally ill patients: How oncology clinicians grapple with mortality. Patient
Education and Counseling, 99(3), 356–363.
Sheer, V. C., & Chen, L. (2003). Successful Sino-Western business negotiation:
Participants’ accounts of national and professional cultures. Journal of Business
Communication, 40, 50–85.
Shi, X. (2011). The impact of face on Chinese students’ simulated negotiation
practices with Americans. Language & Intercultural Communication, 11(1),
26–40. doi:10.1080/14708477.2010.517846.
Shulruf, B., Hattie, J., & Dixon, R. (2007). Development of a new measurement
tool for individualism and collectivism. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,
25(4), 385–401.
Stanglin, D. (2014). Iranians escape lashing for dancing in ‘Happy’ video. USA
TODAY. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/
2014/09/19/iran-happy-pharrell-williams-sentenced-suspended/15879809/.
Stewart S. (2016). At Play in the Fields of OD. OD Practitioner, 48(3), 22–30.
Available from: Academic Search Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 11, 2016.
Tamadonfar, M. (2001). Islam, law, and political control in contemporary Iran.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40, 205–219.
The new class war. (2016, July 9).The Economist. Retrieved from https://www.
economist.com/news/special-report/21701653-chinas-middle-class-larger-
richer-and-more-vocal-ever-threatens.
Tjosvold, D. (1988a). Cooperation and competitive dynamics within and between
organizational units. Human Relations, 41, 425–436.
Tjosvold, D. (1988b). Cooperative and competitive interdependence. Group and
Organization Studies, 13, 274–289.
Warren, M. (2014). Preparation is everything: Meetings in professional contexts in
Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes, 36, 12–26. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2014.
03.001.
Weingart, L. R., Behfar, K. J., Bendersky, C., Todorova, G., & Jehn, K. A. (2015).
The directness and oppositional intensity of conflict expression. Academy of
Management Review, 40(2), 235–262.
Woodard, M. S., Miller, J. K., Miller, D. J., Silvernail, K. D., Guo, C., Nair, S., …
& Marx, R. (2016). A cross-cultural examination of preferences for work
attributes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(3), 702–719.
Xu, H., & Wu, Y. (2016). Lifestyle mobility in China: context, perspective and
prospects. Mobilities, 11(4), 509–520.
Zhang, H., Teng, F., Chan, D. K. S., & Zhang, D. (2014). Physical attractiveness,
attitudes toward career, and mate preferences among young Chinese women.
Evolutionary Psychology, 12(1), 147470491401200107.
 CHAPTER 6

Masculinity-Femininity Applied
to Cooperative and Competitive
Facework

This chapter will present the cultural concept referred to as masculinity-

femininity. Rather than notions of biological sex, which these terms would
ordinarily allude to, masculinity and femininity in the cultural sense
explains how cultures vary depending on whether they emphasize
competitive versus status-leveling communications. Hofstede (2001)
points out that masculine societies are characterized by an emphasis on
successful achievement, performance, excellence, ambition, as well as status
based on money and material possessions (Hofstede, 2001): while feminine
cultures are characterized by concerns for relationships, nurturance, and
quality of life. Thus, individuals with strong feminine values emphasize
good working conditions, job satisfaction, and employee participation
(Tosi & Greckhamer, 2004).
Drawing on Hofstede’s model, Schwartz (1994) conducted a large-scale
study among elementary school teachers and college students in more than
50 countries from which he formulated seven cultural value orientations
which reduced to three cultural dimensions. They are (a) embeddedness
versus autonomy, (b) hierarchy versus egalitarianism, and (c) mastery versus
harmony. Results of Schwartz’s a priori model actually validated Hofstede’s
findings (Minkov, Hofstede, & Hofstede, 2010). Schwartz’s seven cultural
value orientations conceptually reflect three of Hofstede’s cultural
dimensions (Hofstede, 2006). Specifically, Schwartz’s autonomy versus
embeddedness corresponds to Hofstede’s (2001) individualism versus
collectivism, egalitarianism versus hierarchy corresponds to power distance,
and mastery versus harmony corresponds to masculinity versus femininity.

© The Author(s) 2018 137

R.S. Merkin, Saving Face in Business,
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59174-6_6
138 R.S. MERKIN

Since mastery versus harmony corresponds to the topic at hand, it is

presently being discussed. Similar to cultural masculinity, mastery refers to
a situation where individuals value success and getting ahead through
self-assertion and proactively seek to control, direct, and change their
actions to advance their personal benefit and the well-being of the groups
to which they belong. Specific values related to mastery include indepen-
dence, courage and audaciousness, determination and industriousness,
drive for success and proficiency (Schwartz, 1999). Similar to cultural
femininity, harmony refers to a situation where individuals are content to
accept and fit into the natural and social world as they find it and seek to
understand, preserve, and protect it rather than change, direct, or exploit it.
Important values in societies where harmony is valued include keeping the
world at peace, having unity with nature, and protecting the environment
(Gutterman, 2010). These values are similar to the focus on quality of life
represented by femininity as presented by Hofstede (2001). In addition,
harmony strategies are often used by those from feminine cultures (Earley,
1997; Johnson, Kulesa, Cho, & Shavitt, 2005; Merkin, 2005). Modesty is
promoted in harmony-oriented feminine societies as well (Merkin, 2005;
Merkin, Taras, & Steel, 2014).
Hofstede (2001) described feminine cultures as possessing an “inter-
dependent ideal” and masculine cultures as possessing an “independent
ideal”. That is, those from feminine cultures who feel more interdependent
with others try to connect to their counterparts via leveling. Leveling is a
process whereby people attempt to equalize relationships through coop-
erative, modest, and harmonious nurturing behaviors. Feminine cultures
are relationship-oriented and tend to resolve conflict through negotiation.
These cultures believe in a smaller gender gap in terms of overall respon-
sibilities and wages, a greater need for women in management, and a
flexible family structure. In feminine cultures, relational values such as
reciprocity, mutuality, and benevolence are most important, and they
emphasize nurturing and compromising (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov
2010). Hofstede et al., (2010) point out that feminine cultures encourage
enhanced compromise versus competitiveness, regardless of group
affiliation.
Overall, the dimension of masculinity-femininity refers to the dominant
sex-role patterns in societies (Hofstede, 1980). Just as male communica-
tion is oriented towards status and power (Holtgraves & Yang, 1992;
 6 MASCULINITY-FEMININITY APPLIED TO COOPERATIVE … 139

Tannen, 1991), masculine cultures emphasize competition and strength.

According to Hofstede (1980), the gap between women’s and men’s
values is large in masculine cultures. Thus, face-saving issues, such as
whether more competitive or leveling strategies are more likely to be used
by masculine and feminine cultural members, respectively, affect intercul-
tural interactions.
Research has established that communication in masculine cultures tends
to be associated with attempts to prevail (Hofstede, 1998; Merkin, 2005;
Pizam & Fleischer, 2005), while communication in feminine cultures is
geared toward maintaining harmony and equalizing interacting parties
(Johnson, et al., 2005). Kim (1995) contends that the more people need to
dominate, as in masculine competitiveness, the more they tend to com-
municate with clarity (i.e., directly). In regard to saving face, findings show
that cultural masculinity is conveyed by a greater reported use of direct and
competitive facework (Merkin, 2005; Merkin et al., 2014). Those from
masculine cultures often set themselves apart from their fellows through the
use of self-promotion, which is often expressed via communication that is
more assertive and shows less concern for people (Merkin, et al., 2014; Tosi
& Greckhamer, 2004). This is often expressed through a more direct
communication style. For Hofstede, et al.’s (2010) masculinity-femininity
scores for selected countries see Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 Masculinity scores by country

Country Masculinity Country Masculinity

Japan 95 Pakistan 50
Austria 79 Brazil 49
Venezuela 73 Singapore 48
Italy 70 France 43
Switzerland 70 Iran 43
Mexico 69 Chile 28
China 66 Denmark 16
Germany 66 Netherlands 14
United Kingdom 66 Norway 8
United States 62 Sweden 5

Scores range from 0 to 120 with higher scores indicating more masculinity
Geert Hofstede, Gert Jan Hofstede, Michael Minkov, “Cultures and Organizations, Software of the
Mind”, third revised edition, McGrawHill 2010, ISBN 0-07-166418-1. © Geert Hofstede B.V. quoted
with permission
140 R.S. MERKIN

In an organizational context, masculinity (versus femininity) represents

the degree to which individuals in an organization tend to place a higher
value on assertive and competitive behavior (masculinity) or modest and
nurturing behavior (femininity) (Wood & Wilberger, 2015). Johnson
et al.’s (2005) organizational study found masculinity to be negatively
associated with acquiescent response behavior (e.g., harmony and coop-
erativeness) and positively associated with extreme response styles such as
self-promotion, impolite, and direct communication, in addition to a lack
of attention to face concerns (Tosi & Greckhamer, 2004). In fact, mas-
culinity tends to be negatively related to sensitivity and face-saving con-
cerns (Merkin et al., 2014). The direct communication used by those in
organizations with members of masculine cultures can be biting and
extreme. Direct linguistic forms are considered by politeness theorists to be
impolite (Brown & Levinson, 1987) and linguistically masculine (Wetzel,
1988). Those from masculine cultures are more likely to use these assertive,
impolite, direct facework strategies (Merkin, 2005; Merkin et al., 2014).
When conducting business negotiations, those from highly masculine
cultures have been shown to be more likely to use antisocial
compliance-gaining tactics characterized by the use of force, punishment,
and deception than those from feminine cultures (Jian, Pettey, Rudd, &
Lawson, 2007). This is because highly masculine cultures focus on a work
role model of male achievement, emphasizing the importance of earnings,
recognition, advancement, and challenge. Thus, the highly feminine value
of good working relationships, cooperation, and security go by the way-
side. Consequently, those from feminine culture who are attuned to sen-
sitivity and face-saving concerns (Merkin and Ramadan, 2010) prefer to
resolve conflict through negotiation and compromise, and can feel exas-
perated by masculine cultural facework strategies. Additional misunder-
standings between those from masculine and feminine cultures could
potentially occur as a result of masculine leadership styles. Masculine
leadership is geared towards being assertive, self‐reliant, competitive,
objective, forceful, ambitious, emotionally stable, self‐confident (Paris,
Howell, Dorfman, & Hanges, 2009; Sheaffer, Bogler, & Sarfaty, 2011)
assertive and decisive, and making decisions without consultation, which
directly offends those from more feminine cultures. This is because those
from feminine cultures prefer leaders who instead use consensus and
consultations when resolving a conflict or determining a course of action
(Hofstede, 2001; Kermally, 2005) because this is more likely to preserve
harmony.
 6 MASCULINITY-FEMININITY APPLIED TO COOPERATIVE … 141

The direct competitive communication used by those from masculine

cultures is often confused with and falsely attributed to individualism, and
country-level femininity is often confused with collectivism (Hofstede
et al., 2010). Hence, direct communication may appear to result from
individualism but the function of the communication may actually be
competition, reflecting masculinity. To further distinguish between the
two dimensions, individualism versus collectivism dimensions highlight the
conception of self that relates to “I” versus “we” and the degree of inde-
pendence people have from their in-groups (Hofstede et al., 2010).
However, masculinity versus femininity dimensions focus on the part of self
that determines whether one’s ego or one’s relationships takes precedence
respectively. In feminine cultures, emotional roles are more equally divided
between the male and female genders; men, especially, are more likely to be
oriented towards ego-effacing roles (Coltrane, 1988; Hofstede, 2000).
Overall, research shows that masculinity on its own, leads to the greater
use of direct and competitive facework strategies (Merkin, 2005; Merkin
et al., 2014) reflecting the masculine cultural need to fight things out
(Hofstede, 1980). This is unlike the case of feminine cultures, where
people believe that it is important for everyone to get along because all
people are considered the same. In terms of managing a business situation
in masculine versus feminine cultures, while feminine cultures emphasize
relationships, masculine cultures emphasize achievements and accom-
plishments (Hofstede, 1998). Thus, not accomplishing a lot can be a cause
of face loss in a masculine culture while a lack of ability at networking and
getting along with people is likely to be a cause of face loss for those from
feminine cultures.
As noted earlier, the masculinity and femininity dimension combined
with the individualism and collectivism dimension of culture make up a
person’s inner self (de Mooij, 1998; Hofstede, 2001) and is expressed by
the acting out of face. However, contradictory values can lurk in the minds
of people from different cultures due to unique combinations of the two
dimensions. As a result, it is possible that seemingly contradictory responses
could occur, depending on the strength of the respective individualism and
masculinity level of a particular person’s cultural values. For example, the
Japanese are both moderately collectivistic and highly masculine
(Hofstede, 2001). Masculinity effects (e.g., directness) appear to contrast
with collectivistic effects (e.g., indirect harmonious behavior). However,
findings show that members of highly masculine Japanese culture prefer
using direct competitive communication due to the stronger effects of
142 R.S. MERKIN

masculinity (Merkin, 2005). Conversely, helping someone in need who is

outside one’s in-group would be an example of femininity as opposed to
collectivism (Hofstede et al., 2010). Masculine competition is associated
with striving for status (Buser, Niederle, & Oosterbeek, 2014) which
divides people, while collectivism is associated with striving for harmony
which unifies people (Kumar, 2016). Both have opposite effects.

MASCULINITY/FEMININITY AND GENDER DIFFERENCES

The way people view their gender roles is also part of their self-identity
(de Mooij, 1998; Hofstede, 2001; Inkeles & Levinson, 1997; Merkin,
2005). In particular, how one perceives what women and men do, as well as
the role of modesty and competition are influenced by culture. In short, one’s
subjective self reflects cultural influences such as individualism-collectivism
and masculinity-femininity (Hofstede, 2001; Inkeles & Levinson, 1997;
de Mooij, 1998; Merkin, 2005).
Masculinity/femininity also refers to the dominant sex-role patterns in
societies (Hofstede, 1980). Just as male communication is oriented
towards status and power (Holtgraves & Yang, 1992; Tannen, 1990),
masculine cultures emphasize competition and strength. Given that the gap
between women’s and men’s values is very large in very masculine cultures
(Hofstede, 1980), communication in most intercultural communication
contexts is likely to be affected. This includes face-saving issues, such as
whether more competitive or leveling strategies are more likely to be used
by masculine and feminine cultural members.
When considering masculinity versus femininity as differences in the
gender roles in cultures, some societies allow both men and women to take
many different roles, while others make a sharp separation between what
men should do and what women should do (Hofstede, 1983). Hofstede
et al. (2010) identifies masculine societies as those with a maximized social
sex role divisions, and feminine cultures as those with a relatively small
social sex role divisions. For example, well-defined gender roles are shown
to be central in masculine Mexican society (Castro, 2012; Hite, 2007;
Hofstede, 1980, 1983). Differences are also exemplified by how in Japan,
expressing personal feelings in formal conversation is discouraged because
emotions are considered to be a sign of weakness (Kawabata & Gastaldo,
2015). Moreover, Japanese men, in particular, are taught to be strong
(Sugihara & Katsurada, 1999). In the masculine cultural context, it is not
desirable for men to express feelings. This is reflected in the fact that
 6 MASCULINITY-FEMININITY APPLIED TO COOPERATIVE … 143

Japan’s suicide rate is higher than in any other high-income country

(Odagiri, Uchida, & Nakano, 2011). Findings show that Japanese day
laborers become silent or assume a tense and uncooperative tone of voice
when they feel disagreement or discomfort, instead of directly communi-
cating messages such as ‘‘I don’t agree with you’’ or ‘‘I don’t feel com-
fortable talking about this issue” (Kawabata & Gastaldo, 2015).
Accordingly, those from masculine cultures try to save face by not
appearing weak. Since they perceive expressing emotion as “feminine” and
weak, they do not allow themselves “feminine” forms of expression, even
to the detriment of their mental health. Hence, it is essential in
cross-cultural interactions to be sure not to cause someone from a mas-
culine culture to lose face, particularly by pointing out their weaknesses.
People from all cultures, however, strive to maintain a positive
self-presentation (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003; Ting-Toomey, 2005;
Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998). To avoid losing face, therefore, masculine
individuals who are involved in a conflict and essentially know they are
mistaken or wrong, will often avoid admitting this because if they do, their
mistake might give the other person a competitive edge. Consequently,
they may continue a conflict just because they cannot figure out how to
gracefully back down or because they do not see a way to save face, given
the communication that is taking place at that moment. Those from
feminine Chinese societies, on the other hand, adopt conflict-avoidance
behavior because values such as community and harmony are still prevalent
(Chen, 2001; Chi-Ching, 1998). These collectivistic values could clash
with masculine values such as not favoring the out-group (Triandis, 1986).
Thus, depending on which value is stronger, it is possible that during a
conflict, members of harmonious Chinese cultures could surprise their
out-group members with a display of uncharacteristic direct facework
communication.
When working with people from masculine cultures, is possible to help
them save face during negotiations by using a direct competitive com-
municative approach. Respondents’ reports show that with feminine cul-
tural members, indirect communication works well as a facework strategy.
If parties engage in an indirect approach to negotiations with members of
feminine cultures, they allow challengers to make concessions with poise,
without having to admit mistakes or back down. It is possible to modulate
direct wording, or to exchange concessions in direct or indirect ways,
depending on the cultural values (i.e., masculine or feminine) of the parties
interacting (Håkansson, H. & Ford, 2016). For example, Arun, a leader of
144 R.S. MERKIN

a multinational software team, needed a Japanese contingent to hand in

their work which was late when he had already received the work on time
from their US and European counterparts. He decided to motivate the
Japanese contingent by asking the European team members to prepare a
presentation on their progress on the project. Then he went to Japan with
the European contingent and invited the entire Japanese IT department to
the presentation. After the presentation, the leader went back without
discussing the tardiness of the Japanese contribution to the project. Within
a week the Japanese contingent requested to have their completed work be
highlighted in the next corporate presentation (Brett, Behfar, &
Sanchez-Burks, 2014).
Knowing when to use direct, indirect, cooperative, and competitive
facework strategies during intercultural communication could help people
of all cultures to understand and maintain each other’s positive images,
even when they are giving in. Besides negotiation situations, there are
other contexts in which masculinity or femininity impact businesses. Since
Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) masculinity-femininity dimension reflects a
preference for domination versus cooperation in masculine cultures, in
superior/subordinate relationships (Li & Harrison, 2008), the “good old
boy” power networks in organizations are often enabled to operate among
men belonging to masculine cultures. The exclusion of women and, fre-
quently, minorities, from these in-groups, which reinforces strict gender
roles, helps explain the resultant inequality among workers that sometimes
occurs, based on masculine competition in the US corporate world (Tims,
2016).
Thus, in masculine versus feminine cultures, differences between how
men and women are treated in the workplace are greater. Indeed, the case
of sexual harassment exemplifies how both the individualistic and mascu-
line levels of the self are reflected in facework behaviors during uncom-
fortable interactions that take place during sexually harassing incidents.
A cross-cultural study shows that US Americans (who are masculine)
perceive sexist hostility more negatively than those from the feminine
culture Turkey (Toker, 2016). Individuality is important to US Americans
and sexist languages puts people into a negative category, so this behavior
is particularly offensive to individualistic Americans whose culture has
proposed laws against sexual harassment. Yet, when it comes to sexual
hostility and insinuation-of-interest, US Americans found this behavior to
be less sexually harassing than Turkish participants (Toker, 2016). Those
who are masculine and competitive are less concerned with hostility
 6 MASCULINITY-FEMININITY APPLIED TO COOPERATIVE … 145

because in masculine countries, sex roles are rigid and not considered equal
(Hofstede et al., 2010). Masculinity also focuses on “toughness”. Those
from feminine cultures, on the other hand, have a stronger need for sup-
portive cooperation and have more “tender” values (Darroch, 2014).
Consequently, those from feminine cultures are more likely to use avoid-
ance and thereby find sexual hostility and insinuation-of-interest more
offensive than those who are willing to “fight it out”.
In comparison, research in highly feminine cultures shows that men and
women are treated equally. In highly masculine organizations, however,
there may be a maze for females to pass through—a tortuous, demanding,
and draining path women must navigate to ascend (Eagly & Carli, 2007).
Just as masculine cultures have fewer social welfare programs and have
greater sex-role differences within their society than more feminine cultures
(Hofstede, 1980), they also are achievement-based, and place a high
importance on money, economic growth, and solving conflict through
force (Shaw, 2015). Similarly, those from masculine cultures also believe in
higher pay for men (Shaw, 2015). Thus, cultures that are more masculine
are more aggressively competitive. However, women are more likely to
prosper in organizations that give greater emphasis to gender equity in
terms of training and development, and the same opportunities for all
positions (Bajdo & Dickson, 2001).
A second example of how differences between men and women are
more pronounced in masculine cultures can be observed in the masculine
US, where, according to a recent workplace study, women are paid less
than men for the same positions and women are also less likely to be
promoted than men (Bomey, 2016). What is more, women are negotiating
as often as men, but face opposition when they do. In addition, women ask
for feedback as much as men do, but are less likely to receive it. Finally,
only 40% of women are interested in becoming top executives, compared
to 56% of men. Although women and men worry equally about work-life
balance and company politics, women with and without children are more
likely to not want pressure (Bomey, 2016). Finally, study results show that
women who want a top job, anticipate a steeper path than men do (Bomey,
2016). In masculine Japan and the US, for example, studies show that high
masculinity has also resulted in a dearth of high-ranking women in cor-
porations and a lack of women in line to become CEOs (Bomey, 2016;
Cooper-Chen & Tanaka, 2008). The issues above are face-threatening
situations for those in the minority, particularly women, who cannot
necessarily address the power issues that keep them from moving forward.
146 R.S. MERKIN

MASCULINITY-FEMININITY AND WORK-LIFE BALANCE

Masculinity influences more than just gender differences in getting ahead at
work, but also appears to be responsible for the amount of work members
of each gender perform and the value attached to the number of hours they
work. Members of masculine cultures expect work to be the main focus in
their lives while those from feminine cultures expect to be afforded a high
quality of life and reasonable work hours. These values are reflected in how
long people work each day, what happens when work and family life col-
lide, and what kind and how much maternity leave people are afforded.
This is evidenced by findings that show that full-time workers in the US are
overworked (Hochschild, 1997; Leete & Schor, 1994; Schor, 1991). In
fact, US working parents are the least happy in the Western world (Senior,
2014). Additionally, workers in Britain, the most masculine country in the
European Union, work the longest hours in the European Union (Green,
2001; White, Hill, McGovern, Mills, & Smeaton, 2003). Conversely, the
Nordic welfare states (i.e., Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden) and, in
kind, typical Norwegian organizations, which reflect highly feminine cul-
tures, offer the highest level of support for work-life balance (Crompton &
Lyonette, 2006; White et al., 2003). Nordic countries also have the best
cooperative demeanor, a high level of individual and vocational flexibility,
and a strong managerial respect of work-life boundaries (Crompton &
Lyonette, 2006). Likewise, Denmark, the Netherlands, Finland, and
Sweden (all feminine cultures) have been shown to more highly value
work-life balance, compared to the more masculine Southern and Western
European countries, such as Greece, Spain, and Bulgaria (Fernandez-
Crehuet, Gimenez-Nadal, & Reyes Recio, 2016). Thus, although work-life
balance is an EU policy priority, within Europe there are substantial dif-
ferences in the nature and extent of support that national governments
offer dual-earner families. For example, France, which is moderately fem-
inine, has historically offered extensive childcare support to working
mothers (Crompton & Lyonette, 2006). This indicates an influential role
played by a country’s social norms regarding work-life balance policies
(White et al., 2003).
Work-life balance is defined as the division of one’s time and focus
between working and family or leisure activities (Oxford English
Dictionary, 1971). Workers strive to attain the best balance for themselves
and for the organizations they work for. Work/life issues affect every
working person, irrespective of their education level, gender, income level,
 6 MASCULINITY-FEMININITY APPLIED TO COOPERATIVE … 147

occupation, and job status. A major deterrent to employee job performance

is stress associated with juggling work and personal life (McMillan, Morris,
& Atchley, 2011). In the 2007 Society for Human Resource
Management’s Job Satisfaction Survey Report, “flexibility to balance life
and work issues” ranks as “very important” for 52% of total respondents
(Frincke, 2007, p. 27).
Research has shown that organizational norms and behavioral patterns
often dictate the leverage with which employees separate or integrate these
two primary life roles (Barrett, 2012). It is important for organizations in
masculine cultures to pay attention to work-life issues because it is an
often-ignored quality of life issue. A meta-analysis found through a com-
pilation of studies that work–family support policies have modest positive
relationships with job satisfaction, affective commitment (staying at a
company because of an emotional commitment), and intentions to stay at a
job (Butts, Casper, & Yang, 2013).

Masculinity-Femininity, Work-Life Balance, and Face

It is necessary to point out how the issue of work-life balance relates to
saving face. As pointed out by Sennett (2003), the masculine work ethic is
competitive and arouses comparative judgments of worth. Those who win
may turn a blind eye to those who lose. More specifically, those employees
who “lose”, also often lose face because losing is disheartening. For
example, working parents in the US are overwhelmed by child care issues
(Senior, 2014; Weise, 2016). This may explain the finding that cultural
masculinity has a negative relationship to affective commitment (Cohen &
Keren, 2008). Affective commitment may be affected because while mas-
culine cultures celebrate competition and self-promotion, competing to
gain the regard of others can also lessen a person’s involvement in their work
(Sennett, 2003). If one loses too often, he or she will likely withdraw
altogether. Organizations may carryout remediating facework (which acts
to remedy a prior deficient communication) to assure employees feel heard
and respected regarding their work/life balance needs. When human beings
respect the pain of another, they convene on human beings a dignity akin in
its gravity to respect for the divine in more traditional societies (Sennett,
2003). Recognition or giving face is respecting the needs of those who are
unequal (a lack of respect at work is interpreted as a humiliation when
employees are not accounted for as full human beings). Thus, promoting
policies of flexibility in carrying out one’s job creates greater work–life
148 R.S. MERKIN

balance, which is then translated into and intertwined with meaningful work
(Sennett, 2003). Meaningful work gives a person face. As referred to earlier,
masculine societies tend to maximize the division between social sex roles
more than feminine societies that practice relatively small social sex role
divisions (Hofstede et al. 2010). Given this tendency, divisions at work also
tend to be less equal in more masculine cultures. One casualty of such
divisions can be the unethical practice of sexual harassment.

MASCULINITY-FEMININITY AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Hofstede’s (2001) description of cultural masculinity as a continuum
ranging from masculine assertiveness to feminine leveling behaviors in the
workplace indicates that the communication goals in masculine cultures are
for the communicator to prevail over others. In contrast, the communi-
cation goals in feminine cultures are to equalize power levels and develop
relationships between parties. Hofstede (1998) indicated that even though
universal trends in gender differences in which men stress ego goals and
women stress social goals are apparent, their degree and other differences
associated with gender vary across societies.
Hofstede et al. (2010) point out that while feminine cultures stress
relationships, masculine cultures tend to stress achievements. Generally,
women and men in feminine cultures view sexual relationships as shared.
When both people are not interested in continuing relationships, then they
cooperate to end it. For example, more feminine Brazilian students, as
opposed to their German, Australian, and US counterparts, saw sexual
harassment to be an abuse of power, but also a relatively harmless pursuit
(Pryor et al., 1997). Another study indicates that more feminine South
American employees who were sexually harassed did not show significant
decreases in job satisfaction, but when the same populations were targets of
the more serious offense of sexual aggression, they did report significant
decreases in job satisfaction (Merkin, 2009). Sexual aggression is defined as
behavior carried out with the intent or result of making another person
engage in sexual activity or sexual communication despite his or her
unwillingness to do so and could include domestic violence, intimate
partner violence, and severe stalking (Krahé,Tomaszewska, Kuyper, &
Vanwesenbeeck, 2014); whereas sexual harassment does not include the
more violent assault aspects of being harassed. The finding above, indi-
cating that sexual aggression is the limit of permissible behavior, shows that
 6 MASCULINITY-FEMININITY APPLIED TO COOPERATIVE … 149

a certain degree of understanding is present in feminine cultures that

harassment should stop when a complaint is lodged. In the feminine
Netherlands, both men and women are likely to initiate sexual encounters
and either women or men do not hesitate to speak up to their boss if they
are not interested in a sexual relationship with them (Hofstede, 1998).
What’s more, in feminine cultures, if a boss initiates an “unwanted inti-
macy”, and the subordinate does not want this, he/she will freely object
and the boss will stop (Hofstede, 1998). This means that the initiation is
dropped. There are no further attempts made. There is no demotion
because the employee was not interested and work carries on as usual
because those from feminine cultures value relationships.
In masculine cultures, on the other hand, where sexual intimacy is often
viewed as an achievement, if an advance is rebuffed and the conquest is not
“achieved”, then employees can be sanctioned, demoted, and humiliated.
Thus, women from masculine cultures are more likely to feel more
exploited in a sexual relationship than women from feminine cultures
(Hofstede, 1998). Sexual harassment is generally more of a problem in
masculine cultures because of the greater consequences and greater loss of
face for all. This is also why the most avid champions against sexual
harassment have come from the masculine US Before continuing, it is
worthwhile to define what specifically is meant by sexual harassment in the
US where the laws drive the remediation of this issue.
Sexual harassment is conduct that is unwanted and of a sexual nature
(Welsh, Carr, Macquarrie, & Huntley, 2006). There are also two types of
sexual harassment. First, quid pro quo is an intentional act (Jasma, 2000)
where the harasser makes employment, getting ahead, and preventing a
demotion contingent on the exchange of sexual favors. Second, hostile
environment sexual harassment is defined by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (1986) as workplace behavior that interferes
with an employee’s performance on the job and creates an intimidating,
offensive, or hostile working environment. Examples of hostile work
environment sexual harassment include leering, invading another’s bodily
space, making jokes of a sexual nature or other offensive remarks, partic-
ularly when made on an ongoing or escalating basis. Hostile environment
harassment takes place more often than quid pro quo behavior
(Miner-Rubino & Cortina, 2004).
Overall, there is little confusion about what quid pro quo harassment is
because there is a direct association between the sexually-harassing
advances or action and the undesirable work-related consequence if the
150 R.S. MERKIN

request is not approved (Jasma, 2000). However, it is more difficult to

appreciate hostile work environment sexual harassment because it is based
on perceptions, which vary between men and women (Paetzold &
O’Leary-Kelly, 1993). Perceptions also vary among people from diverse
cultures who encode and decode communications differently (Hulbert,
1994). Furthermore, dissimilarities in cultural sensitivities correspond to
varying perceptions of what language and behavior comprises sexual
harassment (DeSouza & Hutz, 1996; Pryor & Whalen, 1997). Finally,
there are individual differences between harassers in that some of them
appear to target a small number of targets persistently, while others seem to
harass any and all targets each and every time it is possible (Merkin, 2008).
Likewise, harassers choose different ways to commit hostile work envi-
ronment sexual harassment. For example, some harassers take part in much
sexualized behaviors while others can prefer belligerent actions (Lucero,
Middleton & Finch, 2003).
Differences in perceptions of what is acceptable behavior reflect cultural
levels of masculinity and femininity. In masculine societies both men and
women are socialized to resolutely strive to advance their personal position
and achieve individual goals, often with an expectation of costs to others.
On the other hand, in feminine cultures both men and women are
socialized to be more humane (i.e., oriented towards people, quality of life,
and equality) and sex roles are considered equal. Feminine cultures
emphasize quality of life, the welfare of others, and compassion towards the
weak and the less privileged (Musambira & Matusitz, 2015; Pizam &
Fleischer, 2005). Those from feminine cultures learn to be nonambitious
and modest; or, as Hofstede (1998) pointed out, masculine cultures stress
who you are, while feminine cultures stress what you are.
A study carried out by Moya et al. (2005) showed that masculinity is
related to the concept of ambivalent sexism and a lower respect for civil
rights. Managers from highly feminine nations, such as Denmark and The
Netherlands, showed more constructive behavior (such as cooperation,
meaning problem solving, yielding, and compromising behavior) during
conflicts with colleagues than managers from more masculine nations who
are more likely to use destructive competitive strategies, such as putting
pressure on the opponent to accept one’s point of view, bluffing and
threatening, ridiculing the other party, seeking to harm the opponent
deliberately, and trying to force a solution (Oudenhoven Mechelse, &
Dreu, 1998). In Limpaphayom, Williams & Fadil’s (2006) study, mascu-
line US respondents viewed sexual harassment as involving a hostile or
 6 MASCULINITY-FEMININITY APPLIED TO COOPERATIVE … 151

offensive work environment. In contrast, feminine Thai respondents

regarded behaviors that generate a hostile or unpleasant environment as
harassment, but also considered sexually explicit language and jokes to be
very inappropriate, and as constituting a type of sexual pressure. Overall,
Johnson et al.’s (2005) organizational study found masculinity to be
negatively associated with agreeable response behavior (e.g., harmony and
cooperativeness) and to be positively associated with extreme response
styles (e.g., competitiveness). This may explain why men in masculine
cultures might feel more comfortable harassing women for the purpose of
“achievement”, which Hofstede (1998) explained is how male members of
masculine cultures often view sex. This is played out when men sexualize
women through words and actions to prove that they are dominant and
these norms and practices reinforce a gendered structure of sexuality in
organizations (Hearn & Parkin‚ 2001).
Such practices put women at risk in global organizations. Accordingly,
organizations need to be aware of the systemic risks of sexual harassment in
order to develop programs to avoid such behavior and its consequences.
Leaders also must acknowledge the cultural implications of different
expectations in the workplace to prevent turnover, absenteeism, stress, and
possible lawsuits that could result from hostile work environments (e.g.,
Larson, 2016). As stated, those from masculine cultures prefer a direct
competitive approach to communication while those from feminine cul-
tures prefer indirect harmonious communication. Leaders can use this
information to formulate effective strategies to create a more productive
corporate climate for all employees.

Typical Targets of Sexual Harassment

In general, in masculine cultures, sexual harassment and its consequences
largely impact women, financially vulnerable men, as well as men pursuing
more egalitarian gender relationships (McLaughlin, Uggen, & Blackstone,
2012; Roberts & Mann, 2015; McLaughlin, Uggen‚ & Blackstone, 2017)
and it is the most widespread form of violence against women in the US
(Fitzgerald & Ormerod‚ 1993; Fitzgerald & Shullman, 1993; Gutek,
1985). Although increasingly more men are victims of sexual harassment,
nevertheless, adult women remain the most frequent targets of typical
sexual harassment behaviors such as unwanted touching and invasion of
personal space (Bergman & Henning, 2008; Roberts & Mann, 2015;
McLaughlin, Uggen, & Blackstone, 2004). There are also studies that
152 R.S. MERKIN

show that ethnic minority members (Lewis & Gunn, 2007) and employees
of an underrepresented sex within a certain occupation (e.g. Salin & Hoel,
2013) are also at greater risk for experiencing harassment.
On the whole, particularly in masculine cultures, women endure greater
frequencies of incivility than men; nevertheless, both genders experience
equally negative effects from sexual harassment in terms of job satisfaction,
job withdrawal, and career salience (Bergman & Henning, 2008; Roberts
& Mann, 2015). However, the cultural value of competitiveness often
overrides actors’ aversion to these negative consequences, allowing power
displays such as sexual harassment to flourish in some US workplaces. The
main reason US corporations consider sexual harassment to be an issue is
because employees can sue businesses and the settlements paid out as a
result of such lawsuits interferes with company profits margins.

Masculinity-Femininity, Sexual Harassment, and Face

Facework is central to our social interactions (Penman, 1990, p. 37).
Accordingly, an understanding of facework is crucial to understand the
dynamics of sexual harassment. Unethical communication occurs fairly
frequently in organizations, yet confronting someone about an ethical
transgression is a politically sensitive interaction that challenges people’s
identities (Valde & Miller, 2015). Sexual harassment is usually perpetrated
in private. This allows the offender to get away with the illegitimate
behavior often without being detected and without being subjected to
losing face, partly because the targets rarely report the offense (Roberts &
Mann, 2015). As many as 95% of all such incidents may not be brought to
light (Roberts & Mann, 2015). This is because exposing sexual harassment
is a face-threatening act for the perpetrator, the target, and the audience
(e.g., workers who are exposed but not involved).
Goffman (1967) describes how interactions are ritualized. Sometimes
employees uphold myths in order to avoid difficult realities. This is par-
ticularly the case when sexual harassment pervades an organizational cul-
ture. The perpetrator of the sexual harassment manages his/her impression
by presenting a “front”, or false face, and thereby conceals the sexually
harassing behavior. The impression presented is often inconsistent with
reality. A strong emotional driver of Goffman’s impression management
concept is embarrassment, as individuals anticipate potential embarrass-
ment and present the front they believe their audience wishes to see. They
attempt to manage and avoid embarrassment through impression
 6 MASCULINITY-FEMININITY APPLIED TO COOPERATIVE … 153

management (Scheff, 2006). Those in the work environment who do not

want to be drawn into the face-threatening implications of sexual harass-
ment often try to not see what is happening. Nevertheless, both male and
female employees’ well-being are diminished when they are working in an
organizational context perceived as hostile toward women, even in the
absence of personal hostility experiences (Miner-Rubino & Cortina, 2007).
It is hard to deny reality despite the good acting and mythical cover ups
that are often attempted during sexually harassing activity. However, sit-
uations reflecting inequality and domination in the workplace tend to pop
up in more masculine organizational cultures, aided by these masking
tools.
Besides competitive and direct strategies, threats appear to work well
with bullies who will try to use unethical means to compete (Pendrous,
2012). In more feminine cultures, leveling facework that equalizes people
has already been successfully used and, as indicated earlier, sexual harass-
ment is not a major issue in culturally feminine workplaces (Hofstede,
1998; Hofstede et al., 2010). To present, maintain, or restore the identity
of one who has been harassed following a sexually harassing
face-threatening act in masculine cultures one might use facework strate-
gies such as the threat of force by oneself or others, the threat of legal
action (if there is legitimate evidence—documentation would be essential),
and the use of powerful intermediaries that have a higher status than the
perpetrator. In a culture where domination and competition is lauded, it is
hard to not litigate in some cases. This is why even though the cost to
victims is high, one cannot over-estimate the cost of sexual harassment
cases to American businesses. According to Working Woman Magazine, a
typical Fortune 500 corporation can expect to lose $6.7 million, in 1988
dollars, annually (Roberts & Mann, 2015). Other sources report that
sexual harassment costs the typical Fortune 500 Company $6.7 million per
year in absenteeism, turnover, and lost productivity (Masikuni, 2014).
Given workplace globalization trends and an increasingly multicultural
workplace, the negative consequences of sexual harassment extend beyond
individual nations to include cross-cultural workgroups and whole multi-
cultural organizations (DeSouza & Solberg, 2003; Luthar & Luthar,
2002). Incidences of sexual harassment have steadily climbed throughout
the global marketplace, partly because of different cultural values and
perceptions affecting interactions involving sexual harassment (DeSouza,
Pryor, & Hutz, 1998; Keating & Heslin, 2015; Sigal, et al., 2005).
Additionally, workplace sexual harassment is responsible for psychological
154 R.S. MERKIN

conditions such as stress, depression, and anxiety which typically result in

declines in organizational performance, productivity (Abid, Khan, Rafiq, &
Ahmed, 2015; Goodman-Delahunty, Schuller, & Martschuk, 2016;
Mukosi, Nyasha, & Faith, 2015), job satisfaction, and organizational
commitment (Jiang et al., 2015). Furthermore, sexual harassment leads to
greater absenteeism, intentions to leave, and compromised employee
performance (Mukosi et al., 2015). The above losses do not include liti-
gation costs or court-awarded damages (Roberts & Mann, 2015). Besides

ENVIRONMENT AND OTHER PARTIES

LONG TERM ORIENTATION

EXPECTIONS / RESPONSES

Y
ON
ARM
H
DI
RE
CT

INDIVIDUALISTIC COLLECTIVISTIC

FACE
MASCULINE FEMININE

SHORT TERM ORIENTATION

ENVIRONMENT AND OTHER PARTIES

Fig. 6.1 Facework model: individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity,

and facework
 6 MASCULINITY-FEMININITY APPLIED TO COOPERATIVE … 155

the costs of litigation, harm to a company’s image can also destroy an

organization. Bad press, which often goes along with such cases, could cost
a business its accounts, sponsors, and reputation. Thus, sexual harassment
in the workplace presents an ongoing and growing risk to businesses in
masculine cultures such as the US. The best way to handle the problem is
to prevent such cases altogether by requiring sexual harassment training
and to create a no-tolerance organizational policy. The expenses companies
save by avoiding lawsuits, damage to goodwill and reputation, and other
negative outcomes would easily outweigh the long-term expenses.
Thus, facework can be used to retrain sexual harassment perpetrators.
Sensitive workplace issues tend to require extra care when communication
is needed to resolve these issues. In a more general sense, a synopsis of
facework strategies emanating from the self that are likely to be utilized and
effective in cultures that are individualistic or collectivistic as well as mas-
culine or feminine, are summarized by the model above (Fig. 6.1).

CASE STUDY 4: SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN JAPAN

HOW TO COMMUNICATE FOR CHANGE WITHOUT
CAUSING A LOSS OF FACE?
Sexual harassment is a problem in a number of cultures including Japan.
Despite an increasing number of government bodies establishing hotlines
and designating regulators to handle complaints of discrimination and sexual
harassment and despite increased media and community consideration given
to sex discrimination and the growing presence of women in the work force,
sexual stereotyping and discrimination continue (Barak, 2013). In fact,
according to a government study, three out of ten women in Japan, the most
masculine culture, are sexually harassed at the workplace (Honjo, 2016).
According to Rochelle Kopp, Managing Principal of Japan Intercultural
Consulting, some classic communication differences between Japan and
the U.S., which are both masculine cultures (though Japan is more mas-
culine than the U.S.) in which Japanese practices would be considered to
be sexual harassment in the U.S. include the following:

Comments About Women’s Appearance

Some Japanese businessmen comment on the physical attributes of women
they are working with, e.g., “you are very pretty,” which is not considered
appropriate in the U.S. in a workplace environment.
156 R.S. MERKIN

Innuendoes
Some Japanese businessmen have a sense of humor that expresses itself
through jokes and comments that have sexual innuendoes that would be
considered inappropriate in the workplace setting in the U.S.

Alcohol as an Excuse for Inappropriate Behavior

In Japan, people who do or say inappropriate things while drunk are often
excused. However, in the U.S., intoxication is considered to be irrespon-
sible, and even things that happen outside the workplace can be considered
sexual harassment.

Asking Too-Personal Questions

In Japan, managers might ask their female employees about their plans for
marriage or children. In the U.S., such questions are considered extremely
inappropriate, and may even be illegal in some cases where a person may
become discriminated against.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

1. How would you address each of the problems above while mini-
mizing the face-threat to the other when these situations arise?

a. Do you agree that things would most likely get worse if you
ignore the incident?
b. Do you agree that communication and spending time talking
to Japanese and U.S. employees to get an idea of what is
happening in the office would help clarify potential misun-
derstandings? Why or why not?
c. What indirect ways might you initiate communication to
resolve issues of sexual harassment with Japanese employees?
2. What sexual harassment policies would you institute for gender
equality in the workplace?

a. How would you implement these policies?

b. How would you follow up on these policies?
 6 MASCULINITY-FEMININITY APPLIED TO COOPERATIVE … 157

3. How would you ensure that employees would know who to turn to
if something occurs?

a. How would you clearly explain to employees about who the

responsible person for dealing with complaints is?
b. Would you have several contact persons: the boss, of course,
but also members of staff who are trusted by others at the
office (preferably both a man and a woman)?
c. Do you think HR could play a useful role in supporting sexual
harassment policy implementation? Why? Why not?

REFERENCES
Abid, G., Khan, B., Rafiq, Z., & Ahmed, A. (2015). Workplace incivility: Uncivil
activities, antecedents, consequences, and level of incivility. Science
International, 27(6).
Bajdo, L. M., & Dickson, M. W. (2001). Perceptions of organizational culture and
women’s advancement in organizations: A cross-cultural examination. Sex Roles,
45(5–6), 399–414.
Barrett, A. (2012, May 26). “We Will Work in the Working Hours:” Work/home
boundary management and the culture of the Norwegian organization.
Conference of the International Communication Association, Phoenix, AZ.
Bergman, M. E., & Henning, J. B. (2008). Sex and ethnicity as moderators in the
sexual harassment phenomenon: A revision and test of Fitzgerald et al. (1994).
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 152–167.
Bomey, N. (2016, September 27). Sexism in the workplace is worse than you
thought. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/
story/money/2016/09/27/lean-in-study-women-in-the-workplace/
91157026/.
Brett, J., Behfar, K., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2014). Managing cross-culture conflicts:
a close look at the implication of direct versus indirect confrontation.
In N. M. Ashkanasy, O. B. Ayoko, & K. A. Jehn (Eds.), Handbook of research
in conflict management (pp. 136–154).
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buser, T., Niederle, M., & Oosterbeek, H. (2014). Gender, competitiveness, and
career choices. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(3), 1409–1447.
Butts, M. M., Casper, W. J., & Yang, T. S. (2013). How important are work–family
support policies? A meta-analytic investigation of their effects on employee
outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(1), 1–25. doi:10.1037/a0030389.
158 R.S. MERKIN

Castro, M. R. (2012). Time demands and gender roles: The case of a big four firm
in Mexico. Gender, Work & Organization, 19(5), 532–554. doi:10.1111/
j.1468-0432.2012.00606.x.
Chen, G. M. (2001). Towards transcultural understanding: A harmony theory of
Chinese communication. In V. H. Milhouse, M. K. Asante, & P. O. Nwosu
(Eds.), Transculture: Interdisciplinary perspectives on cross-cultural relations
(pp. 55–70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chi-Ching, E. Y. (1998). Social-cultural context of perceptions and approaches to
conflict: The case for Singapore. In K. Leung & D. Tjosvold (Eds.), Conflict
management in the Asia Pacific: Assumptions and approaches in diverse cultures
(pp. 123–145). Singapore: Wiley.
Cohen, A., & Keren, D. (2008). Individual values and social exchange variables
examining their relationship to and mutual effect on in-role performance and
organizational citizenship behavior. Group and Organization Management,
33(4), 425–452.
Coltrane, S. (1988). Father-child relationships and the status of women:
A cross-cultural study. American Journal of Sociology, 93(5), 1060–95.
Cooper-Chen, A., & Tanaka, M. (2008). Public relations in Japan: The cultural
roots of kouhou. Journal of Public Relations Research, 20(1), 94–114.
doi:10.1080/10627260701727036.
Crompton, R., & Lyonette, C. (2006). Work-life ‘balance’in Europe. Acta
Sociologica, 49(4), 379–393.
Darroch, J. (2014). Masculine and feminine. In Why marketing to women doesn’t
work (pp. 188–196). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
de Mooij, M. (1998). Masculinity/femininity and consumer behavior.
In G. Hofstede, G. Hofstede (Eds.), Masculinity and femininity: The taboo
dimension of national cultures (pp. 55–73). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
DeSouza, E. R. & Hutz, C. 1996. Reactions to refusal of sexual advances among
US and Brazilian men and women. Sex Roles, 34, 549–565.
DeSouza, E. R., Pryor, J. B. & Hutz, C. (1998). Reactions to sexual harassment
charges between North Americans and Brazilians. Sex Roles: A Journal of
Research, 39, 913–925.
DeSouza, E. R., & Solberg, J. (2003). Incidence and dimensions of sexual
harassment across cultures. Academic and workplace sexual harassment:
A handbook of cultural, social science, management, and legal perspectives, 3–30.
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women
become leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Earley, P. C. (1997). Face, harmony, and social structure: An analysis of
organizational behavior across cultures. Oxford University Press on Demand.
EEOC Guidelines, 29 C.F.R. 1604.11 (1986).
 6 MASCULINITY-FEMININITY APPLIED TO COOPERATIVE … 159

Fernandez-Crehuet, J., Gimenez-Nadal, J., & Reyes Recio, L. (2016). The

National Work-Life Balance Index©: The European Case. Social Indicators
Research, 128(1), 341–359. doi:10.1007/s11205-015-1034-2.
Fitzgerald, L. F. & Ormerod, A. J. 1993. Breaking silence: The sexual harassment
of women in academia and the workplace. In F. I. Denmark & M. A. Paludi
(Eds.). Psychology of Women: A Handbook of Issues and Theories (pp. 553–581).
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Fitzgerald, L. F. & Shullman, S. L. (1993). Sexual harassment: A research analysis
and agenda for the 1990s. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 5–27.
Frincke, J. (2007). 2007 Job satisfaction: A survey report by the society for human
resource development. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource
Management.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face behavior. Garden City,
N.Y.: Doubleday.
Goodman-Delahunty, J., Schuller, R., & Martschuk, N. (2016). Workplace sexual
harassment in policing: Perceived psychological injuries by source and severity.
Psychological Injury and Law, 1–12.
Green, F. (2001). “It’s been a hard day’s night”: The concentration and
intensification of work in late twentieth-century Britain. British Journal of
Industrial Relations, 39, 53–80.
Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the Workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gutterman, A. S. (2010). Shalom Schwartz’s dimensions of societal cultures.
Organisational management and administration: A guide for managers and
professionals.
Håkansson, H. & Ford, D. (2016). The managerial challenge of business
interaction: Behind the market façade. IMP Journal, 10(1), 154–171. doi:10.
1108/imp-06-2015-0032.
Hearn, J. & Parkin, W. 2001. Gender Sexuality & Violence in Organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hite, L. M. (2007). Hispanic women managers and professionals: reflections on life
and work. Gender, Work & Organization, 14, 20–36.
Hochschild, A. (1997). The time bind: When work becomes home and home becomes
work. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in
work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories.
Journal of International Business Studies, 14, 75–89.
Hofstede, G. (1998). Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of national
cultures (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, (2000). Masculine and feminine cultures. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of psychology (pp. 115–118). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
160 R.S. MERKIN

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institu-

tions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (2006). What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers’ minds versus
respondents’ minds. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 882–896.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations:
Software of the mind (Vol. 2). London: McGraw-Hill.
Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J. N. (1992). Interpersonal underpinnings of request
strategies: general principles and differences due to culture and gender. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2), 246.
Hulbert, J. E. 1994. Overcoming intercultural communication barriers. Bulletin of
the Association for Business Communication, 57, 41–44.
Inkeles, A., & Levinson, D. J. (1997). National character: A psycho-social
perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Jasma, L. L. (2000). Sexual harassment research: Integration, reformulation, and
implication for mitigation efforts. In M. E. Roloff (Ed.). Communication
Yearbook, 23 (pp. 162–225). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jian, G., Pettey, G., Rudd, J., & Lawson, D. (2007). Masculinity/femininity and
compliance-gaining in business negotiations: A cross-cultural comparison.
Journal of the Northwest Communication Association, 36.
Jiang, K., Hong, Y., McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., Wilson, D. C., & Volpone, S. D.
(2015). Retaining employees through anti–sexual harassment practices:
Exploring the mediating role of psychological distress and employee engage-
ment. Human Resource Management, 54(1), 1–21.
Johnson, T., Kulesa, P., Cho, Y. I., & Shavitt, S. (2005). The relation between
culture and response styles: Evidence from 19 countries. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(2), 264–277.
Kawabata, M., & Gastaldo, D. (2015). The less said, the better: Interpreting silence
in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(4), 1–9.
doi:10.1177/1609406915618123.
Kermally, S. (2005). Chapter thirteen: Geert Hofstede (1928-). In Gurus on people
management (pp. 97–100). Thorogood Publishing Ltd.
Keating, L. A., & Heslin, P. A. (2015). The potential role of mindsets in unleashing
employee engagement. Human Resource Management Review, 25(4), 329–341.
Kim, Y. Y. (1995). Cross-cultural adaptation: An integrative theory. In R.
L. Wiseman (Ed.). Intercultural communication theory (pp. 170–194).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kocieniewski, D. (2012, September 11). Whistle-blower awarded $104 million by
I.R.S. The New York Times.
Krahé, B., Tomaszewska, P., Kuyper, L., & Vanwesenbeeck, I. (2014). Prevalence
of sexual aggression among young people in Europe: A review of the evidence
from 27 EU countries. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(5), 545–558.
 6 MASCULINITY-FEMININITY APPLIED TO COOPERATIVE … 161

Kumar, S. (2016). Indian social structure: Continuity and dynamism. The Oriental
Anthropologist, 16(1), 109.
Larson, L. K. (2016). Prohibited practices. Employment Discrimination, 9.
Leete, L., & Schor, J. B. (1994). Assessing the time-squeeze hypothesis: hours
worked in the United States, 1969–89. Industrial Relations, 33, 25–43.
Lewis, D., & Gunn, R. (2007). Workplace bullying in the public sector:
Understanding the racial dimension. Public Administration, 85(3), 641–665.
Li, J., & Harrison, J. R. (2008). National culture and the composition and
leadership structure of boards of directors. Corporate Governance: An
International Review, 16(5), 375–385. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8683.2008.
00697.x.
Limpaphayom, W., Williams, R. J., & Fadil, P. A. (2006). Perceived differences in
sexual harassment between business school students in the US and Thailand.
Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 13(1), 32–42.
Lucero, M. A., Middleton, K. L. & Finch, W. A. (2003). An empirical investigation
of sexual harassers: Toward a perpetrator typology. Human Relations, 56,
1461–1483.
Luthar, V. K. & Luthar, H. K. (2002). Using Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to
explain sexually harassing behaviours in an international context. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 13, 268–284.
Masikuni, C. (2014). Employees’ perceptions of sexual harassment in the hospitality
industry: A case of Cresta Jameson hotel, Harare.
McLaughlin, H., Uggen, C., & Blackstone, A. (2012). Sexual harassment,
workplace authority, and the paradox of power. American Sociological Review,
77(4), 625–647.
McLaughlin, H., Uggen, C., & Blackstone, A. (2017). The economic and career
effects of sexual harassment on working women. Gender & Society, 31(3),
333–358.
McMillan, H. S., Morris, M. L., & Atchley, E. K. (2011). Constructs of the
work/life interface: A synthesis of the literature and introduction of the concept
of work/life harmony. Human Resource Development Review, 10(1), 6–25.
Merkin, R. (2005). The influence of masculinity-femininity on cross-cultural
facework. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 34(3/4),
267–289.
Merkin, R. (2008). Sexual harassment and cultural issues: a conceptual review and
integration of global communication developments. International Journal of
Communication, 18(1–2), 175–193.
Merkin, R. S. (2009). South American perspectives on sexual harassment: The
standpoint in Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. Journal of Behavioral and Applied
Management, 10(3), 357.
Merkin, R., & Ramadan, R. (2010). Facework in Syria and the US: A cross-cultural
comparison. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34 (6), 661–669.
162 R.S. MERKIN

Merkin, R., Taras, V., & Steel, P. (2014). State of the art themes in cross-cultural
communication research: a systematic and meta-analytic review. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 38, 1–23.
Miner-Rubino, K. and Cortina, L. M. (2004). Working in a context of hostility
Toward women: Implications for employees’ well-being. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 107–122.
Miner-Rubino, K., & Cortina, L. M. (2007). Beyond targets: consequences of
vicarious exposure to misogyny at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1254–
1269. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1254.
Minkov, M., Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2010). Cultures and organizations:
Software for the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
Moya, M., Poeschl, G., Glick, P., Páez, D., & Sedano, I. F. (2005). Sexism,
masculinity-feminity and cultural factors. Revue Internationale de Psychologie
Sociale, 18, 141–167.
Mukosi, M. M., Nyasha, M., & Faith, M. R. (2015). Effects of sexual harassment
on employee performance: Evidence from Bindura Nickel corporation. Global
Journal of Research in Business & Management, 2(2), 119–125.
Musambira, G., & Matusitz, J. (2015). Communication technology and culture:
Analysing selected cultural dimensions and human development indicators.
International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development,
14(1), 17–28. doi:10.1386/tmsd.14.1.17_1.
Odagiri, Y., Uchida, H., & Nakano, M. (2011). Gender differences in age, period,
and birth-cohort effects on the suicide mortality rate in Japan, 1985–2006.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health, 23, 581–587. doi:10.1177/10105395-
09348242.
Oetzel, J., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2003). Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: A
cross-cultural empirical test of the face negotiation theory. Communication
Research, 30, 599–624.
Oudenhoven, J. P., Mechelse, L., & Dreu, C. K. (1998). Managerial conflict
management in five European countries: The importance of power distance,
uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity. Applied Psychology, 47(3), 439–455.
Oxford English Dictionary (Compact ed.), Volume 1. (1971). Glasgow, Scotland:
Oxford University Press.
Paetzold, R. L. & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. 1993. Organizational communication and
the legal dimensions of hostile work environment sexual harassment. In M.
Hecht (Ed.). Sexual Harassment: Communication Implications, (pp. 63–81).
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Paris, L. D., Howell, J. P., Dorfman, P. W., & Hanges, P. J. (2009). Preferred
leadership prototypes of male and female leaders in 27 countries. Journal of
International Business Studies, 40(8), 1396–1405.
Pendrous, R. (2012). FSA threatens abattoir bullies. Food Manufacture, 87(2), 32.
 6 MASCULINITY-FEMININITY APPLIED TO COOPERATIVE … 163

Penman, R. (1990). Facework & politeness: Multiple goals in courtroom discourse.

In K. Tracy & N. Coupland (Eds.), Multiple goals in discourse (p. 1537).
Clevedon, PA: Multilingual Matters.
Pfeifer, S. (2009, October 26). He put a dent in tax evasion. The Los Angeles Times.
Pizam, A., & Fleischer, A. (2005). The relationship between cultural characteristics
and preference for active vs. passive tourist activities. Journal of Hospitality &
Leisure Marketing, 12, 5–25.
Pryor, J. B., DeSouza, E. R., Fitness, J., Hutz, C., Kumpf, M., Lubbert, K., et al.
(1997). Gender differences in the interpretation of social-sexual behavior a
cross-cultural perspective on sexual harassment. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 28(5), 509–534.
Pryor, J. B. & Whalen, N. J. (1997). A typology of sexual harassment:
Characteristics of harassers and the social circumstances under which sexual
harassment occurs. In W. O’Donohue (Ed.). Sexual Harassment: Theory,
Research & Treatment. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Roberts, B. S., & Mann, R. A. (2015). Sexual harassment in the workplace: A
primer. Akron Law Review, 29(2), 5.
Salin, D., & Hoel, H. (2013). Bullying as a gendered phenomenon. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 28(3), 25–235.
Scheff, T. J. (2006). Hypermasculinity and violence as a social system. Universitas,
2(2), 1–10.
Schor, J. (1991). The overworked American: The unexpected decline of leisure. New
York: Basic Books.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimen-
sions of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G.
Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, methods and applications
(pp. 85–119). London: Sage Publications.
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work.
Applied Psychlogy, 48(1), 23–47.
Senior, J. (2014). All joy and no fun: The paradox of modern parenthood. UK:
Hachette.
Sennett, R. (2003). Respect in a world of inequality. New York: W. W. Norton &
Company.
Shaw, K. (2015). The influence of culture and customs on international business
communications. Editorial Board Members, 14(9), 430–436.
Sheaffer, Z., Bogler, R., & Sarfaty, S. (2011). Leadership attributes, masculinity and
risk taking as predictors of crisis proneness. Gender in Management: An
International Journal, 26(2), 163–187.
Sigal, J., Gibbs, M. S., Goodrich, C., Rashid, T., Anjum, A., Hsu, D., Perrino, C.
S., Boratav, H. B., Carson, A., Baarsen, B., van der Pligt, J., & Pan, W-K.
(2005). Cross-cultural reactions to academic sexual harassment: Effects of
164 R.S. MERKIN

individualist vs. collectivist culture and gender of participants. Sex Roles, 52,
201–215.
Sugihara, Y., & Katsurada, E. (1999). Masculinity and femininity in Japanese
culture: A pilot study. Sex Roles, 40, 635–646. doi:10.1023/A:1018896215625.
Tannen, D. (1991). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation.
London: Virago.
Tims, C. A. (2016). For women in corrections, Equality is still elusive. Corrections
Today, 78(5), 26–29.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory.
In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication
(pp. 211–234). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural
conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 22, 187–225.
Toker, Y. (2016). Perception differences in ambiguous forms of workplace sexual
harassment: A comparison between the United States and Turkey. Journal of
Psychology, 150(5), 625–643. doi:10.1080/00223980.2016.1154810.
Tosi, H. L., & Greckhamer, T. (2004). Culture and CEO compensation.
Organization Science, 15(6), 657–670.
Triandis, H. (1986). Collectivism vs. individualism. In C. Bagley & G. Verma
(Eds.), Personality, cognition and values: Cross-cultural perspectives on childhood
and adolescence. London: Macmillan.
Valde, K. S., & Miller Henningsen, M. L. (2015). Facework in responding to
unethical communication. International Journal of Business Communication,
52(4), 369–403. doi:10.1177/2329488414525445.
Wetzel, P. J. (1988). Are powerless communication strategies the Japanese norm?
Language in Society, 17, 555–564.
Weise, M. (2016). Regulatorische Aspekte zu Biosimilars: Was Ärzte wissen sollten.
BARMER GEK ARZNEIMITTELREPORT 2016, 196.
Welsh, S., Carr, J., Macquarrie, B. & Huntley, A. (2006). “I’m not thinking of it as
sexual harassment” Understanding harassment across race and citizenship.
Gender & Society, 20, 87–107.
White, M., Hill, S., McGovern, P., Mills, C., & Smeaton, D. (2003).
High-performance management practices, working hours and work life balance.
British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41(2), 175–195.
Why Is the Whistleblower Who Exposed the Massive UBS Tax Evasion Scheme the
Only One Heading to Prison? (2010, January 7). Retrieved from https://www.
democracynow.org/2010/1/7/why_is_the_whistleblower_who_exposed.
Wood, V. R., & Wilberger, J. S. (2015). Globalization, cultural diversity and
organizational commitment: Theoretical underpinnings. World, 6(2).
 CHAPTER 7

Power Distance, Receiver Facework,

Innovation, and Superior-Subordinate
Relationships

Power distance reflects the way relationships form and develop when less
powerful members of a culture perceive differences in power (Gudykunst &
Ting-Toomey, 1988) regarding the amount and strength of relational
influence they wield, as compared to the more powerful party (Hofstede,
1980). Defined, power distance is “the extent to which a society accepts the
fact that power in institutions and organizations is distributed unequally”
(Bhagat & Steers, 2009; Hofstede, 1980, p. 45). In high-power-distance
societies, equality and status differentiation are accepted as the basis of
societal order (Yuan & Zhou, 2015). Members of high-power-distance
societies perceive relationships as hierarchical and unequal, and recognize
status differentiation in work/social groups (Hofstede, 1980; House,
Hanges, & Javidan, 2004; Yuan & Zhou, 2015). Part of the reason those
from high-power-distance cultures accept unequal hierarchical conditions,
besides valuing harmony, is because they also have unjust world beliefs
(Furnham, 1993, 2003), which color their expectations. Unjust world
beliefs refer to those individuals who believe that the world is generally
unjust (Strelan, 2007). If the world is an unjust place, then there is nothing
to object about when conditions are “unfair”. Generally, people in
high-power-distance societies believe that they should not have aspirations
beyond their rank (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010).
To more fully understand the concept of power distance, it is useful to
know that a low-power-distance is also positively related to individualism,
while a high-power-distance is positively related to collectivism (Basabe &
Ros, 2005; Gouveia & Ros, 2000; Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Schwartz,

© The Author(s) 2018 165

R.S. Merkin, Saving Face in Business,
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59174-6_7
166 R.S. MERKIN

1994). That is, cultures that are low in power distance are most likely to be
individualistic and cultures that are high in power distance tend to also be
collectivistic. In kind, being part of a collectivistic culture requires members
to accept a moderately high to high-power-distance or an unequal distri-
bution of power (Hofstede, 1980, 2001). Because of their awareness of
social status levels and their fixed place within that hierarchy, those from
collectivistic high to moderate power distance cultures tend to pursue
harmony and strive to save face. Most researchers acknowledge that Asians
(collectivistic and high-power distance), for example, are more concerned
than Westerners with establishing their hierarchical positioning in rela-
tionships (Hofstede, 1991; Morisaki & Gudykunst, 1994; Scollon &
Scollon, 1994) which is why a loss of face, which in turn would upset the
power structure, is avoided so strongly. In fact, as mentioned earlier, those
from Asian cultures define losing face as occurring when others perceive
that someone has not comprehended or acknowledged the structure and
hierarchy of his or her group (Ho, 1976; Matsumoto, 1988).
For example, traditional social ties in China have a tendency to be
vertical and hierarchical, manifested as deference to those of higher status.
The fulfillment of obligations is also based on social status. This type of
hierarchy is multivalent and includes a divide in power from the young to
the old. It can be found on the microlevel within the kinship group and on
the macro level from peasants to the emperor (Blau, 2016). Thus, power
distance pervades all relationships in high-power-distance societies.
Managers in high-power-distance cultures expect obedience towards
superiors and make strong distinctions between those who have power and
status and those who do not (Bhagat & Steers, 2009). In turn, since they
are more obedient, high-power-distance employees tend to be more will-
ing to give more than they receive, if that is what is expected by man-
agement (Wheeler, 2002).
Managers in high-power-distance cultures also protect the status quo in
order to assure predictability and avoid uncertainty by not being open to
change (Geletkanycz, 1997; Hofstede, 2001; Merkin, Taras, & Steel,
2014). This explains why fluid work teams are not prescribed as a man-
agement strategy in high-power-distance cultures (Harrison, McKinnon,
Wu, & Chow, 2000). However, the opposite is true for those from
low-power distance cultures. Tata (2000) posited that in low-power dis-
tance cultures autonomous teams work best, whereas in countries with a
high-power-distance and uncertainty avoidance, teams with a low level of
autonomy would be most successful. Though, in general, the higher the
 7 POWER DISTANCE, RECEIVER FACEWORK, INNOVATION … 167

Table 7.1 Power distance index scores by country

Country Power distance Country Power distance

Philippines 94 Pakistan 55
Venezuela 81 Japan 54
China 80 United States 40
India 77 Netherlands 38
Singapore 74 Germany 35
France 68 United Kingdom 35
Hong Kong 68 New Zealand 22
Turkey 66 Denmark 18
South Korea 60 Israel 13
Iran 58 Austria 11

Scores range from 0 to 120 with higher scores indicating more power distance index
Geert Hofstede, Gert Jan Hofstede, Michael Minkov, “Cultures and Organizations, Software of the
Mind”, Third Revised Edition, McGraw Hill 2010, ISBN 0-07-166418-1. © Geert Hofstede B.V. quoted
with permission

power distance index, the less likely a leader would encourage team
building (Ferraro & Briody, 2017) (Table 7.1).
As previously reported, individualism-collectivism and masculinity-
femininity reflect the two aspects of self and, in turn, the facework that is
carried out as an expression of the self. Facework emanates from the self.
However, power distance and uncertainty avoidance (how much uncertainty
needs to be eliminated) emanate from perceptions which are reacting to
another’s presentation of self; and for example, could be particular responses
to an organizational context in terms of managers’ perceptions of worker
participation (Stohl, 1993). For example, if a manager has a high-
power-distance and expects his/her employees to obey orders, if the
employ starts arguing with this manager’s dictate, this will threaten the
manager’s face and resulting facework will be enacted as a reaction to the
employee’s face-threat. Another example might be when a manager has a
high uncertainty avoidance and s/he is from Germany and is not used to
American subcultures, this manager would first have to see if he/she can
trust the differentness of the American employee, which is considered to be a
face-threat, then once the manager perceives that he/she can predict the
employee’s behavior, he or she will communicate his or her facework as a
reaction to his or her perceptions of the employee. Thus, power distance and
uncertainty avoidance influence facework responses to stimuli from others’
168 R.S. MERKIN

self-presentations. As stated, power distance is presented in the facework

model as a reactive strategy influenced by the environment (see Fig. 3.1).
A high-power-distance is associated with strong authority and steep
hierarchies (Hickson & Pugh, 1995; Hofstede, 1991). Given the emphasis
on status and position in a hierarchy, a high or low-power-distance influ-
ences how members of different cultures deal with their powerful superiors
(Kirkman, Chen, Farh, Chen, & Lowe, 2009; Liu & Liao, 2013; Merkin,
2000). That is, collectivistic high-power-distance cultural members view
superiors as a higher authority to be obeyed, whereas individualists with a
low-power-distance see superiors as equals (Hofstede, 2001). Furthermore,
in high-power-distance societies, superiors are expected to maintain their
dignity and prestige no matter what (Ferraro & Briody, 2017).
Consequently, leaders in Asian cultures are not pictured in newspapers in
their jeans, for example, but rather in suits or more formal clothing because
clothing reflects a person’s status. Additionally, high status individuals are
expected to be addressed by their formal title and are expected to represent
their status through symbols like attire, seating position, and artifacts
(Ferraro & Briody, 2017). The leader’s status also reflects his/her subor-
dinates’ status. For example, whoever’s boss drives a bigger car is considered
to have more status and to be more important (Hofstede et al., 2010).
Given that high-power-distance cultural practices dictate that hierarchies
cannot be breached, fewer changes are carried out in terms of social
mobility, institutional structures, and in some cases innovation, which in
turn, provides citizens with a degree of security from being exposed to
face-threats that endanger their position. Cultural members’ perceptions of
or reactions to power distinctions are therefore considered further and
represented in the receiver section of the facework model (see Fig. 6.1).
Some of these reactions to power distinctions can be observed in how
those receiving a message (“monitoring” their situation) choose to respond
or not respond. The reactions can be observed in the facework they choose
to use, which will differ based on the level of power distance in their
culture. In lower power distance countries, individual subordinates will
enthusiastically react to their superiors by approaching, consulting, and
even contradicting their bosses because they filter messages with the per-
ception that the relationship is primarily between equals, even if status and
hierarchical differences exist. Subordinates also exert active negotiation
strategies to resolve disagreements by stating their own points of view.
Leaders in low-power distance cultures, in turn, essentially encourage
independent ideas and contributions to solving problems and presume
 7 POWER DISTANCE, RECEIVER FACEWORK, INNOVATION … 169

(within reason) to be challenged. Often, such leaders are also depicted

positively as playing down their status and may also be addressed by their
first name (Ferraro & Briody, 2017). The idea is that informality is a
precondition for sincerity and there is discomfort with any formal tradi-
tional ceremony or social rules (Ferraro & Briody, 2017).
In contrast, leaders matter more in high-power-distance cultures and
their influence is greater. The example of Chinese culture (high-power-
distance) is one in which people accept authority and value following
ritualistic traditions that are prescribed and predictable and thereby do not
threaten face (Hon, Lu, & Chan, 2015; Hon & Lu, 2016; Hofstede, 1980;
Ricks, 2006). Thus, power distance influences the way group members
perceive and interact with each other (Hofstede, 2001). For example, in the
context of a high-power-distance, the concern for others’ expectations is
high because one is responding to role expectations from leaders and fellow
members who are key sources of an individual’s social learning and behavior
(Hon & Lu, 2016).
Facework is interactive (Goffman, 1967). Consequently, in all cultures,
after people present their face, they ask themselves how the message was
understood and how can they avoid making waves so as to preserve face.
The receiver’s reactions are an important part of the communication
process because the receiver’s interpretation of a sender’s message is
mediated by their cultural values. In particular, the cultural dimensions of
power distance and uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 1980) are related to
receivers’ responses to senders’ messages and how receivers are likely to
decipher and filter the sender’s message and their corresponding subse-
quent reactions (Merkin, 2000).
In particular, employees communicating in a low-power distance culture
are more disposed to employ direct responses to directives and expect to be
consulted about how a work directive should be carried out (Merkin,
2006). However, those from cultures high in power distance seldom
contest their leader’s power. They use indirect messages to communicate, if
they communicate at all about the assignment at hand, because they expect
their leaders to make the difficult decisions and resolve disputes.
Subordinates in high-power-distance cultures tend to just comply with
their leader rather than challenge him or her or attempt to reach resolu-
tions on their own when managing situations.
It should be noted that those coming from a low-power-distance soci-
ety, who also have to deal with their counterparts in high-power-distance
cultures, need to realize that they cannot make anything come about
170 R.S. MERKIN

without following formal protocol and getting the supervisor’s approval. In

high-power-distance cultures, it is necessary to abide by the status quo,
follow established rules, and address the right person who has the authority
to take charge, because underlings are not empowered the way they are in
low-power-distance societies (Hofstede, 2001). As a result, cooperative
strategies are more likely to be employed by individuals from
high-power-distance cultures than their low-power-distance counterparts
in order to fit into the existing structure, preserving the status quo
(Merkin, 2006). Because power distance refers to how people perceive and
accept unequal power distributions (Hofstede, 1980, 2001), high-power
distance cultures have greater unequal power distributions and greater
hierarchical differences than low-power-distance cultures.
In short, it is the author’s thesis that Hofstede’s dimensions (power
distance and uncertainty avoidance) are communicated initially by recei-
vers’ responses to sender’s messages. Therefore, the specific cultural
dimensions of power distance and uncertainty avoidance influence culture
members’ receipt of messages and their corresponding subsequent reac-
tions (see the facework model). Additionally, both cultural dimensions of
power distance and uncertainty avoidance influence the reactions receivers
have to senders’ presentations of face. Specifically, respondents from
high-power-distance cultures are more inclined to accept authority than
members of low-power-distance cultures. An example of this is when
members of high-power-distance cultures respond to a domineering
communicator in an indirect manner as opposed to their low-power-
distance counterparts who would be more likely to address such a situation
by directly negotiating with their low-power-distance superior. Within
high-power-distance cultures, however, direct negotiations only take place
between those of the same status and rank (Chang, 2003).
Those from high-power-distance societies, like collectivists, have a
greater need to avoid face threats (Ricks, 2006). Direct speech, which is the
preferred communication by those from low-power-distance societies
(Merkin, 2006), can be highly face-threatening to them because reactions
to direct messages can more readily escalate into conflict. Thus, members
of high-power-distance cultures are likely to avoid conflict at all costs. But,
because those from low-power-distance cultures believe that conflicts
resolve issues, they do not mind conflict. As a result, in particularly
face-threatening situations, those from high-power-distance cultures are
more likely to use indirect facework (Merkin, 2006). For example, in
high-power-distance cultures people tend to use more polite speech and
 7 POWER DISTANCE, RECEIVER FACEWORK, INNOVATION … 171

avoid statements that could potentially make other parties feel uncom-
fortable by communicating unpleasant messages indirectly (Hickey &
Stewart, 2005; Samovar, Porter, & McDaniel, 2009). In keeping with this,
power distance has been shown to be positively related to indirect com-
munication (Merkin, 2006, 2014). In contrast to the cooperative and
indirect facework strategies preferred by those from high-power-distance
cultures, those from low-power-distance cultures tend to prefer using
verbally-direct facework strategies such as direct disapproval strategies
(e.g., criticism, reprimands) and autonomy-threat strategies such as threats
and orders (Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998). When superiors feel that their
face is threatened, they use these strategies to persuade subordinates to
comply with their demands (Fairhurst, Green, & Snavely, 1984).
As indicated above, face management is profoundly shaped by whether
cultures have a high or low-power-distance (Ting-Toomey, 2005). For
example, a high or low-power-distance has been shown to have a direct
positive effect on the preference for an avoiding versus a dominating style
of communicating, respectively (Gunkel, Schlaegel, & Taras, 2016).
Similarly, findings show that people from high-power-distance cultures
tend to have greater communication apprehension and are less inclined to
speak up than those from low-power-distance cultures (Savage, 2007;
Zhang, 2005). This could be due to their unjust world beliefs (Furnham,
1993, 2003). Why speak up, when one could be threatening the status quo
or creating a face threat? Similar to the case of collectivistic values—which
are correlated to a high-power-distance—in high-power-distant cultures,
people are much more concerned with harmony and saving face than those
from low-power-distance cultures. They would, therefore, avoid using
face-threatening direct communication strategies if possible. As a result, a
concerted effort tends to be made by high-power-distance groups to
maintain the status quo (Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Merkin, 2006; Merkin
et al., 2014) by trying to blend in with the group.
This tendency can be tricky in organizations when ethics violations are
taking place. In sensitive face-threatening human resources situations such
as responding to sexual harassment, for example, reactions are affected by
culture (Ino & Glicken, 2002; Kirkman et al., 2009; Liu & Liao, 2013;
Merkin, 2000, 2008). Studies have shown that men are more likely to
sexually harass others in high-power-distance cultures (Cortina & Wasti,
2005; Luthar & Luthar, 2007). In general, sexual harassment in the
workplace is more likely to be tolerated in high-power-distance cultures
because they are also likely to be paternalistic (Hofstede, 1980), as in the
172 R.S. MERKIN

case of Pakistan, where women are less likely to speak up and when they
do, are more likely to use avoiding, cooperative, and indirect strategies to
manage sexual harassment (Merkin, 2006; Oetzel et al., 2001).
Paternalism is when a private or public institution does not believe that
people’s own choices will promote their welfare and it is influencing or
altering people’s choices for their own good (Bernheim & Rangel, 2009;
Dworkin, 2015).
Since multiple studies have shown that a high-power-distance is posi-
tively related to conformity, agreeableness, neuroticism, and corruption
but negatively related to openness to experience, human rights, and gender
role equality (Taras, Kirkman, & Steel, 2010), it is clear that resolving
sexual harassment in the workplace is an issue fraught with difficulties in
those cultures. Pakistani women, for example, are likely to encounter
rampant sexual harassment (Mangi, 2011; Noureen & Awan, 2011)
because paternalism underlies the perception that sexual harassment is not
a serious social issue and many leaders in paternalistic cultures deny its
presence (Morley, Sorhaindo, & Burke, 2005; Merkin & Shah, 2014). The
same is the case in high-power-distance South American cultures such as
Argentina, Brazil, and Chile where sexual harassment is more tolerated
than in the US, which has a lower power distance (Merkin, 2009). Part of
the reaction to sexual harassment in high-power-distance cultures reflects
the shared acceptance of inequality. This tacit acceptance is manifested in
policies and behaviors that lead to the actual experience of inequality
(Daniels & Greguras, 2014; Hofstede, 1980) and greater acceptance of
unjust world beliefs (Furnham, 1993, 2003). Another example is the case
of India (high-power-distance), where relationships are characterized by
dependency, personalized relationships, strong authority patterns, hierar-
chy, and the assertiveness of a father figure such as paternalistic superiors at
the workplace (Jain, 2015).
Overall, paternalistic relationships between those at different levels of a
hierarchy are common in high-power-distance cultures (Dorfman &
Howell, 1988; Hofstede, 1980, 2001). Paternalism is often characterized
by a tendency on the part of senior managers to assume that they know
what would benefit their subordinates without consulting them (Aycan,
2006; Bhagat & Steers, 2009). For example, in high-power-distance
Turkey, employees perceive the supervisors who are concerned with their
employees’ personal problems as characteristic of effective leaders
(Marcoulides, Yavas, Bilgin, & Gibson, 1998). Managers in high-power-
distance cultures, also assume that their subordinates have little legitimate
 7 POWER DISTANCE, RECEIVER FACEWORK, INNOVATION … 173

power (Lucas, 2006). They believe that subordinates need specific

instructions as to how to do their job and tend to expect that their directives
will be obeyed (Bhagat & Steers, 2009). Together, both power distance’s
influence on top-down procedures and uncertainty avoidance, which is
characterized by (1) maintaining the status quo (Hofstede, 1980, 2001;
Merkin et al., 2014) and (2) the resistance to innovation (Almeida &
Kogut, 1999; Shane, 1992, 1993; Rinne, Steel, & Fairweather, 2012; Van
Der Vegt, Van de Vliert, & Huang, 2005) interplay to filter the facework
people use to communicate during face-threatening situations such as
conflict. For example, managers in high-power-distance societies are prone
to use power manipulatively (Carl, Gupta, & Javidan, 2004). This reflects
their belief that they are owed compliance and that underlings will not
challenge their authority instead preferring to prioritize maintaining the
status quo.
On the other hand, a low-power-distance orientation diminishes a lea-
der’s ability to take advantage of their constituents because when followers
have low-power-distance orientations, their perceptions of their leaders’
use of decision-making criteria increasingly matters (Kirkman et al., 2009)
because followers consider themselves to be entitled to an opinion.
Moreover, low-power-distance employees consider being bypassed on
decision-making as a threat to face (Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Merkin, 2000).
In fact, in low-power-distance cultures, leaders with supportive, assured,
precise, and open communication styles have more satisfied employees who
perceive their employers as performing better (De Vries, Bakker-Pieper, &
Oostenveld, 2010).
Besides the specific issues of decision-making, individuals from
low-power-distance cultures, such as the US, tend to respond to most face
threats with direct and dominating communication such as interruptions
(Merkin et al., 2014; Merkin & Ramadan, 2010; Oetzel et al., 2001;
Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998). In low-power-distance cultures, where
direct and dominating communication is acceptable, it is more common for
people to confront others about their offensive or improper behavior, even
if the person they are confronting is in a higher social position (such as a
superior at work). Because direct and dominating facework are potentially
embarrassing, they are considered to be face-threatening acts (Hutchby,
2008). Thus while those from low-power-distance societies would tend to
communicate using more dominance and control strategies, strong face
concerns held by those from high-power-distance societies would tend to
be reflected in a tendency to not communicate (Botero & Van Dyne,
174 R.S. MERKIN

2009; Savage, 2007; Zhang, 2005) or communicate using more avoidance

strategies (Oetzel et al., 2001).
Another example of how differences in facework prevalent in high versus
low-power-distance cultures impact the workplace relates to the reluctance
to report bad news about a project. A high-power-distance has been shown
to be negatively related to voice, so that employees with a high-
power-distance generally do not speak up as much as their low-power-
distance counterparts (Botero & Van Dyne, 2009). Voice behaviors are
defined as discretionary communication of ideas, suggestions, concerns, or
opinions about work-related issues with the intent to improve organiza-
tional functioning (Morrison, 2011). Most communicators in both high
and low-power-distance cultures tend to use politeness strategies when
communicating bad news (Lee, 1993). However, in high-power-distance
cultures, subordinates, who are compelled to save the face of their superiors,
are so unwilling to directly challenge their superiors’ decisions that they
hesitate to mention vital issues to their superiors—even if they could be
deadly (Gladwell, 2008a). Certainly, reporting bad news may bear personal
risks leading to the possibility of losing face on the part of subordinates.
What’s more, one might not just lose face, but one could also end up
getting fired. The need to preserve face, therefore, could cause communi-
cators to obscure messages that deliver bad news.
While no one really likes to share bad news, the way bad news is or is not
communicated varies by power distance. Specifically, those from
low-power-distance cultures (as in the US) are more likely to use blame as a
facework strategy (Keil, Im, & Mähring, 2007) while those from
high-power-distance cultures are more likely not to share bad news at all or
lie (Ferraro & Briody, 2017; Silverthorne, 2005). In a study comparing a
relatively high-power-distance culture (Turkish) with a relatively
low-power-distance culture (British), findings showed that high-power-
distance oriented Turkish subordinates tend to use much more mitigated
and indirect facework when confronted with service crises than their
low-power-distance British counterparts (Koc, 2013). Indeed, a high-
power-distance has been shown to be positively related to indirect com-
munication, sensitivity, and face-saving concerns (Merkin et al., 2014). This
has also been shown to be the case in China (high-power-distance). Chinese
managers moderate the relationship between their trust in subordinates and
their willingness to share information (Wang & Fang, 2009). It is likely that
differences in the delivery of negative messages between those in high
versus low-power-distance cultures may lead to delays in the identification
 7 POWER DISTANCE, RECEIVER FACEWORK, INNOVATION … 175

and solving of customer problems and to miscommunication generally

(Koc, 2013). Communicators who refrain from information sharing or
conceal bad news also experience greater stress (Dedahanov, Lee, Rhee, &
Yusupov, 2016). Thus, power distance and saving face have been shown to
shape individuals’ attitudes and behaviors (Mak, Chen, Lam, & Yiu, 2009).
Because they are more concerned with maintaining face for themselves and
others, those from higher power distance cultures take more extreme
measures to be less outspoken and to not communicate explicitly than those
from low-power-distance cultures do (Ho, Chen, & Sim, 2013).

POWER DISTANCE AND INNOVATION

Given the effect of face concern and the need to conform in
high-power-distance cultures, it is important to point out that facework is
likely to be utilized in sophisticated and subtle ways, particularly in
industries requiring innovation (Miron-Spektor, Paletz, & Lin, 2014). It is
clear that people in all cultures wish to be respected (Earley, 1997).
Evidence shows that concern for face is present in both cultures with a
low-power-distance (e.g., Mak et al., 2009) as well as a high-power-
distance (Merkin, 2006; Merkin & Shah, 2014; Ting-Toomey, 2005).
However, all people are generally disinclined to express creative ideas
because they are concerned that they will be dismissed by others (Baer &
Brown, 2012; Yuan & Woodman, 2010). To avoid losing face, it is likely
that people will use facework strategies that correspond to their culture’s
power-distance level (Merkin, 2006). Corroborating other results (Merkin,
2006), those from low-power-distance cultures are more likely to risk
losing face by directly promoting their ideas, while those from
high-power-distance cultures are more likely to use indirect communica-
tion in an attempt to present themselves in a positive light without
threatening others’ face (Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; Loi, Lam, &
Chan, 2012). For example, a low-power-distance subordinate may present
a new idea at a meeting and promote it while a high-power-distance
employee might ask a third person what they think of their idea. This
strategy allows them to promote creative ideas—by testing the waters
without expressing their ideas directly.
Hofstede (1980, 2001) describes cultural members of
high-power-distance countries as having deference and obedience. These
values tend to be expressed communicatively by adopting communication
176 R.S. MERKIN

that is extra-considerate, cooperative, and indirect. Such communication

acts to smooth over potentially face-threatening events (Merkin, 2006).
Accordingly, the high-power-distance values of obedience appear to be
expressed among high-power-distance cultural members through more
cooperative and indirect facework strategies. In contrast to the cooperative
and indirect facework strategies preferred by those from high-power-
distance cultures, those from low-power-distance cultures tend to prefer
using verbally-direct facework strategies when they feel that their face is
threatened (Merkin, 2006; Merkin & Shah, 2014; Ting-Toomey &
Kurogi, 1998). They also actively manage their face at work through
participation (Hofstede, 2001; Moran, Abramson, & Moran, 2014). For
example, Danish managers (low on power distance and uncertainty
avoidance), allow more direct employee input by emphasizing informal
interpersonal considerations in their interpretations of worker participation
such as getting along well with others at the job while their French man-
agerial counterparts (high on power distance and uncertainty avoidance)
exert greater control by strongly emphasizing formal structural aspects in
their interpretations of worker participation such as objectively measuring
their performance (Bacouël-Jentjens & Christiansen, 2016).
A high-power-distance is an important influence in group social envi-
ronments where status differentiation among individuals is expected and
accepted. This hierarchical social environment creates a different culture
than the relatively equal social environment in low-power-distance cultural
contexts because people are less likely to speak their minds and those of
lower status offer less input (Yuan & Zhou, 2015). In fact, a
high-power-distance negatively relates to the weighted index of social
progress (Daniels & Greguras, 2014; Sharma, 2003). This is probably
because high-power-distance values influence people to conform to strin-
gent, traditional social roles (Taras et al., 2010), thus upholding the status
quo which, in turn, obstructs social progress. On the other hand, research
postulates that in low-power-distance environments, cooperation and
problem solving among supervisors and subordinates is encouraged with
greater consequential progress in research and development efforts and
innovation (Couto & Vieira, 2004).
While the drive to enhance one’s public image and to avoid losing one’s
reputation is a universal phenomenon (Earley, 1997; Liu, Friedman, Barry,
Gelfand, & Zhang, 2012; Ting-Toomey, 1988, 2005), members of dif-
ferent cultures vary in their level of face concern and their awareness of how
 7 POWER DISTANCE, RECEIVER FACEWORK, INNOVATION … 177

others perceive them (Liu et al., 2012). Because those from high-power-
distance cultures feel safe and appreciated when they behave according
to social standards (Miron-Spektor, Paletz, & Lin, 2014), they attempt
to conform to norms (Choi & Lee, 2002; Hwang, 2003). During
negotiations, highly face-concerned individuals are more attentive to the
other side and are more willing to adopt others’ views (Liu et al., 2012).
Consequently, those from high-power-distance cultures are less likely to
risk losing face by being original and creative. This explains why
Miron-Spektor et al., (2014) found that face concern is negatively related
to the novelty of generated ideas.
Comparing Japan and the US, Herbig and Jacobs (1998) pointed out
that Japanese culture (high-power-distance) and its corresponding values
of hierarchy and acceptance of authority, explains why many Japanese
scientists express high levels of creativity in the US but not in Japan. Yuan
and Zhou (2015) indicate that a high-power-distance leads to conformity
that, in turn, leads to a stifling or absence of creativity. In accordance,
Shane (1992, 1993) proposed that high-power-distance values act as an
overall cultural challenge for innovation, and reported a negative rela-
tionship between power distance and national rates of innovation, after
controlling for economic factors. Van der Vegt et al. (2005) arrived at a
similar conclusion in their study finding that power distance impacts
interpersonal dynamics related to innovation. In particular, their findings
showed that although employee functional diversity—the range of things
employees do in organizational communities (Garnier, Navas, & Grigulis,
2016)—is positively related to an innovative climate in low-power-distance
cultures, while it was negatively related to an innovative climate in
high-power-distance cultures. An additional example of this is that those
from collectivistic high-power-distance cultures show lower motivation to
improve their foreign-language proficiency because they prefer more
in-group-centered communication (Peltokorpi & Clausen, 2011). What’s
more, Mitchell, Smith, Seawright, and Morse (2000) theorized that at the
societal level, people in high-power-distance cultures are less likely to start a
new business because it is perceived that only elites engage in such ven-
tures. In conclusion, it appears that because members of high-power-
distance cultures accept the status quo (Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Merkin,
2006; Merkin et al., 2014) and hold unjust world beliefs (Furnham, 1993,
2003), they are less likely to believe in themselves. Therefore, they sur-
render their ambitions to the reality of an unjust world and conform (Choi
178 R.S. MERKIN

& Lee, 2002; Hwang, 2003). Thus, the shared mental framework of
power distance within a culture affects the level of entrepreneurship in that
society (Daniels & Greguras, 2014). Overall, it appears that a high-power-
distance exerts a strong negative relationship with innovation (Rinne et al.,
2012).

POWER DISTANCE AND LEADERSHIP

In high-power-distance societies people emphasize the enhancing and
saving of face of individuals who occupy higher organizational positions in
the status hierarchy because of their respect for authority (Hofstede,
2001). People higher on power distance are more likely to value status,
power, and prestige (Jaw, Ling, Wang, & Chang, 2007; Schwartz, 1999).
Such assumptions particularly affect leadership conventions. Subordinates
with a high-power-distance tend to trust that their supervisor is superior
and they are motivated to behave in ways to meet their supervisors’
expectations (Kirkman et al., 2009; Javidan et al., 2006). Given the greater
authority afforded to leaders in cultures with a high-power-distance, these
leaders are privileged because subordinates show them greater deference
and obey them (Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Yang, Mossholder, & Peng,
2007). In trun, leaders in high-power-distance cultures expect to take care
of everything themselves and expect underlings to be obedient (Sagie,
Mainiero, & Koslowsky, 2000). As a result, high-power-distance leaders
usually use a more authoritarian style of leadership (Hwang & Francesco,
2010). Consequently, besides being less likely to consult with their con-
stituents, they also are less likely to provide feedback to their employees on
their performance (Couto & Vieira, 2004; Earley & Stubblebine, 1989;
Hofstede, 2001; Silverthorne, 2005).
Although the acceptance of disparities in power shapes views about how
people with different levels of power interact, people who are lower on
power distance do not perceive many differences based on social divisions,
power, or hierarchical positions (Daniels & Greguras, 2014; Javidan &
House, 2001). This is reflected when low-power-distance organizational
cultures operate using decentralization participative decision-making, and
consultative leadership (Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Merkin, 2000). Research
indicates that both receiver perceptions related to the cultural dimensions
of power distance and uncertainty avoidance also influence the relationship
of supervisor-provided feedback to employee performance (Earley &
Stubblebine, 1989). Consequently, in low-power-distance settings,
 7 POWER DISTANCE, RECEIVER FACEWORK, INNOVATION … 179

subordinates are encouraged to participate in decisions that concern them

and the decision-making process is more democratic, with independent
ideas respected by both subordinates and supervisors (Couto & Vieira,
2004; Hofstede, 2001). Thus, employees have consultation expectations
when they are working within low-power-distance business cultures and
feel a face-threat if they are not consulted or given feedback (Hofstede,
1980; Merkin, 2000).
Cultural values generally affect what individuals view as being fair or
unfair (Furnham, 1993, 2003; Kim & Leung, 2007). As stated above,
power distance, in particular, influences the communication between those
at the top and the bottom of power hierarchies. Those from cultures higher
on power distance (rather than lower) are less likely to question authority
figures and their morality (Shao, Rupp, Skarlicki, & Jones, 2013). Since
people in high-power-distance societies tend to accept inequality in the
distribution of power and privileges (Fischer & Smith, 2006), not sur-
prisingly, similar to the case of sexual harassment in organizations, findings
show that those with strong (high) power distance orientations also tend to
be less sensitive to unfair treatment and are less likely to voice concerns
over injustice generally (Brockner et al., 2001). Given such morality cus-
toms, the relationship among justice perceptions (how just they believe
something is) and outcomes (how just it actually is) is weaker for those
from high-power-distance cultures (Shao et al., 2013). Similarly, because
they accept inequality and injustices, persons from high-power-distance
cultures are less likely to be affected by unfair treatment (Daniels &
Greguras, 2014).
Reactions to what is fair or unfair impact face perceptions. Specifically,
the implications of differences in power distance affect whether employees
perceive themselves to have lost face when they believe that they have been
treated unfairly or when they believe they are being slighted because they
have not been consulted about work procedures affecting them (Merkin,
2000, 2006). In general, employees from cultures low in power distance
will likely feel slighted and may lose face when employers do not treat them
fairly, consult with them about their work, or do not allow them to par-
ticipate in decision-making (Hofstede, 1980, 2001). The implications of
these differences need to be taken into consideration when assimilating
expatriates or when engaged with cross-cultural work groups.
180 R.S. MERKIN

POWER DISTANCE AND SUPERIOR/SUBORDINATE

RELATIONSHIPS
Different cultural perceptions of unfair work behavior are apparent in the
case of abusive supervision. Employees in high-power-distance cultures
tend to accept supervisors’ abusive behaviors because they believe that they
should not disobey their superiors (Javidan, Dorfman, De Luque, &
House, 2006). Thus, in high-power-distance countries, it may be reason-
able for supervisors to display hostility, be less considerate, and behave
more autocratically toward subordinates (Lian, Ferris, & Brown, 2012;
Lin, Wang, & Chen, 2013; Tepper et al., 2009). Based on the idea that
people with a high-power-distance may consider supervisors’ abusive
behaviors to be normal and tolerable, abusive supervision directed toward
them is less likely to be harmful (Tepper 2007). Findings show that
because it is typical for people high on power distance to accept status
differences and unjust world beliefs, they tend to follow the instructions of
authority figures (e.g., immediate supervisors) as well as trust and respect
them (Hon & Lu, 2016; Hon, Yang, & Lu, 2011) regardless of their
antisocial behavior. A study conducted in China (high-power-distance) for
example, shows that higher power-distance values lessen the negative
effects of abusive supervision in supervisor-subordinate relationships (Hon
& Lu, 2016). These findings were corroborated in Pakistan
(high-power-distance), where culture neither increases nor decreases the
effect of petty tyranny on work alienation. Petty tyranny is a form of
destructive leadership behavior that is aggressive and anti-subordinate in
nature (Kant, Skogstad, Torsheim, & Einarsen, 2013). Given their
high-power-distance, Pakistanis consider leaders’ tyrannical behavior to be
normal and in some cases, even consider tyrannical leaders to be role
models (Akhtar & Shaukat, 2016). Thus, a high-power-distance describes
a preference for, or tolerance of, inequality (Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Li &
Harrison, 2008).
On the other hand, since abuse often arouses feeling of shame, the
negative effect of abusive supervision on employee outcomes (i.e., perfor-
mance and organizational citizenship behaviors) tends to be stronger for
subordinates with higher power distance values (Leung, 2001). Confucian
dynamism countries (such as Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, and Korea)
believe that any actions bringing disrepute and shame to their company
would be detrimental to organizational performance. If they perceive their
supervisor to be acting in a shameful manner this could affect how
 7 POWER DISTANCE, RECEIVER FACEWORK, INNOVATION … 181

employees process their perceptions of their supervisors (Hofstede &

Bond, 1988). It is possible that employees could be dealing with their
feelings of shame in a maladaptive way and this could affect their perfor-
mance in terms of performance and organizational citizenship behaviors
(Daniels, 2015)—meaning that employee performance would suffer and
employee citizenship behaviors would be minimized.
This is consistent with studies that show that cultural values, particularly
power distance, play an important role in followers’ reactions to their
leaders (Kirkman et al., 2009; Liu & Liao, 2013; Merkin, 2000). In par-
ticular, employees with higher power distance are less likely to speak up to
their leaders than those working in jobs with a lower power distance (Jain,
2015; Liu & Liao, 2013). In contrast, exclusively in cultures low in power
distance, transformational (positive) leadership is positively related to
employees’ willingness to express themselves (Liu & Liao, 2013; Detert &
Burris, 2007) and perceptions of fairness (Kirkman et al., 2009). However,
results from a study conducted in Thailand indicate that subordinates with
a high-power-distance are not motivated by transformational leadership
(Pongpearchan, 2016; Silverthorne, 2005). Instead, instrumental or initi-
ating structure leadership (the degree to which a supervisor is
goal-oriented, defines and organizes his or her role and the role of
supervised workers, and establishes appropriate communication (McGuire
et al., 2015) appears to be more effective in promoting employee effort and
increasing job performance in high-power-distance cultures (Mulki,
Caemmerer, & Heggde, 2015). Subordinates from high-power-distance
cultures, therefore, prefer to be told what to do and to operate with clear
orders from their boss without being consulted. Then, they can be certain
about what to do, enact obedience, and not have to worry about unpre-
dictable consequences.

POWER DISTANCE AND MOTIVATION

One important reaction to leadership is motivation. What motivates indi-
viduals and organizations in one culture may differ from what motivates
individuals and organizations in another culture (Mudambi, Mudambi, &
Navarra, 2007). In general, a person is motivated by rewards conceptual-
ized as either intrinsic (internally feeling good or accomplished) or ex-
trinsic (responding to outside motivators including money or
compliments). Leaders try to use such rewards to motivate their employees
(Fair & Silvestri, 1992). While intrinsic job characteristics are constant
182 R.S. MERKIN

across nation states, extrinsic job satisfaction varies significantly from

country to country (Xu & Van de Vliert, 2004). Specifically, intrinsic job
characteristics such as autonomy, task significance, skill variety (Hackman
& Oldham, 1980), and job satisfaction are stronger in richer countries,
more individualistic countries, and countries with a lower power distance
culture (Xu & Van de Vliert, 2004). Research has also shown that
employees prefer rewards of empowerment (Robert, Probst, Martocchio,
Drasgow, & Lawler, 2000) and recognition from a boss (Earley &
Stubblebine, 1989) in countries with a low versus high-power-distance. In
fact, frequent recognition of good work through positive feedback, which
would be an appropriate intrinsic reward in low-power-distance countries,
is mostly perceived by employees in high-power-distance countries as
pointless and unwanted (Earley & Stubblebine, 1989), though this may
not be communicated upward to superiors. Research shows that in
high-power-distance cultures, managers should focus more on the imple-
mentation process of work systems and should confirm that employees
understand what is expected from them and know what actions are needed
to accomplish the organization’s goals (Boswell, 2006). Rather than
focusing on conveying symbolic meaning of involvements such as
empowerment and workplace democracy, managers working in
high-power-distance cultures may have to apply greater effort in clarifying
the goals of participation practices and the expectations the organization
has on improving operations through employees’ collective contributions
(Jiang, Colakoglu, Lepak, Blasi, & Kruse, 2015).
An example of how a high-power-distance is expressed occurs in India,
where silence is an expected part of employee behavior (Jain, 2015; Sinha,
1980). It is not just expected, it is also preferred in high-power-distance
cultures to remain silent in front of supervisors about issues or concerns to
allay face-threatening feelings of insecurity or fear (Jain, 2015; Milliken
et al., 2003). Since leaders mean more to those from high-power-distance
cultures, the impact of leaders’ actions is greater. As a result, motivational
strategies are more effective if they are initiated and implemented by
superiors who have higher status in cultures that are high in power distance
(Leung, 2001). Moreover, negative supervisory reactions toward subor-
dinates are more demoralizing and trigger stronger defensive reactions in
high-power-distance societies (Leung, 2001) because such cultural mem-
bers are more prone to feel that their face is being threatened.
In the Indian (high-power-distance) context, self-affirmation beliefs can
be lacking due to the high-power-distance norms of obedience and
 7 POWER DISTANCE, RECEIVER FACEWORK, INNOVATION … 183

conformity. In the Indian context, because they are dependent on and have
a high need for approval from their superiors, silence is practiced so that
they do not feel a loss of face (Sinha, 1988). Silence, therefore, is an
indirect way subordinates advance positive feelings of protection and
security as well as assist themselves with receiving affection from their
superiors in high-power-distance work cultures (Jain, 2015). Thus,
employees in high-power-distance organizations remain silent to avoid
negative consequences that might possibly disrupt their relationships with
their supervisors, who have control over them as well as authority.
Hence, in high versus low-power-distance cultures there are opposing
perspectives on differences in equality in the workplace and both employee
and supervisor behaviors reflect these different perceptions. Researchers,
therefore, point out that these cultural differences may lead to more or less
effective interactions and may determine the extent of distress experienced
by persons during intercultural interactions (Ward, Bochner, & Furnham,
2005).
Interestingly, a study conducted between high (Chinese) and low
(German) power-distance cultures indicated that if German expatriates and
their Chinese subordinates both adopted a high-power-distance, then the
Chinese employees would be more likely to be motivated by their German
leaders because this would reduce the cultural difference between them
(Rau, Liu, Juzek, & Nowacki, 2013). Rau et al. (2013) also suggested the
inverse, that one would expect a German expatriate with a tendency
towards a high-power-distance to be more satisfied by their influence on
the Chinese subordinates, and to encounter fewer problems in commu-
nication. However, corporations would need to train expatriate supervisors
and employees in the facework strategies of high-power-distance cultures
to effectively adopt such a policy. Rau et al. (2013) experiment of
German’s adopting high-power-distance behaviors worked because cul-
tural differences in professional values and performance are likely to
increase anxiety and pressure among employees possessing different levels
of power distance, which, in turn, could cause a decrease in job satisfaction
(Froese & Peltokorpi, 2011). So that diminishing cultural differences
reduces anxiety and stress and then increases job satisfaction. For example,
the Japanese sometimes can become annoyed with the self-oriented and
assertive behavior displayed by expatriates from low-power-distance cul-
tures, while these expatriates can become irritated with the interminable
formalities and oblique response patterns that are displayed by the Japanese
(Rau et al., 2013). However, if the Germans act more like the Japanese and
184 R.S. MERKIN

vice versa, then employees from both cultures will likely experience greater
understanding and job satisfaction. As indicated, differences between
Western and Chinese management are well documented (Hofstede, 1991).
Whereas Western managers often communicate directly and aggressively to
increase better performance, they face hurdles when empowering Chinese
employees (Li, 1999) because this type of motivation is meaningless to
high-power-distance employees from China, for example. Because China is
a high-power-distance culture, implementation of other supervisor and
organizational support (such as top-down management and clear instruc-
tions) are necessary to motivate a higher willingness to deliver quality
service among Chinese service personnel (Humborstad, Humborstad,
Whitfield, & Perry, 2008).

CASE STUDY 5: KOREAN AIRLINES SAVING FACE

AND PLANE CRASHES

Describing a Korean Airlines plane crash, Malcolm Gladwell (2008b)

explained that Korean Airlines had more plane crashes than almost any
other airline in the world around the end of the 1990s. Gladwell said in an
interview with Fortune magazine (Reingold, 2008) that Korean Airlines
was struggling with cultural power distance issues that required Korean
airline subordinate employees to communicate hierarchically even in
emergencies.
The plane’s senior pilot, Mr. Park, was a 57-year-old former fighter pilot
in the South Korean air force. The first officer, Mr. Yoon was 33 and had a
lot less experience. During landing, a Korean Air airplane flying from Korea
to Guam hit stormy weather. The captain had to be able to see the airport
runway in order to land but had trouble with visibility. When the pilot
began to turn the plane during landing, the guiding instrument in front of
him didn’t register that the plane had tilted on the wrong angle. Unable to
see, he continued to steer inaccurately, even though a warning buzzer
sounded nine times in the cockpit (Halsey, 2013). The investigative report
said that Park was irritated by their late departure from London.
The report also indicated that the first officer was communicating cor-
rect information to the tower, but the head pilot spoke to him in a dis-
paraging fashion, saying, “Make sure you understand what ground control
is saying before you speak” (Halsey, 2013). The commander’s remarks led
the other crew members to accept the pilot’s authority by remaining silent
 7 POWER DISTANCE, RECEIVER FACEWORK, INNOVATION … 185

—even when the plane instrument in front of him indicated that the plane
was turned almost sideways!
British investigators called on Korean Air to revise its company culture
and training, “to promote a more free atmosphere between the captain and
the first officer” (Halsey, 2013). New policies were pursued by the Airlines
to prevent future catastrophes.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

1. Explain as many elements of power distance you can identify that

were responsible for the miscommunication between the pilot and
crew.

a. Which aspects of miscommunication were driven by culture?

b. Which aspects of miscommunication were due to respect for
authority?
c. Which aspects of miscommunication were due to attitudes
toward hierarchy?
2. How would you suggest employees should have addressed the pilot
to minimize the face-threat while also saving the plane?
3. Explain how abusive supervision was addressed but could be reme-
diated in the future.

a. Do you agree that this issue could have been addressed and
resolved? Why? Why not?
b. Given the abusive leadership context, what indirect ways might
you initiate communication to resolve emergency issues?
4. What workplace policies would you institute for future flights?

a. How would you implement these policies?

b. How would you follow up on these policies?
186 R.S. MERKIN

5. Do you believe that the present organizational culture of Korean

Airlines could be changed?

a. Why?
b. Why not?

REFERENCES
Akhtar, S., & Shaukat, K. (2016). Impact of petty tyranny on alienation from work:
Role of self-esteem and power-distance. Global Journal of Flexible Systems
Management, 1–11.
Almeida, P., & Kogut, B. (1999). Localization of knowledge and the mobility of
engineers in regional networks. Management Science, 45(7), 905–917.
Aycan, Z. (2006). Paternalism. In U. Kim, K. S. Yang, & K. K. Hwang (Eds.),
Indigenous and cultural psychology (pp. 445–466). New York: Springer.
Bacouël-Jentjens, S., & Christiansen, L. C. (2016). 2. Diversity management in
Denmark and France: A comparative approach. In Research handbook of
international and comparative perspectives on diversity management (p. 45).
Baer, M., & Brown, G. (2012). Blind in one eye: How psychological ownership of
ideas affects the types of suggestions people adopt. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 118(1), 60–71.
Basabe, N., & Ros, M. (2005). Cultural dimensions and social behavior correlates:
Individualism-collectivism and power distance. International Review of Social
Psychology, 18(1), 189–225.
Bernheim, B. D., & Rangel, A. (2009). Beyond revealed preference:
Choice-theoretic foundations for behavioral welfare economics. Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 124(1), 51–104.
Bhagat, R. S., & Steers, R. M. (Eds.). (2009). Cambridge handbook of culture,
organizations, and work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Blau, R. (2016). A nation of individuals. The Economist, 420(8997), 3–16.
Boswell, W. (2006). Aligning employees with the organization’s strategic objec-
tives: Out of ‘line of sight’, out of mind. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 17(9), 1489–1511.
Botero, I. C., & Van Dyne, L. (2009). Employee voice behavior interactive effects
of LMX and power distance in the United States and Colombia. Management
Communication Quarterly, 23(1), 84–104.
Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Francesco, A. M., Chen,
Z. X., et al. (2001). Culture and procedural justice: The influence of power
distance on reactions to voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(4),
300–315.
 7 POWER DISTANCE, RECEIVER FACEWORK, INNOVATION … 187

Carl, D., Gupta, V., & Javidan, M. (2004). Power distance. In R. J. House &
P. J. Hanges (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of
62 societies (pp. 513–563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chang, L. C. (2003). An examination of cross-cultural negotiation: Using
Hofstede framework. Journal of American Academy of Business, 2(2), 567–570.
Choi, B., & Lee, H. (2002). Knowledge management strategy and its link to
knowledge creation process. Expert Systems with Applications, 23(3), 173–187.
Cocroft, B. K., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Facework in Japan and the United
States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 469–506.
Cortina, L. M., & Wasti, S. (2005). Profiles in coping: Responses to sexual
harassment across persons, organizations, and cultures. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(1), 182–192.
Couto, P. J., & Vieira, C. J. (2004). National culture and research and
development activities. Multinational Business Review, 12(1), 19–36.
Daniels, M. A. (2015). Shame as an alternate mechanism for the abusive
supervision-performance relation and the role of power distance values.
Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 77.
Daniels, M. A., & Greguras, G. J. (2014). Exploring the nature of power distance
implications for micro-and macro-level theories, processes, and outcomes.
Journal of Management, 40(5), 1202.
Dedahanov, A. T., Lee, D., Rhee, J., & Yusupov, S. (2016). An examination of the
associations among cultural dimensions, relational silence and stress. Personnel
Review, 45(3), 593–604.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is
the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869–888.
De Vries, R. E., Bakker-Pieper, A., & Oostenveld, W. (2010).
Leadership = communication? The relations of leaders’ communication styles
with leadership styles, knowledge sharing and leadership outcomes. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 25(3), 367–380.
Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and
effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in International
Comparative Management, 3(1), 127–150.
Dworkin, G. (2015). Defining paternalism. In T. Schramme (Ed.). New perspectives
on paternalism and health care (pp. 17–29). Dordrecht: Springer International
Publishing.
Earley, P. C. (1997). Face, harmony, and social structure: An analysis of
organizational behavior across cultures. Oxford University Press on Demand.
Earley, P. C., & Stubblebine, P. (1989). Intercultural assessment of performance
feedback. Group and Organization Studies, 14, 161–181.
Fair, E. M., & Silvestri, L. (1992). Effects of rewards, competition and outcome on
intrinsic motivation. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 19(1), 3.
188 R.S. MERKIN

Fairhurst, G. T., Green, S. G., & Snavely, B. K. (1984). Managerial control and
discipline: Whips and chains. Annals of the International Communication
Association, 8(1), 558–593.
Ferraro, G. P., & Briody, E. K. (2017). The cultural dimension of global business.
Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Froese, F. J., & Peltokorpi, V. (2011). Cultural distance and expatriate job
satisfaction. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(1), 49–60.
Furnham, A. (1993). Just world beliefs in twelve societies. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 133(3), 317–329.
Furnham, A. (2003). Belief in a just world: Research progress over the past decade.
Personality and Individual Differences, 34(5), 795–817.
Garnier, E., Navas, M. L., & Grigulis, K. (2016). Plant functional diversity:
Organism traits, community structure, and ecosystem properties. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Geletkanycz, M. A. (1997). The salience of ‘culture’s consequences’: The effects of
cultural values on top executive commitment to the status quo. Strategic
Management Journal, 18(8), 615–634.
Gladwell, M. (2008a). Outliers. New York: Little Brown and Company.
Gladwell, M. (2008b). Outliers: The story of success. New York: Little, Brown.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. New York: Doubleday.
Gouveia, V. V., & Ros, M. (2000). Hofstede and Schwartz’s models for classifying
individualism at the cultural level: Their relation to macro-social and
macro-economic variables1. Psicothema, 12, 25–33.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and affective communi-
cation. American Behavioral Scientist, 31, 384–400.
Gunkel, M., Schlaegel, C., & Taras, V. (2016). Cultural values, emotional
intelligence, and conflict handling styles: A global study. Journal of World
Business, 51(4), 568–585.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign.
Halsey, A. (2013, July 8). Lack of cockpit communication recalls 1999 Korean Airlines
crash near London. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washington
post.com/local/trafficandcommuting/lack-of-cockpit-communication-recalls-
1999-korean-airlines-crash-near-london/2013/07/08/0e61b3ca-e7f5-11e2-
a301-ea5a8116d211_story.html.
Harrison, G. L., McKinnon, J. L., Wu, A., & Chow, C. W. (2000). Cultural
influences on adaptation to fluid workgroups and teams. Journal of
International Business Studies, 31(3), 489–505.
Herbig, P., & Jacobs, L. (1998). Culture as an explanatory variable for the Japanese
innovative processes. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 5
(3), 5–30.
Hickey, L., & Stewart, M. (2005). Politeness in Europe. Great Britain: Cromwell
Press.
 7 POWER DISTANCE, RECEIVER FACEWORK, INNOVATION … 189

Hickson, D. J., & Pugh, D. S. (1995). Management worldwide: The impact of

societal culture on organizations around the globe. London: Penguin.
Ho, D. Y. (1976). On the concept of face. American Journal of Psychology, 81, 867–
884.
Ho, S. S., Chen, V. H., & Sim, C. C. (2013). The spiral of silence: Examining how
cultural predispositions, news attention, and opinion congruency relate to
opinion expression. Asian Journal of Communication, 23(2), 113–134. doi:10.
1080/01292986.2012.725178.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in
work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institu-
tions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed., pp. 79–123). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural
roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 5–21.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G., & Minkov, J. M. (2010). Cultures and organizations:
Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hon, A. Y., Lu, L., & Chan, W. H. (2015). Does cultural value exacerbate or
mitigate the effect of perceived compensation gap between locals and expatriates
in hotel industry? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 48, 83–91.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.12.006
Hon, A. H., & Lu, L. (2016). When will the trickle-down effect of abusive
supervision be alleviated? The moderating roles of power distance and traditional
cultures. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 57(4), 421–433.
Hon, A. H., Yang, J., & Lu, L. (2011). A cross-level study of procedural justice
perceptions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(8), 700–715.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.).
(2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies.
Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Humborstad, S. W., Humborstad, B., Whitfield, R., & Perry, C. (2008).
Implementation of empowerment in Chinese high power-distance organiza-
tions. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(7), 1349–
1364. doi:10.1080/09585190802110224.
Hutchby, I. (2008). Participants’ orientations to interruptions, rudeness and other
impolite acts in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Politeness Research: Language,
Behavior, Culture, 4(2), 221–241.
Hwang, A. S. (2003). Training strategies in the management of knowledge.
Journal of knowledge management, 7(3), 92–104.
190 R.S. MERKIN

Hwang, A., & Francesco, A. M. (2010). The influence of individualism–

collectivism and power distance on use of feedback channels and consequences
for learning. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9(2), 243–257.
Ino, S. M., & Glicken, M. D. (2002). Understanding and treating the ethnically
Asian client: A collectivist approach. Journal of Health and Social Policy, 14(4), 37.
Jain, A. K. (2015). An interpersonal perspective to study silence in Indian
organizations. Personnel Review, 44(6), 1010–1036. doi:10.1108/PR-12-2013-
0220.
Javidan, M., De Luque, M. S., House, R. J., Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., &
Javidan, M. (2006a). Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their
consequences: A comparative review of GLOBE’s and Hofstede’s approaches.
Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 897–914.
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., De Luque, M. S., & House, R. J. (2006b). In the eye
of the beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE. The
Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 67–90.
Javidan, M., & House, R. J. (2001). Cultural acumen for the global manager:
Lessons from project GLOBE. Organizational Dynamics, 29(4), 289–305.
Jaw, B. S., Ling, Y. H., Yu-Ping Wang, C., & Chang, W. C. (2007). The impact of
culture on Chinese employees’ work values. Personnel Review, 36(1), 128–144.
Jiang, Y., Colakoglu, S., Lepak, D. P., Blasi, J. R., & Kruse, D. L. (2015).
Involvement work systems and operational effectiveness: Exploring the moder-
ating effect of national power distance. Journal of International Business Studies,
46(3), 332–354.
Kant, L., Skogstad, A., Torsheim, T., & Einarsen, S. (2013). Beware the angry
leader: Trait anger and trait anxiety as predictors of petty tyranny. The Leadership
Quarterly, 24(1), 106–124.
Keil, M., Im, G. P., & Mähring, M. (2007). Reporting bad news on software
projects: The effects of culturally constituted views of face-saving. Information
Systems Journal, 17(1), 59–87. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2006.00235.x.
Kim, T. Y., & Leung, K. (2007). Forming and reacting to overall fairness: A
cross-cultural comparison. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 104(1), 83–95.
Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J. L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009).
Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational
leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management
Journal, 52(4), 744–764.
Koc, E. (2013). Power distance and its implications for upward communication and
empowerment: Crisis management and recovery in hospitality services. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(19), 3681–3696.
Lee, F. (1993). Being polite and keeping MUM: How bad news is communicated
in organizational hierarchies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23(14), 1124–
1149.
 7 POWER DISTANCE, RECEIVER FACEWORK, INNOVATION … 191

Leung, K. (2001). Different carrots for different rabbits: Effects of individualism–

collectivism and power distance on work motivation. In M. Erez, U. Kleinbeck,
H. Thierry, M. Erez, U. Kleinbeck, & H. Thierry (Eds.), Work motivation in the
context of a globalizing economy (pp. 329–339). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Li, S. T. K. (1999). Management development in international companies in China.
Education and Training, 41(6/7), 331–335.
Li, J., & Harrison, J. R. (2008). National culture and the composition and leadership
structure of boards of directors. Corporate Governance: An International Review,
16(5), 375–385. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8683.2008.00697.x.
Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. (2012). Does power distance exacerbate or
mitigate the effects of abusive supervision? It depends on the outcome. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 107.
Lin, W., Wang, L., & Chen, S. (2013). Abusive supervision and employee
well-being: The moderating effect of power distance orientation. Applied
Psychology, 62(2), 308–329.
Liu, L. A., Friedman, R., Barry, B., Gelfand, M. J., & Zhang, Z. X. (2012). The
dynamics of consensus building in intracultural and intercultural negotiations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(2), 269–304.
Liu, S., & Liao, J. (2013). Transformational leadership and speaking up: Power
distance and structural distance as moderators. Social Behavior and Personality,
41(10), 1747–1756. doi:10.2224/sbp.2013.41.10.1747.
Loi, R., Lam, L. W., & Chan, K. W. (2012). Coping with job insecurity: The role
of procedural justice, ethical leadership and power distance orientation. Journal
of Business Ethics, 108(3), 361–372.
Lucas, L. M. (2006). The role of culture on knowledge transfer: the case of the
multinational corporation. The Learning Organization, 13(3), 257–275.
Luthar, H. K., & Luthar, V. K. (2007). A Theoretical framework explaining
cross-cultural sexual harassment: Integrating Hofstede and Schwartz. Journal of
Labor Research, 28(1), 169–188.
Mak, W. W. S., Chen, S. X., Lam, A. G., & Yiu, V. F. L. (2009). Understanding
distress: The role of face concern among Chinese Americans, European
Americans, Hong Kong Chinese, and Mainland Chinese. The Counseling
Psychologist, 37(2), 219–248.
Mangi, N. (2011). Convoys and Patdowns: A Day at the Office in Pakistan.
Bloomberg Businessweek, (4239), 11–13.
Marcoulides, G. A., Yavas, B. F., Bilgin, Z., & Gibson, C. B. (1998). Reconciling
culturalist and rationalist approaches: Leadership in the United States and
Turkey. Thunderbird International Business Review, 40(6), 563–583.
Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness
phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 403–426.
192 R.S. MERKIN

McGuire, C., Kristman, V. L., Shaw, W., Williams-Whitt, K., Reguly, P., &
Soklaridis, S. (2015). Supervisor autonomy and considerate leadership style are
associated with supervisors’ likelihood to accommodate back injured workers.
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 25(3), 589–598.
Merkin, R. S. (2000). A cross-cultural examination of facework communication: An
application of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions.
Merkin, R. S. (2006). Power distance and facework strategies. Journal of
Intercultural Communication Research, 35(2), 139–160.
Merkin, R. S. (2008). The impact of sexual harassment on turnover intentions,
absenteeism, and job satisfaction: Findings from Argentina, Brazil and Chile.
Journal of International Women’s Studies, 10(2), 73.
Merkin, R. S. (2009). South American perspectives on sexual harassment: The
standpoint in Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. Journal of Behavioral and Applied
Management, 10(3), 357–376.
Merkin, R. S., & Ramadan, R. (2010). Facework in Syria and the United States: A
cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34
(6), 661–669. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.05.006.
Merkin, R. S., & Shah, M. K. (2014). The impact of sexual harassment on job
satisfaction, turnover intentions, and absenteeism: Findings from Pakistan
compared to the United States. SpringerPlus, 3, 215–227. doi: 10.1186/2193-
1801-3-215.
Merkin, R., Taras, V., & Steel, P. (2014). State of the art themes in cross-cultural
communication research: A systematic and meta-analytic review. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 38, 1–23.
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of
employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why.
Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1453–1476. doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.
00387.
Miron-Spektor, E., Paletz, S., & Lin, C. C. (2014, January). Abide, push back or
challenge? Face loss and creativity in face, dignity and honor cultures. In
Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2014, No. 1, p. 12720). Academy of
Management.
Mitchell, R. K., Smith, B., Seawright, K. W., & Morse, E. A. (2000). Cross-cultural
cognitions and the venture creation decision. Academy of Management Journal,
43(5), 974–993.
Moran, R. T., Abramson, N. R., & Moran, S. V. (2014). Managing cultural
differences. London: Routledge.
Morisaki, S., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1994). Face in Japan and the United States.
In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The challenge of facework (pp. 47–94). Albany: State
University of New York Press.
 7 POWER DISTANCE, RECEIVER FACEWORK, INNOVATION … 193

Morley, L., Sorhaindo, A., & Burke, P. J. (2005). Researching women: An

annotated bibliography on gender equity in commonwealth higher education.
London: Institute of Education-London.
Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for
future research. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412.
Mudambi, R., Mudambi, S. M., & Navarra, P. (2007). Global innovation in
MNCs: The effects of subsidiary self-determination and teamwork. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 24(5), 442–455.
Mulki, J. P., Caemmerer, B., & Heggde, G. S. (2015). Leadership style,
salesperson’s work effort and job performance: The influence of power distance.
Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 35(1), 3–22. doi:10.1080/
08853134.2014.958157.
Noureen, G., & Awan, R. (2011). Women’s education in Pakistan: Hidden fences
on open Frontiers. Asian Social Science, 7(2), 79–87.
Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Masumoto, T., Yokochi, Y., Pan, X., Takai, J., &
Wilcox, R. (2001). Face and facework in conflict: A cross-cultural comparison of
China, Germany, Japan, and the United States. Communication Monographs, 68
(3), 235–258.
Peltokorpi, V., & Clausen, L. (2011). Linguistic and cultural barriers to
intercultural communication in foreign subsidiaries. Asian Business and
Management, 31, 923–1292. doi:10.1057/abm.2011.20.
Pongpearchan, P. (2016). Effect of transformational leadership and high perfor-
mance work system on job motivation and task performance: Empirical evidence
from business schools of Thailand universities. Journal of Business and Retail
Management Research, 10(3), 93–105.
Rau, P. L. P., Liu, J., Juzek, C., & Nowacki, C. R. (2013). Fostering job
satisfaction and motivation through power distance: A study of German
expatriates’ leadership in China. Global Business and Management Research, 5
(4), 161.
Reingold, J. (2008, November 19). Secrets of their success: What separates the
legendary CEO from the chronically dissatisfied cubicle dweller? Fortune
Magazine. Retrieved from: http://archive.fortune.com/2008/11/11/news/
companies/secretsofsuccess_gladwell.fortune/index.htm.
Ricks, D. A. (2006). Blunders in international business. Malden, MA: Wiley.
Rinne, T., Steel, G. D., & Fairweather, J. (2012). Hofstede and Shane revisited the
role of power distance and individualism in national-level innovation success.
Cross-Cultural Research, 46(2), 91–108.
Robert, C., Probst, T. M., Martocchio, J. J., Drasgow, F., & Lawler, J. J. (2000).
Empowerment and continuous improvement in the United States, Mexico,
Poland, and India: Predicting fit on the basis of the dimensions of power
distance and individualism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 643–658.
194 R.S. MERKIN

Sagie, A., Mainiero, L. A., & Koslowsky, M. (2000). Participation and empow-
erment in organizations: Modeling, effectiveness, and applications. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Samovar, L. A., Porter, R. E., & McDaniel, E. R. (2009). Intercultural
communication: A reader. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
Savage, M. (2007). The effects of self-construal and perceptions of power distance
on communication apprehension and argumentativeness. In Annual meeting of
the national communication association, Chicago, IL.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions
of values. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work.
Applied Psychology, 48(1), 23–47.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (1994). Face parameters in East-West discourse. In S.
Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The challenge of facework (pp. 133–158). Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Shane, S. A. (1992). Why do some societies invent more than others? Journal of
Business Venturing, 7(1), 29–46.
Shane, S. (1993). Cultural influences on national rates of innovation. Journal of
Business Venturing, 8(1), 59–73.
Shao, R., Rupp, D. E., Skarlicki, D. P., & Jones, K. S. (2013). Employee justice
across cultures: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 39, 263–301.
Sharma, B. (2003). Hofstede’s measures of national culture and social progress.
Psychological Reports, 92(3), 1199–1202.
Silverthorne, C. P. (2005). Organizational psychology in cross cultural perspective.
New York: NYU Press.
Sinha, J. B. P. (1980). The nurturant task leader. New Delhi: Concept.
Sinha, D. (1988). Basic Indian values and behavior dispositions in the context of
national development: An appraisal. In D. Sinha & H. S. R. Kao (Eds.). Social
values and development: Asian perspectives (pp. 31–55).
Stohl, C. (1993). European manager’s interpretations of participation: A semantic
network analysis. Human Communication Research, 20, 97–117.
Strelan, P. (2007). The prosocial, adaptive qualities of just world beliefs:
Implications for the relationship between justice and forgiveness. Personality
and Individual Differences, 43(4), 881–890.
Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the impact of culture’s
consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s
cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 405.
Tata, J. (2000). Autonomous work teams: An examination of cultural and
structural constraints. Work study, 49(5), 187–193.
Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C., & Hua, W. (2009).
Abusive supervision, intentions to quit, and employees’ workplace deviance:
 7 POWER DISTANCE, RECEIVER FACEWORK, INNOVATION … 195

A power/dependence analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 109(2), 156–167.
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis,
and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261–289.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B.
Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213–235).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory.
In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication
(pp. 71–92). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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.
Van Der Vegt, G. S., Van de Vliert, E., & Huang, X. (2005). Location-level links
between diversity and innovative climate depend on national power distance.
Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1171–1182.
Wang, K. Y., & Fang, Y. (2009). Face values on trust in loyalty and empowerment: A
study of managers in China’s public sector. Paper presented at the 23rd ANZAM
conference, Melbourne, Australia, 1–17.
Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2005). The psychology of culture shock.
London: Routledge.
Wheeler, K. G. (2002). Cultural values in relation to equity sensitivity within and
across cultures. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(7), 612–627. doi: 10.
1108/02683940210444067.
Xu, H., & Van de Vliert, E. (2004). A Multilevel Approach to Investigating
Cross-National Differences in Negotiation Processes. International Negotiation,
9(3), 471–484. doi:10.1163/1571806053498724.
Yang, J., Mossholder, K. W., & Peng, T. K. (2007). Procedural justice climate and
group power distance: An examination of cross-level interaction effects. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 681.
Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The
role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management
Journal, 53(2), 323–342.
Yuan, F., & Zhou, J. (2015). Effects of cultural power distance on group creativity
and individual group member creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36
(7), 990–1007. doi:10.1002/job.2022.
Zhang, Q. (2005). Immediacy, humor, power distance, and classroom commu-
nication apprehension in Chinese college classrooms. Communication
Quarterly, 53(1), 109–124.
 CHAPTER 8

Uncertainty Avoidance, Face-Saving,

and Organizations

The owners of an American retail store, Mr. Georges and his wife, went to
Belgium to try to pitch their US-based jewelry line to the owner of a large
department store in Belgium, Mr. Peeters and his wife. While Mr. Georges
wore a classic navy blue suit and red tie, Mrs. Georges wore an orange
Versace blouse with a royal blue mini skirt with heavy jewelry to highlight
her stylishness. The couples set up a lunch meeting in an upscale restaurant
in Brussels. Somehow the Georges got lost and showed up 20 min late to
the restaurant. When they arrived, Mrs. Georges giggled and loudly
explained how they went to the same street in a different neighborhood.
The Peeters stood up and shook hands with the Georges. They had already
ordered drinks, so to join them, Mr. Georges signaled the waiter by
snapping his fingers, called out “excuse me,” and ordered drinks for him
and his wife. He proceeded by asking Mr. Peeters to tell him about himself.
Mr. Peeters handed Mr. Georges his business card and Mr. Georges put
the card in his jacket breast pocket. Mr. Georges handed Mr. Peeters his
business card as well and asked what he would need to do to market his
jewelry in Belgium. Mr. Peeters responded by asking specific questions
relating to the details of Mr. Georges’ jewelry line. Mr. and Mrs. Georges
could not understand why the Peeters’ were so cold. They apologized for
being late but did not understand why the Peeters could not “get over it.”
Belgium is known as a country with a high uncertainty avoidance
(Hofstede, 2001). Uncertainty avoidance is the extent to which the
members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations.
(Hofstede, 1991, p. 167). It is important to know the ramifications of this

© The Author(s) 2018 197

R.S. Merkin, Saving Face in Business,
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59174-6_8
198 R.S. MERKIN

cultural dimension. Unfortunately, the Georges were unaware that they

needed to prepare appropriate intercultural communication strategies to
effectively carry out the business at hand (Shaw, 2015). Understanding
how to appropriately conduct themselves with the Peeters, given their high
uncertainty avoidance, would likely have helped Mr. Georges consolidate
his business deal. Individuals from cultures with a high uncertainty
avoidance first try to reduce uncertainty (in this case of the risks associated
with meeting new people from a different culture who were strangers in
many senses) before attempting to conduct business. Uncertainty is a
diffuse feeling with no probability attached to it as in the case of anxiety. To
reduce uncertainty, people with high uncertainty avoidance take measures
upfront such as ritualistic behaviors and customs to escape from being
confronted with ambiguity (Hofstede, 2001; Merkin, 2006). This is
because uncertainty causes anxiety in those from high uncertainty avoid-
ance cultures so that they first attempt to alleviate the anxiety so they feel
comfortable enough to focus on conducting business. Ritualistic com-
munication is often used to reduce uncertainty because it is predictable and
therefore secure.
For example, Belgians, like others who have a high uncertainty avoid-
ance, take punctuality for business meetings very seriously. Consequently,
they expect people to call with an explanation if they are delayed. For
business meetings, men generally wear dark suits and ties and women tend
to dress conservatively. Additionally, Belgians do not flaunt wealth or speak
loudly in public. Mrs. Georges attire and demeanor was embarrassing to
her hosts not only because it attracted attention to them but also because
she was not following the rules of behavior that the Peeters’ were familiar
with. High uncertainty avoiding cultures are more formal in their dealings
in business and with strangers (Giebels, Oostinga, Taylor, & Curtis, 2016).
Thus, given that it is considered impolite to snap ones’ fingers in Belgium,
Mr. George’s behavior and the volume with which he spoke to the waiter
was even more embarrassing to their hosts. Presenting business cards upon
meeting is a ritual expected to be carried out in Belgium as well. While Mr.
Georges did present his card, he should not have placed Mr. Peeter’s card
in his pocket. Belgians have a custom to socialize for a short period of time
before they get down to business at meetings; so it was not appropriate for
Mr. Georges to immediately ask about what he would need to do to
market his jewelry in Belgium. In Belgium, initial meetings are generally for
getting acquainted and developing trust and people are used to their
business meetings being formal (Giebels et al., 2016). Finally, Belgians
 8 UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE, FACE-SAVING, AND ORGANIZATIONS 199

appreciate clear details about the issues they address before finalizing a
business deal because details help to reduce uncertainty. This example
illustrates the pitfalls of many encounters between business partners from
cultures with different uncertainty avoidance levels. In this chapter, we will
explore how the need to reduce uncertainty first before proceeding with
business is common among those from cultures high in uncertainty
avoidance. When those from high uncertainty avoidance cultures reduce
uncertainty before receiving communication, they can subsequently
respond without feeling the aggression that results from anxiety induced by
their feelings of uncertainty.

UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE OVERVIEW

Uncertainty avoidance is the degree to which members of a particular
culture feel threatened by ambiguity and to avoid these apprehensions,
establish definite plans, structure, rules, or rituals, to reduce uncertainty.
Rituals are collective activities that are theoretically superfluous but, within
a specific culture, socially indispensable (Hofstede, 1994). Uncertainty
avoidance is a reactive communication strategy as depicted in the facework
model (see Fig. 8.1). Given that members of high uncertainty avoiding
cultures feel a strong need to reduce uncertainty, they require a certain
degree of assurance that they can trust other interactants so that they can
reduce their high stress levels. (Hofstede, 1983; Irani & Oswald, 2009).
Their high level of stress (Altuntas, Demir, & Noyan, 2016; Minkov &
Hofstede, 2014) is often accompanied by neuroticism (Hofstede &
McCrae, 2004), negative affect (or emotion) (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004),
anxiety and aggression (Hofstede, 1983; Irani & Oswald, 2009), and
dissatisfaction in general (Metters & Marucheck, 2007; Minkov &
Hofstede, 2014; Reimann, Lünemann, & Chase, 2008; Van Birgelen, de
Ruyter, de Jong, & Wetzels, 2002). They also show less tolerance and
acceptance of unclear situations, less acceptance of dissent, and express a
strong need for consensus, clarity, and structure (Reimann et al., 2008).
One way those from high uncertainty avoiding cultures deal with face
threats is by using aggressive dominating facework (Merkin, 2006). For
example, research shows that Koreans, who have a high uncertainty
avoidance, are more likely to use dominating facework when threatened by
face threats than their American counterparts who have a low uncertainty
avoidance (Cho & Sillars, 2015).
200 R.S. MERKIN

ENVIRONMENT AND OTHER PARTIES

LONG TERM ORIENTATION

EXPECTIONS / RESPONSES

C
TI
IS
UAL
T
RI Y
ON
RM
HA

INDIVIDUALISTIC COLLECTIVISTIC

COOPERATIVE
AGGRESSION
FACE DIRECT /
INDIRECT
MASCULINE FEMININE
STRATEGIES

SHORT TERM ORIENTATION

ENVIRONMENT AND OTHER PARTIES

Fig. 8.1 Facework model: receiver facework: power distance and uncertainty
avoidance

In response to face threats, those from high uncertainty avoiding cul-

tures are more likely to throw a fit if they are not given the information
they need to function while those from low uncertainty avoiding cultures
consider the unbridled expression of emotion to be “babyish”, “hysteri-
cal”, “mentally dysfunctional”, or other derisive labels because “losing it” is
taboo. To alleviate the strong emotions they feel (Hofstede, 1980, 2001;
Reimann et al., 2008) as well as to assure security and avoid threats,
members of high uncertainty avoidance cultures establish and cling to
structure, rules, and rituals (Hofstede, 2001; Merkin, 2006; Merkin &
 8 UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE, FACE-SAVING, AND ORGANIZATIONS 201

Ramadan, 2010; Minkov & Hofstede, 2014). For example, Gudykunst,

Ting-Toomey, and Chua (1988) found that those with a high uncertainty
avoidance tend to express themselves by using elaborate instead of succinct
communication styles. This particular communication pattern reflects the
greater emotional expression found in high uncertainty avoiding cultures.
High uncertainty avoiding national cultures include Austria, Belgium,
Brazil, Chile, Greece, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Pakistan, Turkey, and
Venezuela.
On the flip side, (Hofstede, 1980, 2001) identified a number of national
cultures with low uncertainty avoidance including Denmark, Hong Kong,
Ireland, Jamaica, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, which are charac-
terized by cultural members with greater trust (Merkin, 2006; Merkin, &
Ramadan, 2010; Smith, 2015), openness (De Jong, Smeets, & Smits,
2006), acquiescence, and receptiveness to influence (Smith et al., 2016).
Other characteristics of low uncertainty avoiding cultures include less
showing of emotions, low levels of stress, anxiety, and aggressive behavior,
greater tolerance and acceptance of uncertain situations, and a tendency to
be able to deal with situations that deviate from the norm (Hofstede, 1980,
2001; Riemann et al., 2008). Those with a low uncertainty avoidance tend
to have greater tolerance for behaviors or opinions different from their own
and consequently do not need to emphasize rules or impose the structures
that create greater predictability. They are also inclined to be more
accepting of mistakes and failures.
Although uncertainty avoidance has not been frequently validated,
Hofstede and McCrae (2004), conducted such a replication using associ-
ations between Hofstede’s national culture scores and national means on
McCrae’s (2002) Big Five personality indices, thereby establishing con-
struct validity for the construct. Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) uncertainty
avoidance dimension was also verified and replicated across nationally
representative samples from Europe (Minkov & Hofstede, 2014). Of the
dimensions identified in Hofstede’s (2001) model of culture, uncertainty
avoidance has received the least consideration in cross-cultural literature
(Merkin, Taras, & Steel, 2014) but this cultural dimension is important in
understanding how those from high uncertainty avoiding cultures manage
face given their proclivity to aggressiveness when feeling threatened.
Uncertainty avoidance has also been conceptualized by GLOBE
researchers as the extent to which members seek orderliness, consistency,
structure, formalized procedures, and laws to govern situations in their
daily lives (Sully de Luque & Javidan, 2004, p. 603). Although this seems
202 R.S. MERKIN

similar to Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) conceptualization of this cultural

dimension, based on their questionnaire instrument, GLOBE’s concep-
tualization of uncertainty avoidance instead resembles the cultural trait of
“rule-orientation” (Minkov & Hofstede, 2014; Shi, 2016; Venaik &
Brewer, 2010). Much confusion has resulted by the alternative concep-
tualizations of uncertainty avoidance promulgated by Hofstede (2001) and
House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, and Gupta (2004), which yield scores
that are negatively correlated with one another (de Mooij, 2013; Minkov
& Hofstede, 2014; Smith, 2015). As a result, to avoid conceptual confu-
sion, only studies correlating with Hofstede’s conceptualization of uncer-
tainty avoidance will be addressed here with regard to the facework model
description.

UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE AND FACEWORK

According to Hofstede (2001), cultural dimensions are the shared
assumptions that vary from culture to culture. The assumption is that
people who grow up in the same place will share similar views about what is
appropriate in everyday communication. So, while it does not occur to US
Americans to mask or to be embarrassed by a whole range of social cus-
toms, to people from high uncertainty avoiding cultures, exposure during
initiation formalities or other stylized rituals surrounded with special
sanctions can be extremely face-threatening (Lynd, 1958). To people from
these cultures, such face-threatening situations arouse a need to utilize
facework reflecting their high uncertainty avoidance. In turn, they strictly
adhere to scripts, such as rituals.
Uncertainty avoidance influences how communication receivers inter-
pret whether a sender’s message is a violation of face (Merkin, 2006).
Receivers with high uncertainty avoidance perceive others’ messages
through a filter. First, they reduce uncertainty, then they attend to the
message. If there is too much initial uncertainty present, they will not be
able to focus on the message at all because of the distraction caused by
uncertainty (Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Merkin, 2006). Therefore, it is nec-
essary for those from high uncertainty avoiding cultures to reduce uncer-
tainty before moving on to concentrate on the business at hand.
In the situation described at the beginning of this chapter, the Peeters’
were forced to respond to what they perceived as an embarrassing public
display of inappropriateness. Ting-Toomey (2005) maintains that one’s
face becomes particularly significant in situations where uncertainty is high,
 8 UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE, FACE-SAVING, AND ORGANIZATIONS 203

as in communicating with strangers, where the character of the commu-

nicators might be called into question. Accordingly, the Peeters’ felt anx-
iety bordering on aggression because their face was threatened and they
could not control the demeanor and communication of their potential
business partners (Hofstede, 1980, 2001). When anxiety replaces basic
trust in the way of life of one’s social group or in one’s place in it, one’s
sense of identity can be undermined (Lynd, 1958). Hence, one’s social
group and its corresponding communication rituals take on a great
importance to those with a high uncertainty avoidance. This is because the
violation of social communication rules could possibly lead to a loss of face.
For example, in high uncertainty avoiding cultures, people pay particular
attention to fashion and grooming in order to feel protected when facing a
threatening world (de Mooij, 1998; de Mooij & Hofstede, 2002). In the
case of Belgium, conservative dress is fashionable. A person who is dressed
fashionably will feel protected because being fashionable is always looked
upon as being acceptable. As long as one’s appearance is fashionable, one is
protected from painful reflections that might otherwise be experienced
when becoming an object of attention in interactions (Simmel, 1957).
Thus, loud clothing, as worn by Mrs. Georges, took away the “protection”
of fitting in, leaving the Peeters feeling like they lacked control (Table 8.1).
During an interaction to establish control, members of high uncertainty
avoiding cultures aim to impart their communication rules or rituals

Table 8.1 Uncertainty avoidance scores by country

Country Uncertainty avoidance Country Uncertainty avoidance

Greece 112 Italy 75

Russia 95 Pakistan 70
Belgium 94 Germany 65
Japan 92 Iran 59
Argentina 86 Netherlands 53
Chile 86 United States 46
France 86 United Kingdom 35
South Korea 85 Hong Kong 29
Turkey 85 Sweden 29
Mexico 82 Singapore 8

Scores range from 0 to 120 with higher scores indicating more uncertainty avoidance
Geert Hofstede, Gert Jan Hofstede, Michael Minkov, “Cultures and Organizations, Software of the
Mind”, Third revised edition, McGraw Hill 2010, ISBN 0-07-166418-1. ©Geert Hofstede B.V. quoted
with permission
204 R.S. MERKIN

explicitly to prevent the other actor from engaging in unpredictable

communication that might be face-threatening. This explains why a high
uncertainty avoidance is positively related to both sensitivity and
face-saving concerns (Merkin et al., 2014). Research also shows that high
versus low uncertainty avoiding culture members tend to use more ritu-
alistic and aggressive strategies and fewer harmonious facework strategies
during embarrassing situations (Merkin, 2006). Thus, given how hard it is
for members of high uncertainty avoiding cultures to control their emo-
tions, before enacting aggression strategies, they try to carry out ritualistic
strategies such as shaking hands and exchanging business cards. As
(Hofstede, 1980, 2001) pointed out, rituals like these allow individuals to
feel that they are in control. Ritualistic facework strategies are repetitive
actions that create predictability in interactions (Merkin, & Ramadan,
2010). Ritualistic facework is primarily used during greetings and leave
taking, though depending on the cultural mores, can be used for meetings
and ceremonies of various kinds. Moreover, particularly when a relation-
ship is new and perceived as stressful, negotiators with a high uncertainty
avoidance also tend to have a higher need for predictable ritualistic com-
munication (Merkin, 2006).
Culture members with a high uncertainty avoidance have a strong need
for clarity (Hofstede, 2001). In fact, high uncertainty avoidance is reflected
in a direct communication style that leaves little room for ambiguity
(Earley, 1997). Clear low-context or explicit messages are characterized by
spelling things out (Hall, 1976). ‘‘There is a natural tendency to feel a kind
of security by a language of signs whose meaning does not alter’’ (Lynd,
1958, p. 118). High uncertainty avoiding people fear communication that
includes free verbal play with its inevitable risks of misunderstanding.
Without the armor of verbal specificity, individuals with high uncertainty
avoidance cannot feel secure in their beliefs (Joost, 1952). Because high
uncertainty avoiding cultures have formal rules for interaction (Gudykunst
et al., 1988), their motivation to control communication to avoid
face-threatening uncertainty is often translated into behavior attempting to
endorse explicit predictable ritualistic practices. Thus, findings indicate that
members of high uncertainty avoiding cultures are more likely to com-
municate ceremonially than members of low uncertainty avoiding cultures
(Merkin, 2006). For example, in critical police-civilian interactions where
negotiators have to get a criminal to stand down, German negotiators who
were high on uncertainty avoidance were found to be more successful
responding to perpetrators because they communicated more explicitly;
 8 UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE, FACE-SAVING, AND ORGANIZATIONS 205

they were more likely to legitimize their position with reference to law,
procedures, and moral codes (giving specific criteria) and used more formal
language than their low uncertainty avoiding Dutch counterparts (Giebels
et al., 2016). Somehow, stability seems to go along with reducing uncer-
tainty. This may be because of the relationship between uncertainty and
cultural tightness, a cultural-level concept analyzed below (Uz, 2015).

UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE AND STABILITY: TIGHTNESS,

MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO, AND NORMS,
ORGANIZATIONAL RITUALS, FORMALIZATION,
AND LEADERSHIP

Uncertainty Avoidance and Tightness

Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance dimension has inspired some analogous
research on cultural differences among cultures as to the extent to which
they are tight or loose. Although tightness—the extent to which a society is
characterized by strong social norms and low tolerance for deviant behavior
(Chua, Roth, & Lemoine, 2015)—is distinct from high uncertainty
avoidance (r = 0.32; Gelfand et al., 2011), tightness versus looseness has
similarities that cause it to be related to uncertainty avoidance (Minkov &
Hofstede, 2014). Although, in many cases tight societies may be higher on
uncertainty avoidance, it is also possible that the converse is true. Gelfand
et al. (2011) point out that because tight societies have many strong
norms, stress deriving from uncertainty may be dramatically reduced
amongst its citizens. Singapore, for example, is expected to be tight, yet it
ranked lowest on Hofstede’s index of uncertainty avoidance (Gelfand et al.,
2011).
In tight cultures, norms are explicit and strictly enforced. Individuals are
required to follow group values, and tolerance for deviation is negligible
(Uz, 2015). Similar to high uncertainty avoiding cultures, tight cultures
guard the status quo and promote a prevention orientation towards
innovation (Aktas, Gelfand, & Hanges, 2016; Gelfand, Nishii, & Raver,
2006). As a result, tight cultures tend to be homogeneous with respect to
specific attitudes and behaviors. In fact, tightness has even been termed
homogeneous (Carpenter, 2000). Triandis (1989) theorized that culturally
loose societies are more heterogeneous and therefore more tolerant of
deviant behavior. Heterogeneous groups have, by definition, more
206 R.S. MERKIN

variability so there is a lot of variation among in-group members. Since

rejecting an in-group member is painful, more slack is awarded when there
is greater dissimilarity. However, tight cultures have more rules, norms,
and standards for correct behavior. For example, there are strict rules about
how to greet others, smile, or bow (Chan, 1996; Uz, 2015).
On the other hand, loose cultures have fewer rules, norms, or standards
altogether. Organizations that purposefully use diversity strategies in loose
cultures are more likely to develop unique organizational cultures (Lee &
Kramer, 2016). However, in tight cultures when people do not follow
rules, when norms are broken, or standards are ignored, they are likely to
be criticized, punished, or even killed (as in the case of Taliban honor
killings in Pakistan). Tighter cultures are less likely than looser cultures to
tolerate deviance from the national culture surrounding them.
Additionally, the interplay between national and organizational cultures
result in greater constraining forces of national culture over organizational
culture in tighter cultures than in looser ones (Lee & Kramer, 2016). In
loose cultures, however, people are less likely to care about national,
organizational, or social norms. Tightness requires agreement about norms
(Triandis, 2004). This is more likely when a culture is isolated, so that it is
not influenced by encroaching cultures. Furthermore, cultural homo-
geneity is necessary for a culture to be tight. Finally, in cultures with a high
population density, tightness is particularly useful, since it helps regulate
behavior so that people do the “right” thing at the right time and can thus
interact smoothly and with little interpersonal conflict and few face threats
(Triandis, 2004).
For example, Japan is a tight culture (Gelfand et al., 2011). People in
Japan are often afraid that they will behave unsuitably and then be criti-
cized. In Japan, people feel that getting drunk is particularly helpful to save
face, because when drunk, one can feel at ease and break norms, and
people excuse the inappropriate behaviors (Chan, 1996). Japanese teen-
agers who spend years in the US, which is a moderately loose culture, find
it very difficult to return to Japan, because they are censured for inconse-
quential behaviors such as being too tan (there is more sunshine in the US
than in Japan) or having the “wrong” hairdo (Chan, 1996). One major
problem in Japanese high schools is that young people gang up and bully
fellow students if they have deviated from suitable behavior, such as using
one accent when most students use a different accent (Chan, 1996).
One indicator of tightness levels is the extent to which people wear
more or less the same type of clothing (Triandis, 2004). In some cultures,
 8 UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE, FACE-SAVING, AND ORGANIZATIONS 207

going to a party requires a coat and tie. In the United States, a loose
culture, one can wear a wide range of outfits. Organizational cultures also
differ in terms of tightness (Triandis, 2004). Some companies require a suit
and tie, while others allow their employees to dress more casually, as in the
tech industry. This is similar to how members of high uncertainty avoiding
cultures value being fashionable so as to feel appropriate and reduce the
uncertainty of face threats (de Mooij, 1998; de Mooij & Hofstede, 2002).
Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance is also related to tightness in that
people from cultures high in uncertainty avoidance want structure, to know
how to behave, and to know what makes up the corporate career path they
are on. High uncertainty avoiding employees appreciate predictability
(Hofstede, 2001). For example, research on the trials encountered by
expatriates has found that working in unfamiliar cultural contexts can be
especially daunting (Earley & Ang, 2003).

Uncertainty Reduction and Maintenance of the Status Quo

Predictability is paramount in high uncertainty avoiding cultures
(Hofstede, 1980, 2001). Thus, maintaining the status quo is so important
that studies found that when the future is uncertain, people prefer the
present, and when the present is uncertain, people prefer the future
(Hardisty & Pfeffer, 2016). While holding the expected value of payouts
constant, participants preferred immediate gains and losses if the future was
uncertain, and preferred future gains and losses if the present was uncer-
tain. This pattern of preferences is incompatible with current models of
intertemporal choice, in which people should consistently prefer to have
gains now and losses later. This pattern of uncertainty avoidance is the
driver of these preferences (Hardisty & Pfeffer, 2016). Russia, a country
that has been known for its socialism, strives for equality as well as stability
and predictability of life, as suggested by its high level of uncertainty
avoidance (Gorsuch & Koenker, 2006).
Another example of how uncertainty affects peoples’ mentality is the
case of new technology acceptance. Research shows that individuals in high
uncertainty avoidance cultures have a weaker orientation toward uncertain
venture capital activity (Tran, Nguyen, & Nguyen, 2016) and e-commerce
usefulness (Choi & Geistfeld, 2004), and a negative relationship with
earnings momentum profits (Dou, Truong, & Veeraraghavan, 2016) and
work centrality altogether (Harpaz, Honig, B., & Coetsier, 2003). This is
likely because in high uncertainty avoidance cultures, individuals feel
208 R.S. MERKIN

threatened by unknown or uncertain situations (Hofstede, 1980). This is

why in high uncertainty avoiding cultures, managers tend to be selected
because of their seniority and loyalty to their firm (Earley, 1997). Given
that those with a high uncertainty avoidance have a strong need for pre-
dictability through formal rules and structure in organizations and rela-
tionships (Hofstede, 1980), pressure from supervisors and peers to use a
particular new technological system, for example, requires management to
reduce uncertainty by providing strong evidence indicating how the use of
a computer system is deemed socially desirable and appropriate. Put
another way, social norms are the most influential predictors of innovation
acceptance behavior for individuals with high versus low uncertainty
avoidance (Srite & Karahanna, 2006).

Uncertainty Avoidance, Rules, and Rituals

Hofstede (1991) described uncertainty avoiding societies as societies where
there are many formal laws and informal rules controlling the rights and
duties of employers and employees. There are also many internal rules and
regulations controlling the work process.
Uncertainty avoidance can be expected to predict differences in the
number or strictness of the rules that people will attempt to impose on each
other, but cannot necessarily predict whether individuals will actually
embrace these rules (Minkov & Hofstede, 2014). As described above, in
high uncertainty avoiding societies, motivation is achieved through security
and esteem so that people tend to suppress deviant ideas and behavior
(Hofstede, 1991) and instead try to maintain the familiar status quo
(Aktas, et al., 2016; Ko, Seo, & Jung, 2015). Additionally, high uncer-
tainty avoiding managers are unwilling to take risks in their decision
making. There is a heavy reliance on rules and standard operating proce-
dures and employees tend to specialize (Earley, 1997). While top execu-
tives are said to play a central role in strategic adaptation, evidence suggests
that they are not equally open to organizational change based on cultural
uncertainty avoidance. In turn, in cultures that have a high uncertainty
avoidance, employees will look for clearly defined formal rules and con-
ventions to govern their behavior (Higgs, 1996).
On the other hand, motivation in low uncertainty avoiding cultures is
produced by achievement, esteem, or belongingness, so that there is a
greater tolerance for deviant and innovative ideas as well as behavior
(Hofstede, 1991) because these do not present a threat to face. This is
 8 UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE, FACE-SAVING, AND ORGANIZATIONS 209

because there is a positive relationship between high uncertainty avoidance

and risk perceptions (Kim, Schroeder, & Pennington-Gray, 2016), which
means that those from low uncertainty avoiding cultures perceive differ-
ences to be less of a risk.

Uncertainty Avoidance, Formalization, and Leadership

Cyert and March (1963) contend that organizations deal with uncertainty
in at least two ways: (1) they depend on decision making strategies
emphasizing the immediacy of response (responses versus planning), or
(2) they rely on a negotiated situation emphasizing standardization, tra-
ditions and contracts in order to avoid the uncertainties of the future
(Earley, 1997). In counties with very low uncertainty avoidance, there
seems to be an emotional horror of formal rules. Rules are only established
in cases of absolute necessity. People in such societies pride themselves that
many problems can be solved without formal rules (Hofstede, 1991). For
example, self-directed teams can only exist in a society with a low uncer-
tainty avoidance because team members with a high uncertainty avoidance
would be afraid to violate the status quo to make necessary decisions
through innovation, preferring to conform. In fact, research shows that a
high uncertainty avoidance is negatively related to perceptions that
team-oriented leadership is effective (Cieslewicz, 2016; Minkov &
Hofstede, 2014). On the other hand, following rules can work to increase
ethical decision making as in the case of how accounting supervisors from
cultures high in uncertainty avoidance are less likely to encourage subor-
dinates to collude in manipulating accounting information (Cieslewicz,
2016).
Similar to how the need for control increases the need for ritualism,
those from cultures high in uncertainty avoidance prefer formalization in
their organizational life (Gunkel, Schlaegel, & Taras, V. 2016; Marinescu,
2014) and structure (Montebello, 2003). Uncertainty avoidance includes
the extent to which societal members are programmed to be either com-
fortable (low uncertainty avoidance) or uncomfortable (high uncertainty
avoidance) with unstructured situations (Irani & Oswald, 2009).
Moreover, particularly when a relationship is new and perceived as stressful,
negotiators with a high uncertainty avoidance also tend to have a higher
need for clear structured signals as well as bureaucratic structures (Davis &
Ruhe, 2003; Hofstede, 1991). Uncertainty avoidance, after all, is the
extent to which a society, organization, or group relies on social norms,
210 R.S. MERKIN

rules, and procedures to alleviate unpredictability of future events. Most

people in high uncertainty avoidance cultures lead highly structured lives
with few unexpected events. Indeed, findings show that in high uncertainty
avoiding cultures there is a clear preference for strict laws and regulations
over ambiguity and risk (Hofstede, 1994). For example, the desire to
minimize uncertainty is reflected in the level of performance risk written
into CEO compensation plans (Tosi & Greckhamer, 2004) in that
uncertainty avoidance is negatively related to the proportion of variable
compensation in CEO compensation packages. Additionally, organizations
carry out rituals that include not only celebrations, but also many formal
activities defended on logical grounds such as meetings, memo construc-
tion, and planning systems. Other rituals include the informal ways in
which formal activities are performed such as who is permitted to be late
for meetings, who may speak with whom, and so on (Hofstede, 1994).
This has been borne out by findings that show that a high uncertainty
avoidance is associated with employee preferences for activity standard-
ization (Newburry & Yakova, 2006).
Additionally, institutions in high uncertainty avoiding societies seek
legitimacy within a society by conforming to societal norms and values
(Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Hofstede, Nuijen, Ohayv & Sanders, 1990; Li &
Harrison, 2008). In fact, uncertainty avoidance is associated with formal-
ization generally (Hickson & Pugh, 1995; Hofstede, 1991; Li & Harrison,
2008). In high uncertainty avoidance cultures, societal norms advocate a
partiality for a firm’s leadership structure which would appear to conform
to what is considered to be most legitimate. This means that when a firm’s
CEO is also the chairman of the board, the consolidation of the two most
senior leadership positions expresses a strong message of a recognized
command structure heading the firm and clear-cut decision-making
authority, sending reassuring messages to uncertainty–averse stakeholders
in the society (Boyd, 1995; Li & Harrison, 2008). Therefore, findings
show that firms based in uncertainty avoiding cultures actually are more
likely to have more outside directors on their boards and tend to consol-
idate the CEO and chair positions (Li & Harrison, 2008).
Consolidated leadership is considered a reflection of respected legiti-
mate power. The focus on the status quo explains why in high uncertainty
avoidance cultures, there is a tendency to crush innovation attempts
(Gelfand, et al., 2006), and shun persuasive influence strategies, as well as
 8 UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE, FACE-SAVING, AND ORGANIZATIONS 211

visionary or inspirational leaders (Chua, et al., 2015; Duncan, Green, &

Herrera, 2012), and team leaders (Minkov & Hofstede, 2014), because
what is new is threatening. Moreover, empowering leadership behaviors
contradicts the autocratic and paternalistic management of high-power-
distance-oriented leaders (Offermann & Hellmann, 1997) because, by
definition, empowering actions involve leaders relinquishing their author-
ity. Low uncertainty avoidance leaders tend to have relationships with their
employees that are less formal and closer, while higher-power-distance–
oriented leaders prefer a supervisor–leader uncertainty orientation (Sharma
& Kirkman, 2015). Leader uncertainty avoidance orientation has also been
found to be negatively linked with leader delegation (Offermann &
Hellmann, 1997). Organizations in high uncertainty avoidance cultures,
which are related to high-power distance scores, primarily endorse auto-
cratic leadership styles, which rely more heavily on fear and coercion
(Hofstede 1991; Sidani & Thornberry, 2010). Consequently, their sub-
ordinate relations are more distant, hierarchically ordered, and reserved
(Offermann & Hellmann, 1997). Conservative ideas and logic are more
predictable so that top managers from high uncertainty avoiding cultures
prefer to adhere to existing strategy and leadership profiles (Geletkanycz,
1997). Those who want to innovate in high uncertainty avoiding societies,
however, need to be aware that the more uncertainty avoiding a society is,
the more people prefer champions to work through organizational norms,
rules, and procedures to promote innovation (Shane, Venkataraman, &
MacMillan, 1995). In particular, a high uncertainty avoidance is positively
related to perceptions that autonomous leadership is most effective
(Minkov & Hofstede, 2014).
In keeping with values associated with a high uncertainty avoidance,
organizations in such cultures are characterized by a strong need for rules
and regulations, greater structuring of organizational activities, employee
preference for clear unambiguous instruction from management, less risk‐
taking, intolerance toward deviant ideas and behaviors, and less individual
initiative and responsibility in the workplace (Hofstede, 1980). This is true
for both superiors and subordinates. Subordinate managers of such cul-
tures would most likely prefer to defer to the certainty of rules, procedures,
and leader directives, rather than make key decisions themselves, because
that would require them to accept responsibility for the consequences
(Joiner, 2001). High uncertainty avoidant organizational cultures
212 R.S. MERKIN

emphasize hierarchy over equity in the form of centralized decision mak-

ing, allowing for lower stress levels and higher performance (Joiner, 2001).
Additionally, high uncertainty avoiding managers are afraid of making
decisions and are unwilling to take risks when they do make decisions
(Hofstede, 1991; Joiner, 2001). Instead, they rely on rules and standard
operating procedures while their employees tend to specialize (Earley,
1997). In the case of Arab societies, which are regarded as having a high
degree of uncertainty avoidance, people are not comfortable with ambi-
guity and subordinates are often unwilling to take the initiative (Hofstede,
2001). Leaders whose expertise and knowledge are accepted make deci-
sions and subordinates wait for their authoritarian leader to issue orders
and directions (Sidani & Thornberry, 2010). Indeed, a high uncertainty
avoidance is related to self-protective leadership (Kono, Ehrhart, Ehrhart,
& Schultze, 2012). In the Arab world, for example, leaders treat knowl-
edge as power and hoard it like it is gold (Sidani & Thornberry, 2010).
Societies higher in uncertainty avoidance prefer leaders who place
importance on status, face-saving, and adherence to procedures. With
regard to face-saving in particular, research shows that Chinese managers
were more likely than US managers to rate face-saving tactics such as
compromising, obliging, and integrating through emotional intelligence,
for example (Gunkel et al., 2016) as effective in resolving disagreements
and conflict (Yukl, Fu & McDonald, 2003). High uncertainty avoiding
cultures associate controllability with opportunity and lack of controlla-
bility with threat (Barr & Glynn, 2004). Uncertainty is a diffuse feeling
with no probability attached to it, as in the case of risk (Minkov &
Hofstede, 2014). To reduce uncertainty, people with high uncertainty
avoidance take measures such as ritualistic behaviors and customs to escape
from ambiguity (Hofstede, 2001). For example, business meetings have
their own ritualistic protocols and procedures for conduct, agendas, and
who sits where is determined and habitualized (Earley, 1997). Initiating
ritualistic communication to create predictability or allowing for people to
deal with uncertainty without getting to the point where they lose control,
possibly leading to a loss of face, requires a degree of emotional intelligence
to finesse. If face is preserved, further interactions will be effective.
Otherwise, interactions could evolve into aggression, which is likely to
result if people are not allowed to control the uncertainty they feel (Earley,
1997; Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Merkin et al., 2014).
 8 UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE, FACE-SAVING, AND ORGANIZATIONS 213

UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE AND STRESS

Uncertainty Avoidance, Stress, and Avoidance of Ambiguity

Individuals who are high on uncertainty avoidance find ambiguity stressful,
and instead prefer a rigid code of behaviors and have a low tolerance for
unorthodox behaviors and ideas (Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Merkin, 2006;
Minkov & Hofstede, 2014). Conversely, low uncertainty avoidance-
oriented individuals have more relaxed attitudes and feel more comfortable
with change and ambiguity (Sharma & Kirkman, 2015). It should be
highlighted that ambiguity is the concern (a receiver issue) for pre-
dictability. Consequently, they do what they can to attain a controllable
state so that they can reduce the stress they have from uncertainty.
Receivers with high uncertainty avoidance need to first reduce uncertainty
in order to respond without anxiety and get to a point of civility by, for
example, acting out predictable rituals or scripts and enforcing rules that
enshrine predictable circumstances.
Uncertainty avoidance is not the same as risk avoidance (Frijns, Gilbert,
& Lehnert, 2013). Minkov and Hofstede (2014) posit that risk is to
uncertainty what fear is to anxiety. This is because risk and fear relate to
known acts and objects, whereas uncertainty and anxiety relate to the
unknown. What’s more, high uncertainty avoiding cultures often support
risky behaviors, like speeding and aggressively attacking adversaries
(Hofstede, 2001; Kluch & Vaux, 2015; Nordfjærn & Şimşekoğlu, 2014).
Furthermore, findings indicate that tendencies for uncertainty avoidance
are negatively associated with safety culture, which is also risky (Noort,
Reader, Shorrock, & Kirwan, 2016). A particularly stressful situation for
those from high uncertainty avoiding cultures is having a laissez-faire
manager, because these employees would rather know what is expected of
them and what the consequences of errors or failures will be. Persons from
high uncertainty avoiding national cultures require a certain degree of
assurance and feel particularly high levels of anxiety, nervousness, emo-
tionality, and aggressiveness when not provided with the clear guidance
that they need (Hofstede, 1983; Irani & Oswald, 2009). On the other
hand, low uncertainty avoiding cultures have less stress and anxiety because
they are characterized by a willingness to take risks, a laissez-faire attitude
toward hard work, and a tolerance of behaviors and opinions different from
their own (Hofstede, 1983; Irani & Oswald, 2009). In organizations in
214 R.S. MERKIN

low uncertainty avoiding cultures, rules and regulations are minimized.

Strict policies and procedures are avoided. These cultural members tend to
prefer an environment of fluid ideas and resulting creativity and innovation.
High uncertainty avoiding cultures respond to stress by doing more
than just implementing rules and rituals. If there is no mechanism to defuse
the stress felt by ambiguity, those from high uncertainty avoiding cultures
tend to express their anxious stressful feelings. In fact, those from cultures
high in uncertainty avoidance have a greater propensity to display emo-
tions, and a greater tendency toward aggressive behavior when challenged
(Hofstede, 1980; Merkin, 2006). For example, in the hotel industry, high
uncertainty avoiding customers respond belligerently if they do not get
their expected and reserved room at check-in, and may not accept any
alternate arrangements without aggressive, emotional, and demanding
behavior (Reimann et al., 2008). In such a situation, the service provider
has to consider that the customers’ degree of tolerance is so low that any
deviation from the expected service will routinely lead such a customer to
view the provider as having low service quality and will cause them to be
dissatisfied with the transaction (Reimann et al., 2008). Moreover, high
uncertainty avoidance customers require clear structure as well as accuracy
in the service process (Parasuraman, Berry, & Zeithaml, 1994).

Uncertainty Avoidance, Stress, and Dissatisfaction (Lack of Tolerance)

Those from high uncertainty avoiding societies have a generalized ten-
dency to view their societies in a more negative light than their counter-
parts in low uncertainty avoiding societies (Minkov & Hofstede, 2014). In
the same way, those possessing a high uncertainty avoidance will also have a
greater likelihood to feel dissatisfaction with other matters (Reimann et al.,
2008). In cultures with a great deal of stress and anxiety, such as Japan and
Belgium (Earley, 1997), for example, people tend to consider employing
the use of strict rules that make life more predictable and, hence, less
stressful. In contrast, in low uncertainty avoidance cultures, where there are
low levels of stress and anxiety (Reimann et al., 2008) and a greater tol-
erance for uncertainty, members are relatively more tolerant of different
ideas, approaches, and concepts than what societal norms prescribe (Li &
Harrison, 2008).
 8 UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE, FACE-SAVING, AND ORGANIZATIONS 215

Given that in high uncertainty avoiding societies, the stress and anxiety
cultural members feel makes them hesitant to experience the unknown,
employees are more likely to choose to continue working for a known
employer, even if they dislike their job, rather than undertaking a new job
search (Minkov & Hofstede, 2014). An alternative example of this is the
case of unknown results of joint ventures. Findings indicate that a high
uncertainty avoidance has a negative effect on satisfaction with interna-
tional joint ventures (Pothukuchi, Damanpour, Choi, Chen, & Park,
2002). Finally, research shows that high uncertainty avoiding cultures try
to circumvent uncertain situations by means of rules or rituals (Hofstede
2001). A study involving 303 Spanish, German, and Swedish business-to-
business customers found that clients from cultures with a high degree of
uncertainty avoidance were less satisfied than low uncertainty avoiding
clients when, as a result of a service defect, their service expectations were
not met. Similarly, customers from cultures with a relatively high degree of
uncertainty avoidance do not accept deviations from normal variations as
easily as customers who come from cultures with a relatively low degree of
uncertainty avoidance do. This finding suggests that high uncertainty
avoidance cultures have a narrower range of acceptable outcomes when
dissatisfied (Reimann et al., 2008).
High uncertainty avoidance societies do not readily accept change.
Organizations avoiding uncertainty tend to be more cautious, seeking
security and safety more than perceived risky undertakings. Moreover,
rules, regulations, and policies are established as a wall to guard against
risky behavior (Wood & Wilberger, 2015). This idea that openness is
limited in high uncertainty avoiding cultures can hamper their business
prospects. To be successful, it is necessary for organizations to take sensible
risks as well as to be preemptive (Covin & Lumpkin, 2011; Covin & Slevin,
1989), since risk avoidance during a change in market conditions may
result in a loss of sustainable competitive advantage—or worse—with-
drawal from the market in the middle of a particularly long-run (Covin &
Lumpkin, 2011; Slater & Narver, 1995). In order to promote change in
high uncertainty avoiding organizations, change has to be seen as for the
greater good of the in-group. For organizations with a high uncertainty
avoidance, employees believe that company rules should not be broken,
even when it is shown to be in the company’s best interest. In this respect,
216 R.S. MERKIN

people with high uncertainty avoidance are less likely to experience high
morale at work because they tend not to feel passionate about their job
because of their stress and anxiety. Furthermore, it may be difficult for
them to get in touch with deeper meaning underlying their work and learn
how to appreciate themselves and others at work (Tevichapong, 2012).

Uncertainty Avoidance, Stress, and Anxiety Expressed as Aggression

A high uncertainty avoidance generally indicates higher anxiety and stress
levels, a greater propensity to display emotions, and a tendency toward
aggressive behavior when challenged (Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Merkin,
2006). On the other hand, low uncertainty avoidance refers to character-
istics including a preference for emotional control over emotional out-
bursts, an aversion to aggressive behavior, greater tolerance and acceptance
of diversity and uncertain situations, and a strong belief in general
approaches and common sense. Regarding organizations, uncertainty
avoidance describes the extent to which an organization imbues in its
employees with a tendency to be (or not be) comfortable in situations that
deviate from the norm (Riemann et al., 2008). Uncertainty-accepting
organizations demonstrate more tolerance for behaviors or opinions dif-
ferent from their own. Rules and regulations are minimized. They are also
inclined to be more accepting of mistakes and failures (Riemann et al.,
2008).
Uncertainty-avoiding entities tend to be more emotional, while their
counterparts tend to be more objective and prefer rational problem solving
(Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Riemann, et al., 2008). Their emotionality com-
bined with the fact that they are less likely to plan for the future (Minkov &
Hofstede, 2014) tends to put them in a precarious position with regard to
upholding their face. The paradoxical dialectic of their need for control and
their need to express their anxious emotions sometimes ends up with them
tending to be less humane than their more rational-uncertainty-accepting
counterparts (Minkov & Hofstede, 2014; Riemann et al., 2008). Hofstede
(2001) describes how uncertainty avoidance is associated with negative
affect and general dissatisfaction, which in turn makes it hard to establish
self-control. Consequently, those from high uncertainty avoidance cultures
sometimes give into their anxiety by engaging in aggressive behavior,
which they consider to be acceptable to either reduce anxiety or to save
face (Hofstede, 2001; Merkin, 2006). This can be further evinced by the
finding that uncertainty avoidance is negatively related to openness
 8 UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE, FACE-SAVING, AND ORGANIZATIONS 217

(de Jong et al., 2006). Given the extent to which people from high
uncertainty avoidance cultures try to avoid the resulting chaos from losing
face, they tend to have greater face-saving concerns (Merkin et al., 2014).

UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE AND THE CASE OF SEXUAL

HARASSMENT
Besides how high uncertainty avoidance increases anxiety and may lead to
cultural members being less humane, findings indicate that a high uncer-
tainty avoidance is strongly associated with neuroticism (Allik & McCrae,
2004; Minkov & Hofstede, 2014) and with relativism (Forsyth, O’Boyle Jr.,
& McDaniel, 2008). Additionally, there are negative associations between
uncertainty avoidance and practices of ethics (Christie, Kwon, Stoeberl, &
Baumhart, 2003; Davis, Bernardi, & Bosco, 2015). Finally, employees with
a high degree of uncertainty avoidance are less likely to whistle blow about
sexual harassment (Peek, Roxas, Peek, Robichaud, Salazar, & Codina,
2007). On the other hand, those from nations low on uncertainty avoidance
find it less challenging to engage with others in pro-social actions, either
because social structures are more flexible or because there are fewer reasons
for events to be anxiety-inducing (Smith, 2015).
While anti sexual-harassment rules may be in place in the workplace,
Vitell, Nwachukwu and Barnes (1993, p. 757) point out that “[b]usiness
practitioners in countries that are high in uncertainty avoidance … will be
less likely to perceive ethical problems than business practitioners in
countries that are low in uncertainty avoidance.” Hofstede (1997) observes
that it is common for people in high uncertainty avoidance countries to
engage in risky behavior, like speeding, if the behavior reduces their feel-
ings of nervousness (Hofstede, 2001; Kluch & Vaux, 2015; Nordfjærn &
Şimşekoğlu, 2014). Similarly, findings show that people in high uncer-
tainty avoidance countries will also be more likely to use risky aggressive
communication as opposed to safe harmonious communication when
perceiving a situation to be face-threatening (Merkin, 2006). Sexual
harassment could arguably be a manifestation of this tendency for perpe-
trating risky behavior, for both the perpetrator and the target. Hofstede
(2001) pointed out that uncertainty avoidance is a gnawing feeling that
sometimes leads people to prefer risky communication, such as sexual
aggression, over harmonious communication which is often safer in terms
of the resulting interpersonal ramifications (Merkin, 2009).
218 R.S. MERKIN

Peek et al., (2007) point out that employees from diverse cultures may
have different views of what constitutes sexual harassment and differ in their
views of acceptable responses to the behavior, such as whistle-blowing.
With increased cross-cultural business interactions, differences in percep-
tions of unacceptable business behaviors may arise. The perception of
sexual harassment as an unacceptable behavior, especially in the US, can
become a costly problem. Businesses need to train employees on what
behaviors may be interpreted as sexual harassment, develop sexual harass-
ment policies, and make tools available for employees to report sexual
harassment behaviors (Peek et al., 2007).
Since a primary characteristic of high uncertainty avoiding cultures is
aggressiveness (Hofstede, 1980, 2001), individuals in these societies tend
to be inclined toward aggression when they feel anxious. However, because
those with a high uncertainty avoidance do not tolerate deviant behavior,
aggression is often covertly displayed (Merkin, 2009). One other reason
that aggression is often covertly displayed in high uncertainty avoiding
workplaces is their great sensitivity to face-saving concerns, which causes
them to hide their antisocial behavior.
Therefore, the level of uncertainty avoidance in a national culture tends
to be positively related to the frequency of workplace aggression and
negatively related to the overtness of workplace aggression (Merkin,
2009). That is, the higher the uncertainty avoidance, the greater the
propensity and overtness of workplace aggression, and vice versa.
Practically speaking, multinationals in high uncertainty avoiding cultures
might want to be on the lookout for such problems.

UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE & TRUST

Hofstede (1991) points out that people with a strong need to reduce
uncertainty also tend to be less likely to trust others. Hofstede (2001) and
Kong (2013) found a negative association between uncertainty avoidance
and interpersonal trust. A high degree of perceived uncertainty will be
associated with a high degree of skepticism that the outcome of relation-
ships between people, generally speaking, can be predicted. If the future is
perceived as uncertain, in principle, one cannot be sure that people will
keep their promises and treat each other fairly (Minkov & Hofstede,
2014). Other studies show a low degree of trust in high uncertainty
avoiding societies and a high degree of societal cynicism (Bond et al., 2004;
Hwang & Lee, 2012). The logic of this association is that uncertainty
 8 UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE, FACE-SAVING, AND ORGANIZATIONS 219

avoidance reflects the degree to which different populations worry about

the uncertainty of the future (Minkov & Hofstede, 2014).
Trust is related to taking risks and is a product of peoples’ perception
and evaluation of risks embedded in their surroundings (Colquitt, Scott, &
LePine, 2007; McEvily, 2011). Uncertainty avoidance is related to general
attitudes toward risk and uncertainty and may explain how risk perceptions
are translated into generalized social trust (Kong, 2013). Uncertainty
avoidance defines how people in a society relate to risk and explains trust at
the societal level (Doney, Cannon, & Mullen, 1998). Doney et al. (1998)
proposed that Hofstede’s cultural dimensions influenced the way individ-
uals develop trust in others. Elements of trust include confidence in
common values, benevolence and competence (Hurley, Gillespie, Ferrin,
& Dietz, 2013). Individuals in high uncertainty avoidance cultures are
generally more threatened by environmental uncertainty, less willing to
accept personal risk, and more aggressive than those in low uncertainty
avoidance cultures (Hofstede, 1980). Therefore, individuals in high
uncertainty avoidance cultures are also less likely to take the personal risk of
trusting generalized others than those in low uncertainty avoidance cul-
tures (Kong, 2013).
Because uncertainty avoidance is negatively related to openness (de
Jong et al., 2006), regulations are enacted to help to increase predictability
and ritualize away uncertainty. For example, according to a 2010 study
from the World Bank, it takes close to 700 days to complete all the nec-
essary requirements for opening a new business in Surinam, a country high
in uncertainty avoidance. In comparison, entrepreneurs in low uncertainty
avoidant New Zealand can achieve the same requirements in a single day.
The level of regulatory complexity of the institutional environments in high
uncertainty avoidant cultures represents a significant barrier to
entrepreneurship (Sambharya & Musteen, 2014). This contrasts with low
uncertainty avoidance societies which have been shown to be associated
with greater entrepreneurial activity (Sabah, Carsrud, & Kocak, 2014). In
general, societies characterized by a high uncertainty avoidance, such as
Turkey, tend to have lower cultural openness to different beliefs which
militates against innovation (Sabah, et al., 2014).
A high-power distance also tends to be associated with less openness and
lower levels of trust. In particular, employees with a high-power distance
tend to have less trust in their supervisors, because they are more wary of
those who have a higher status (Ji, Zhou, Li, & Yan, 2015). Thus,
220 R.S. MERKIN

high-power-distance receivers tend to filter their responses to messages

based on the status of the person communicating. A high degree of
uncertainty avoidance also tends to be associated with a high degree of
suspicion that requires reassurances causing receivers to filter their reactions
to messages based on their uncertainty level (Elahee & Minor, 2015). In
Fig. 8.1 a model is presented depicting likely facework to be communi-
cated due to uncertainty avoidance in response to others messages.

CASE STUDY 6: UBS WHISTLEBLOWING, GETTING CAUGHT,

AND SAVING FACE

In 2008 UBS, a Swiss bank (Switzerland has a high uncertainty avoidance)

became entangled in controversy when they were accused of directing its
North American sales force to recruit US taxpayers by offering them assorted
financial options including access to offshore financial vehicles to hide their
assets and evade taxes. An FBI investigation had been prompted after
Bradley Birkenfeld, a Swiss banker born in the US acted as a whistleblower
and testified to the US Department of Justice, the US Securities and
Exchange Commission, and the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that
among other activities, he’d help his clients set up fake companies to hide
their deposits (Pfeiffer, 2009). He gave his clients credit cards to access their
concealed cash. He even once converted a US client’s money into diamonds,
then smuggled them to the US in a toothpaste tube.
The activities, detailed by Birkenfeld in court documents, were part of a
coordinated—and illegal—effort by UBS bank in violation of an agreement
between the bank and the US to help wealthy US clients evade taxes. In
2007 the arrangement unraveled when the IRS conducted an amnesty
program in which more than 7500 Americans willingly disclosed their
overseas accounts.
The events generated by Birkenfeld’s whistleblowing and resulting
dispute produced unprecedented pressure on UBS, the Swiss banking
industry, and the Swiss government from the US and European Union
members who fervently attempted to recover delinquent taxes from assets
their taxpayers had secreted in UBS offshore accounts as well as secret
accounts hidden in other Swiss banks. The events that unfolded in this
controversy in due course led to the corrosion of Switzerland’s fabled bank
secrecy laws.
 8 UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE, FACE-SAVING, AND ORGANIZATIONS 221

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

1. Explain as many elements of uncertainty avoidance that you can

identify that were responsible for the crimes committed by UBS.
a. Which aspects of the crime were driven by culture?
b. Identify which corporate norms were possibly at play in UBS’s
activities?
2. How would you suggest employees should have addressed their
superiors about the risks involved in carrying out illegal activities?
3. Address how the issues of corruption, relativism, and a lack of future
orientation might have influenced UBS bankers’ actions.
4. Do you believe that employees at UBS acted as they did because of
their organizational culture’s pressure to conform to bank procedures?
5. Explain how UBS employees needed to reduce their anxious feelings
of uncertainty regardless of the risks they were taking.
6. Remember that a high uncertainty avoidance is associated with a
smaller likelihood to whistle blow. How do you think employees
might have addressed conformity pressure, their fear of dissent, and
their strong need for consensus and still do the right thing at work?
7. Generally, those from high-uncertainty-avoiding cultures tend to
deal with face threats by either using laws, rules, or rituals or by using
aggressive dominating facework. How do you think UBS employees
addressed the loss of face associated with their illegal actions?

REFERENCES
Aktas, M., Gelfand, M. J., & Hanges, P. J. (2016). Cultural tightness-looseness and
perceptions of effective leadership. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47(2),
294–309.
Allik, J., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Toward a geography of personality traits: Patterns
of profiles across 36 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 13–28.
Altuntas, G., Demir, N., & Noyan, A. (2016). The impact of entrepreneurial
intensity on job stress: The mediating role of role ambiguity with evidence from
top 1.000 industrial organizations of Turkey. Journal of Business Economics and
Finance, 5(1), 27–38.
222 R.S. MERKIN

Barr, P. S., & Glynn, M. A. (2004). Cultural variations in strategic issue

interpretation: Relating cultural uncertainty avoidance to controllability in
discriminating threat and opportunity. Strategic Management Journal, 25(1),
59–67.
Bond, M. H., Leung, K., Au, A., Tong, K. K., De Carrasquel, S. R., Murakami, F.,
et al. (2004). Culture-level dimensions of social axioms and their correlates
across 41 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(5), 548–570.
Boyd, B. K. (1995). CEO duality and firm performance: A contingency model.
Strategic Management Journal, 16(4), 301–312.
Carpenter, S. (2000). Effects of cultural tightness and collectivism on self-concept
and causal attributions. Cross-Cultural Research, 34, 38–56.
Chan, D. K. S. (1996). Tightness-looseness revisited: Some preliminary analyses in
Japan and the United States. International Journal of Psychology, 31(1), 1–12.
Cho, M. K., & Sillars, A. (2015). Face threat and facework strategies when family
(health) secrets are revealed: A comparison of South Korea and the United
States. Journal of Communication, 65(3), 535–557. doi:10.1111/jcom.12161.
Choi, J., & Geistfeld, L. V. (2004). A cross-cultural investigation of consumer
E-shopping adoption. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25, 821–838. doi:10.
1016/j.joep.2003.08.006.
Christie, P. M. J., Kwon, I. W. G., Stoeberl, P. A., & Baumhart, R. (2003).
A cross-cultural comparison of ethical attitudes of business managers: India
Korea and the United States. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(3), 263–287.
Chua, R. Y. J., Roth, Y., & Lemoine, J.-F. (2015). The impact of culture on
creativity: How cultural tightness and cultural distance affect global innovation
crowdsourcing work. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 60, 189–227.
Cieslewicz, J. K. (2016). Collusive accounting supervision and economic culture.
Journal of International Accounting Research, 15(1), 89–108. doi:10.2308/jiar-
51181.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and
trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk
taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909.
Covin, J. G., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation theory and
research: Reflections on a needed construct. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 35(5), 855–872.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile
and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75–87.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood
Cliffs: NJ.
Davis, J. H., & Ruhe, J. A. (2003). Perceptions of country corruption: Antecedents
and outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(4), 275–288.
Davis, J., Bernardi, R., & Bosco, S. (2015). Examining the use of Hofstede’s
uncertainty avoidance construct in ethics research: A 29-year review.
 8 UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE, FACE-SAVING, AND ORGANIZATIONS 223

de Jong, E., Smeets, R., & Smits, J. (2006). Culture and openness. Social Indicators
Research, 78(1), 111–136.
de Mooij, M. (1998). Masculinity/femininity and consumer behavior. In G.
Hofstede (Ed.), Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of national
cultures (pp. 55–73). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
de Mooij, M. (2013). On the misuse and misinterpretation of dimensions of
national culture. International Marketing Review, 30(3), 253–261.
de Mooij, M., & Hofstede, G. (2002). Convergence and divergence in consumer
behavior: Implications for international retailing. Journal of Retailing, 78(1),
61–69.
Doney, P. M., Cannon, J. P., & Mullen, M. R. (1998). Understanding the
influence of national culture on the development of trust. Academy of
Management Review, 23(3), 601–620.
Dou, P., Truong, C., & Veeraraghavan, M. (2016). Individualism, uncertainty
avoidance, and earnings momentum in international markets. Contemporary
Accounting Research, 2(33), 851–881.
Duncan, P., Green, M. T., & Herrera, R. (2012). Culture predicting
leadership. Business Studies Journal, 4(1), 71–84.
Earley, P. C. (1997). Face, harmony, and social structure: An analysis of
organizational behavior across cultures. Oxford University Press on Demand.
Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across
cultures. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Elahee, M. N., & Minor, M. S. (2015). Culture, ethics and international
negotiations: Exploring the role of trust. In Proceedings of the 1999 Academy
of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference (pp. 101–105). Springer
International Publishing.
Forsyth, D. R., O’Boyle, E. H., Jr., & McDaniel, M. A. (2008). East meets west: A
meta-analytic investigation of cultural variations in idealism and relativism.
Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), 813–833.
Frijns, B., Gilbert, A., Lehnert, T., et al. (2013). Uncertainty avoidance, risk
tolerance and corporate takeover decisions. Journal of Banking & Finance,
37(7), 2457–2471.
Geletkanycz, M. A. (1997). The salience of ‘culture’s consequences’: The effects of
cultural values on top executive commitment to the status quo. Strategic
Management Journal, 18(8), 615–634.
Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L., & Raver, J. (2006). On the nature and importance of
cultural tightness-looseness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1225–1244.
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., et al.
(2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study.
Science, 332(6033), 1100–1104.
224 R.S. MERKIN

Giebels, E., Oostinga, M., Taylor, P. J., & Curtis, J. L. (2016). The cultural
dimension of uncertainty avoidance impacts police-civilian interaction. Law and
Human Behavior.
Gorsuch, A. E., & Koenker, D. (2006). Tourizm: The Russian and East European
tourist under capitalism and socialism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Gudykunst, W. B., Ting-Toomey, S., & Chua, E. (1988). Verbal communication
styles. In M. L. Knapp (Ed.), Culture and interpersonal communication (pp. 99–
116). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Gunkel, M., Schlaegel, C., & Taras, V. (2016). Cultural values, emotional
intelligence, and conflict handling styles: A global study. Journal of World
Business, 51(4), 568–585.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.
Hardisty, D. J., & Pfeffer, J. (2016, November 21). Intertemporal uncertainty
avoidance: When the future is uncertain, people prefer the present, and when the
present is uncertain, people prefer the future. Management Science, 1–9.
Harpaz, I., Honig, B., & Coetsier, P. (2003). A cross-cultural longitudinal analysis
of the meaning of work and the socialization process of career starters. Journal of
World Business, 37(4), 230–244.
Hickson, J. D., & Pugh, S. D. (1995). Management worldwide the impact of societal
culture on organizations around the GLOBE. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Higgs, M. (1996). Overcoming the problems of cultural differences to establish
success for international management teams. Team Performance Management:
An International Journal, 2(1), 36–43.
Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in
work-related values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. H. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and
theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 14(2), 75–89.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (1994). Business cultures. (cover story). UNESCO Courier, 47(4), 12.
Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors,
institutions and organizations across nations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Personality and culture revisited: Linking
traits and dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(1), 52–88.
Hofstede, G., Nuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring
organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 286–316.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (1991). Cultures and organizations:
Software of the mind (Vol. 2). London: McGraw-Hill.
 8 UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE, FACE-SAVING, AND ORGANIZATIONS 225

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.).
(2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hurley, R. F., Gillespie, N., Ferrin, D. L., & Dietz, G. (2013). Designing
trustworthy organizations. MIT Sloan Management Review, 54(4), 75.
Hwang, Y., & Lee, K. C. (2012). Investigating the moderating role of uncertainty
avoidance cultural values on multidimensional online trust. Information &
Management, 49(3), 171–176.
Irani, F. S., & Oswald, S. L. (2009). Workplace aggression: Is national culture a
factor? Business Renaissance Quarterly, 4(1), 63–89.
Ji, Y., Zhou, E., Li, C., & Yan, Y. (2015). Power distance orientation and employee
help seeking: Trust in supervisor as a mediator. Social Behavior and Personality:
An International Journal, 43(6), 1043–1054.
Joiner, T. A. (2001). The influence of national culture and organizational culture
alignment on job stress and performance: Evidence from Greece. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 16(3), 229–242.
Joost, A. M. (1952). Conversation and communication: A psychological inquiry into
language and human relations. New York: International Universities Press.
Kim, H., Schroeder, A., & Pennington-Gray, L. (2016). Does culture influence risk
perceptions? Tourism Review International, 20(1), 11–28.
Kluch, S. P., & Vaux, A. (2015). Culture and terrorism: The role of cultural factors
in worldwide terrorism (1970–2013). Terrorism and Political Violence, 1–19.
Ko, D., Seo, Y., & Jung, S. U. (2015). Examining the effect of cultural congruence,
processing fluency, and uncertainty avoidance in online purchase decisions in the
US and Korea. Marketing Letters, 26(3), 377–390.
Kong, D. T. (2013). Examining a climatoeconomic contextualization of general-
ized social trust mediated by uncertainty avoidance. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 44(4), 574–588.
Kono, T., Ehrhart, K. H., Ehrhart, M. G., & Schultze, T. (2012). Implicit
leadership theories in Japan and the US. Asia Pacific Journal of Human
Resources, 50(3), 367–387. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7941.2012.00026.x.
Li, J., & Harrison, J. R. (2008). National Culture and the Composition and Leadership
Structure of Boards of Directors. Corporate Governance: An International Review,
16(5), 375–385. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8683.2008.00697.x.
Lee, Y., & Kramer, A. (2016). The role of purposeful diversity and inclusion
strategy (PDIS) and cultural tightness/looseness in the relationship between
national culture and organizational culture. Human Resource Management
Review, 26(3), 198–208.
Lynd, H. M. (1958). On shame and the search for identity. New York: Science
Editions.
Marinescu, G. (2014). Uncertainty avoidance in Romanian organizational culture.
Journal of Business & Retail Management Research, 8(2), 30–41.
226 R.S. MERKIN

McCrae, R. R. (2002). NEO-PI-R data from 36 cultures: Further intercultural

comparisons. In R. R. McCrae & J. Allik (Eds.), The five-factor model of
personality across cultures (pp. 105–126). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
McEvily, B. (2011). Reorganizing the boundaries of trust: From discrete
alternatives to hybrid forms. Organization Science, 22(5), 1266–1276.
Merkin, R. S. (2006). Uncertainty avoidance and facework: A test of the Hofstede
model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(2), 213–228.
Merkin, R. (2009). South American perspectives on sexual harassment: The
standpoint in Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. Journal of Behavioral and Applied
Management, 10, 357–376.
Merkin, R., & Ramadan, R. (2010). Facework in Syria and the United States: A
cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34
(6), 661–669. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.05.006.
Merkin, R., Taras, V., & Steel, P. (2014). State of the art themes in cross-cultural
communication research: A systematic and meta-analytic review. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 38, 1–23.
Metters, R., & Marucheck, A. (2007). Service management—academic issues and
scholarly reflections from operations management researchers. Decision Sciences,
38(2), 195–214.
Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2014). A replication of Hofstede’s uncertainty
avoidance dimension across nationally representative samples from Europe.
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 14(2), 161–171.
Montebello, L. (2003). Investigating cultural dimensions in a semiconductor
manufacturing company in Malta. Cross Cultural Management, 10(4), 61–70.
doi:10.1108/13527600310797694.
Newburry, W., & Yakova, N. (2006). Standardization preferences: A function of
national culture, work interdependence and local embeddedness. Journal of
International Business Studies, 37(1), 44–60.
Noort, M. C., Reader, T. W., Shorrock, S., & Kirwan, B. (2016). The relationship
between national culture and safety culture: Implications for international safety
culture assessments. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 89
(3), 515–538. doi:10.1111/joop.12139.
Nordfjærn, T., & Şimşekoğlu, Ö. (2014). Empathy, conformity, and cultural
factors related to aberrant driving behaviour in a sample of urban Turkish
drivers. Safety Science, 68, 55–64.
Offermann, L. R., & Hellmann, P. S. (1997). Culture’s consequences for leadership
behavior national values in action. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(3),
342–351.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1994). Reassessment of
expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: Implications
for further research. The Journal of Marketing, 111–124.
 8 UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE, FACE-SAVING, AND ORGANIZATIONS 227

Peek, L., Roxas, M., Peek, G., Robichaud, Y., Salazar, B. E. C., & Codina, J. N. B.
(2007). NAFTA students’ whistle-blowing perceptions: A case of sexual
harassment. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(3), 219–231.
Pfeifer, S. (2009, October 26). He put a dent in tax evasion. The Los Angeles Times.
Pothukuchi, V., Damanpour, F., Choi, J., Chen, C. C., & Park, S. H. (2002).
National and organizational culture differences and international joint venture
performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(2), 243–265.
Reimann, M., Lünemann, U. F., & Chase, R. B. (2008). Uncertainty avoidance as
a moderator of the relationship between perceived service quality and customer
satisfaction. Journal of Service Research, 11(1), 63–73.
Sabah, S., Carsrud, A. L., & Kocak, A. (2014). The impact of cultural openness,
religion, and nationalism on entrepreneurial intensity: Six prototypical cases of
Turkish family firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 52(2), 306–324.
Sambharya, R., & Musteen, M. (2014). Institutional environment and entrepreneur-
ship: An empirical study across countries. Journal Of International
Entrepreneurship, 12(4), 314–330. doi:10.1007/s10843-014-0137-1.
Shane, S., Venkataraman, S., & MacMillan, I. (1995). Cultural differences in
innovation championing strategies. Journal of Management, 21(5), 931–952.
doi:10.1177/014920639502100507.
Sharma, P. N., & Kirkman, B. L. (2015). Leveraging leaders a literature review and
future lines of inquiry for empowering leadership research. Group and
Organization Management, 40(2), 193–237.
Shaw, K. (2015). The influence of culture and customs on international business
communications. Editorial Board Members, 14(9), 430–436.
Shi, Z. (2016). Cross culture analysis to reconstruct the dimensions of long-term
orientation and uncertainty avoidance. Doctoral dissertation, TU Delft, Delft
University of Technology.
Sidani, Y. M., & Thornberry, J. (2010). The current Arab work ethic: Antecedents,
implications, and potential remedies. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(1), 35–49.
Simmel, G. (1957). Fashion. The American Journal of Sociology, 62, 541–558.
Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning
organization. The Journal of Marketing, 59, 63–74.
Smith, P. B. (2015). To lend helping hands in-group favoritism, uncertainty
avoidance, and the national frequency of pro-social behaviors. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(6), 759–771.
Smith, P. B., Vignoles, V. L., Becker, M., Owe, E., Easterbrook, M. J., Brown, R.,
et al. (2016). Individual and culture‐level components of survey response styles:
A multi‐level analysis using cultural models of selfhood. International Journal of
Psychology.
Srite, M., & Karahanna, E. (2006). The role of espoused national cultural values in
technology acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 679–704.
228 R.S. MERKIN

Sully de Luque, M., & Javidan, M. (2004). Uncertainty avoidance. Culture,

leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of, 62, 602–653.
Tevichapong, P. (2012). Individual spirit at work and its relationship with employee
work attitudes and organisational outcomes: An empirical examination in
corporate Thailand. Doctoral dissertation, Aston University.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory.
In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication
(pp. 71–92). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tosi, H. L., & Greckhamer, T. (2004). Culture and CEO compensation.
Organization Science, 15(6), 657–671.
Tran, T. X., Nguyen, T. L., & Nguyen, T. H. (2016). Effect of uncertainty
avoidance on venture capital investing activities in Asian countries. Asian Social
Science, 12(12), 152.
Triandis, H. C. (1989). Self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts.
Psychological Review, 96, 506–520.
Triandis, H. C. (2004). The many dimensions of culture. Academy of Management
Executive, 18(1), 88–93. doi:10.5465/AME.2004.12689599.
Uz, I. (2015). The index of cultural tightness and looseness among 68 countries.
Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 46(3), 319–335.
Van Birgelen, M., de Ruyter, K., de Jong, A., & Wetzels, M. (2002). Customer
evaluations of after-sales service contact modes: An empirical analysis of national
culture’s consequences. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(1),
43–64.
Venaik, S., & Brewer, P. (2010). Avoiding uncertainty in Hofstede and GLOBE.
Journal of International Business Studies, 41(8), 1294–1315.
Vitell, S. J., Nwachukwu, S. L., & Barnes, J. H. (1993). The effects of culture on
ethical decision-making: An application of Hofstede’s typology. Journal of
Business Ethics, 12(10), 753–760.
Why is the whistleblower who exposed the massive UBS tax evasion scheme the
only one heading to prison? (2010, January 7). Retrieved from https://www.
democracynow.org/2010/1/7/why_is_the_whistleblower_who_exposed.
Wood, V. R., & Wilberger, J. S. (2015). Globalization, cultural diversity and
organizational commitment: Theoretical underpinnings. World, 6(2).
Yukl, G., Ping Fu, P., & McDonald, R. (2003). Cross‐cultural differences in
perceived effectiveness of influence tactics for initiating or resisting change.
Applied Psychology, 52(1), 68–82.
 CHAPTER 9

Long/Short-Term Orientation,
Facework, and Organizational
Relationships

When Hofstede (1980) conducted his original analysis based on a large

IBM database contingent using questions composed by Western
researchers, he did not find the construct referred to now by some as
Confucian dynamism and by others as long-term orientation. This is
because Western researchers did not relate to Confucian values to which
they were not exposed. Consequently, it was not until a Chinese value
survey was implemented that the concept of long-term orientation
emerged. Confucian dynamism deals with how cultures experience time
and consists of two contrasting poles: long-term orientation versus short-
term orientation (Hofstede & Bond, 1988).
From the results of questionnaires composed by Eastern-thinking
Chinese researchers, Hofstede and Bond (1988) discovered that those
from the East and West do not think about “truth” in the same way. For
example, while Western religions believe in an absolute truth based on a
religious system, Easterners are more inclined to believe that truth is rel-
ativistic and dependent on circumstances. These differences impact peo-
ple’s reactions. If truth is finite then judgments are made more quickly.
Those with a long-term orientation, take more time to make judgments
because to them, truth is relative and the details have to be determined
before judgments can be made about the reality of situations or whether
people can be trusted.
In organizations, for example, there are those who choose to give more
than they take and engage in organizational citizenship behaviors. These
people exchange more favors with others, actively show their strong work

© The Author(s) 2018 229

R.S. Merkin, Saving Face in Business,
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59174-6_9
230 R.S. MERKIN

ethic, and bridge more groups than others do (Luo, Cheng, & Zhang,
2016). Scholars assume that individuals engage in this type of behavior
because they favor exchanges that align with their organizational interests.
A long-term orientation is also considered to encompass paradoxical
(self-contradictory) thinking which can be considered to be a metaphor for
balancing a Chinese worker’s particular and universal concerns (Luo et al.,
2016). This is the dynamic process governed by the Chinese thinking of
Yin and Yang (Chen, 2008; Li, 2008) in relationships. The dialectical
concept of yin and yang means that each element consists of opposite
sub-elements that mutually affirm as well as mutually negate each other.
The Chinese use this transcending paradoxical framework (Chen, 2008) to
arrive at truth. The yin-yang idea proposes that human beings, organiza-
tions, and cultures, intrinsically crave variation and harmony for their sheer
existence and healthy development. Fang (2003) argues that beings are
“both/and” creating a dynamic and paradoxical unity instead of
“either/or”. That is, long-term oriented selves are both yin and yang,
feminine and masculine, long-term and short-term, individualistic and
collectivistic, etc., depending on context and time (Fang, 2003).
According to Shi (2016), despite their overall tendency toward long-term
cultural values, the Chinese sometimes show short-term-oriented behavior in
business decision-making. Most Confucian countries value face and respect
traditions (Shi, 2016). Therefore, it is difficult to only use cultural dimen-
sions to explain why in some areas people from long-term oriented cultures
make short-term oriented decisions and why some Asian countries with low
uncertainty avoidance tend to be conventional and risk-avoiding in making
decisions related to their families and lives. Thus, while to some extent short
or long-term orientation is apparent, one form of cultural long-term ori-
entation tends to dominate (Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Minkov & Hofstede,
2014).
For example, an evolving aspect of global competition is coopetition—
simultaneous competition and cooperation between global rivals (Luo,
2007). In the context of global competition, multinational enterprises
often engage in intricate and concurrent competitive-cooperative rela-
tionships with global competitors. An instance of this is how NEC
Corporation cooperates with rivals such as Honeywell and Siemens in
research and development and carries out joint production (Luo, 2007).
Furthermore, Philips and Sony collaborate to develop and manufacture
new DVD players, but compete intensively in other product categories
 9 LONG/SHORT-TERM ORIENTATION, FACEWORK … 231

(Luo, 2007). Through cooperative relationships, global rivals work toge-

ther to collectively enhance performance by sharing resources and com-
mitting to common goals. At the same time, they compete by taking
independent action in other domains to improve their own performance
(Luo, 2004). This works particularly well amongst harmonious collec-
tivistic long-term oriented companies. While such practices are examples of
the successful employment of the concept of ying and yang, it should be
noted that cooperation and harmony must predominate in the cooperating
organizations to make this practice work. If the competitive, individualistic
aspects of facework and business practices are too strong, such an
arrangement could easily end in disputes, collapse, or litigation.
Another example of long-term-oriented relationships is the Chinese
guanxi orientation. Guanxi is a well-known long-term-oriented Chinese
process of social interaction (Fan, 2002). Guanxi is generally defined as a
special relationship between two persons (Alston, 1989; Yang, 1994).
Guanxi was found to be significantly negatively associated with a Protestant
work ethic—a fundamental characteristic responsible for the economic suc-
cess of Protestant groups in the early stages of European capitalism (Zhang,
Liu, & Liu, 2012), which focuses on a more single-minded value of hard
work and is correlated with a high uncertainty avoidance as well (Furnham
et al., 1993). Thus, while success in long-term-oriented relationships in
long-term-oriented cultures tends to be multifaceted, this value collides with
the short-term-oriented concept of one truth. Given that the Chinese focus
is more on the long-term, questions about uncertainty avoidance values
were omitted in the Chinese Value Survey. This is not to say that these values
do not make sense to the Chinese but rather that uncertainty avoidance is
simply not a salient value to those from the East. Unlike those from
long-term-oriented cultures, those with a high uncertainty avoidance tend
to be less likely to plan for the future (Minkov & Hofstede, 2014).
However, because they do not like uncertainty, similar to those with a
long-term orientation, executives with a high uncertainty avoidance also
have a commitment to the status quo (Geletkanycz, 1997). Indeed, a high
uncertainty avoidance is associated with formalization (Gunkel, Schlaegel,
& Taras, 2016) while a long-term orientation is associated with protective
safety behavior (Lu, Hsu, & Lee, 2016)—both of which protect the status
quo. In order not to disturb the status quo with conflict, both a high
uncertainty avoidance and a high long-term orientation are responsible for
a greater use of compromising, obliging, and integrating through emo-
tional intelligence facework in conflict situations, because such indirect,
232 R.S. MERKIN

harmonious, and cooperative communication strategies tend to give face

and avoid face threats (Gunkel et al., 2016; Merkin, 2004). Nevertheless,
because a long-term orientation is associated with Confucian values such as
moderation, harmony, a peaceful state, and a positive attitude shared
among individuals in an interaction (Zai-xiao & Mingli, 2013), the anxiety
that leads those with a high uncertainty avoidance to express extreme
emotions (Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Merkin, 2006) is not shared by those
with a long-term orientation, who volitionally control their emotions
(Hofstede & Bond, 1988). What is more, values of harmony account for
those from long-term-oriented cultures being more sensitive to conflict
than their Western counterparts, and manifest conflict will produce more
anxiety for those who subscribe to Confucian values (Zai-xiao & Mingli,
2013).
Findings also show that respondents with high Confucian dynamism
values tend to emphasize self-enhancement, contribution to society, sta-
bility and rewards, and openness to change (Jaw, Ling, Wang, & Chang,
2007). The term Confucian dynamism is used by some when referring to
specific Confucian values that are at the heart of the Eastern focus on long-
term orientation and reflect a particular way of thinking and behaving that
often takes the form of deferring gratification. Moreover, those from cul-
tures high in Confucian dynamism are also more likely to confine them-
selves within social norms (Lu, Rose, & Blodgett, 1999). These cultural
members experience a fluid sense of self that encompasses contradictions
that are resolved through balance—a very different conceptualization than
world views that encompass certainty and absolute truths. A long-term
orientation represents the promotion of qualities oriented towards future
rewards such as perseverance and thrift, an acceptance of status hierarchies,
and having a sense of shame as well (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov,
2010). Confucianism encourages people to pursue long-term benefits
(perseverance) while suffering short-term loss (thrift). Therefore, it stresses
the importance of persistence and working hard to attain long-term goals,
which can possibly be directed towards the work values of
self-enhancement, rewards such as remuneration in the future or main-
taining long-term relationships, and stability (Jaw et al., 2007).
Initially, long-term versus short-term orientation, was based on student
samples from 23 countries (Chinese Culture Connection, 1987).
However, after the concept of long/short-term orientation was established
(Hofstede & Bond, 1988; Hofstede, 1991), later researchers validated the
construct (Minkov & Hofstede, 2010, 2014) by using content analysis
 9 LONG/SHORT-TERM ORIENTATION, FACEWORK … 233

techniques on two separate samples of data. At that time, Minkov &

Hofstede (2014) provided a successful peer-reviewed replication based on
World Value Survey samples. Additionally, the validity of the long/short-
term orientation construct was further established through empirical
analyses of content validity, external validity, dimensionality, and concur-
rent validity (Brigham, Lumpkin, Payne, & Zachary, 2014). For a sampling
of long/short-term orientation scores see Table 9.1.
On the opposite end of the continuum of long-term orientation is short-
term orientation which represents the promotion of qualities related to the
past and present which, according to Hofstede (1991), are associated with
negative Confucian values including personal steadiness and stability,
reciprocation of greetings, favors, and gifts, respect for tradition, and
preservation of face (Hofstede, 2001; Hofstede et al., 2010). These values
are considered negative because they are static and not connected to
wealth. For example, those with a short-term orientation scoring lower on
the work hard dimension and internal motive dimension place more
importance on values associated with Confucian teachings that are past and
present-oriented such as steadiness and stability, protection of face, and
respect for tradition (Hofstede & Bond 1988). Lu et al. (1999) noted that
such individuals are more likely to try to avoid feelings of guilt, which may
arise from nonconformity to local teachings, customs, and traditions.
Short-term-oriented individuals may also be more likely to respect

Table 9.1 Long-term orientation scores by country

Country Long-term orientation Country Long-term orientation

South Korea 100 India 51

Japan 88 United Kingdom 51
China 87 Brazil 44
Germany 83 Norway 35
Russia 81 Zambia 30
Singapore 72 Philippines 27
Netherlands 67 United States 26
France 63 Australia 21
Hong Kong 61 Nigeria 13
Sweden 53 Ghana 4

Scores range from 0 to 120 with higher scores indicating more long-term orientation
Geert Hofstede, Gert Jan Hofstede, Michael Minkov, “Cultures and Organizations, Software of the
Mind”, third revised edition, McGraw Hill 2010, ISBN 0-07-166418-1. ©Geert Hofstede B.V. quoted
with permission
234 R.S. MERKIN

traditional Chinese etiquette and customs extensively and overstress per-

sonal steadiness and stability, dampening the initiative, risk-taking, and
flexibility required of entrepreneurs trying to increase their business and
develop their careers (Hofstede & Bond, 1988; Zhang et al., 2012).
Confucian values are founded on a secular ethical system that is based
on a future orientation that Confucius, a Chinese philosopher originally
laid out. Some of the primary principles accepted by those with Confucian
values include the belief that society is based on unequal relationships and
hierarchy (Zai-xiao & Mingli, 2013). In fact, in long-term-oriented soci-
eties, hierarchical order is observed in families as well as in businesses.
Accepting the status of those above and below oneself on the social hier-
archy without challenge and with humility allows for an atmosphere
of harmony, which is one of the ultimate states of Confucianism.
Interpersonal behavior towards others allows for the dignity of all members
carrying out their duties in preparation for the future.
Another principle of Confucianism is that all social relationships are
modeled on the family. Similar to collectivism, a person is not primarily an
individual, but rather, an interconnected family member (Zai-xiao &
Mingli, 2013). This contrasts with ideas of short-term-oriented societal
members who believe that one should leave the family system within which
one was brought up and become an independent person. In tandem with
this perception of self comes small distinctions between the private and
public self, because the person’s face is not intertwined with others.
However, those possessing a long-term orientation, are collectivistic and
influenced by Confucian relativism. Hence their self is determined by their
standing in social relationships (Hwang, 2012). In view of that, their face is
established and maintained through implementing facework between their
distinctive linkages within their interpersonal relationships. In such a sys-
tem, consideration of the other before presenting one’s own face is vital for
face maintenance. Considering the perception of others, Modigliani
(1971) found that people are less embarrassed and engage in less
face-saving behavior under private conditions of failure, such as in their
homes. This highlights why there is a big difference between their public
presentations and their internal reality (Hwang, 2012). A public interaction
is far more face-threatening than a private one. Moreover, members of
collectivistic cultures are influenced by the implicit Confucian moral
standards of a connected “public” self (Ting-Toomey et al., 1991).
For example, in China, Japan, and Korea, a stark contrast exists between
the prescribed office work environment and informal settings such as
 9 LONG/SHORT-TERM ORIENTATION, FACEWORK … 235

restaurants, pubs, and karaoke bars that are frequented by business exec-
utives and their subordinates after office hours (Fang, 2012). When invited
to these outings, it is important to accept because a lot of business is
worked out at these events. Failing to socialize after work excludes people
from important information. Those with a short-term orientation who
separate their private life from their business life often do not understand
this. Thus, as Hodgetts and Luthans (2002) point out that those who
socialize with the group are considered by the group to be trusted while
those who do not socialize with the group come across as someone who is
only interested in doing business. In any case, the outings shared by those
with a long-term-orientation are also considered significant to developing
relationships that are indispensable for business success in these cultures. In
such comfortable atmospheres of leisure, rigid hierarchies are dispelled as
individuals sing, drink, and become less reserved under the guise of
drunkenness, with no resulting loss of face to their leaders (Fang, 2012).
What is more, those who participate fully in whatever activities are going
on build camaraderie and trust because being at one’s most vulnerable state
shows their colleagues that they are “good sports” (Rowland, 1993).
Erving Goffman (1959), an American sociologist, presented a dra-
maturgical perspective in which he uses the metaphor of theatrical pro-
duction to offer a way of understanding human interaction and behavior.
Within this perspective, social life is a “performance” carried out by
“teams” of participants in three places: front stage, back stage, and off stage.
Front stage behavior is what we do when we know that others are watching
or aware of us. Back stage behavior is what we do when no one is looking
and we are free from expectations and norms. The off stage region is where
individual actors meet the audience members independently of the team
performance on the front stage (Goffman, 1959). It is understood that
what occurs during informal settings is similar to backstage behaviors,
where what happens in private is left behind when returning to work.
During outside of work informal gatherings, it is not uncommon to see
leaders behaving in unprofessional ways, allowing themselves to be the
target of critiques and participating in fun-loving activities. These types of
activities allow for a collective cooperative maintenance of all individuals’
face and dignity through the harmoniousness of context, where everyone
accepts that judgment is suspended and people just enjoy themselves with
fewer of the restrictions of formal comportment (Hofstede & Bond, 1988;
Merkin, 2004). Similar to the case of collectivistic cultures, which they are,
those from long-term-oriented cultures believe that face is of primary
236 R.S. MERKIN

importance so that the group cooperates to ignore aberrant behavior that is

carried out when people are in a relaxed private atmosphere and drunk.
Thus, social relationships need to be carried out in a manner that allows
everybody’s face to be maintained. When one shows respect to someone
else, they are considered to be giving face. Face is so important to those
from Confucian cultures that if it is lost, it is, according to Chinese tra-
dition, tantamount to losing one’s eyes, nose, and mouth (Hofstede &
Bond, 1988). Other Confucian values include treating others as one would
like to be treated and accepting that one’s task in life consists of trying to
acquire skills and education, work hard, and not spend carelessly (Hofstede
& Bond, 1988). Confucianism professes that patience, perseverance, and
temperance is bidden in all things including one’s reactions, including not
losing one’s temper (Hofstede & Bond, 1988).
While Confucian dynamism emphasizes the values of persistence, thrift,
diligence, ordering relationships by status, and having a sense of shame
(Bearden, Money, & Nevins, 2006; Hofstede & Bond 1988; Lim, 2003),
values emphasized by a Protestant work ethic—another construct corre-
lated with wealth (Weber, 1958)—include diligence, motivation, hard
work, intrinsic motivation, postponement of immediate rewards, preser-
vation of resources, the saving of disposable wealth, and avoiding idleness
and waste (Tang, 1990; Ma, 1986).
Confucian dynamism has also been shown to be significantly positively
related to the hard work and the internal motive dimensions of a Protestant
work ethic. They share the view that a person’s duty is to achieve success
through hard work and thrift; and the Protestant work ethic views such
success as a sign that one is saved (Weber, 1958). On the other hand,
Confucian dynamism is negatively related to the final dimension of a
Protestant work ethic, namely, the admiration of work itself (Zhang et al.,
2012). Members of long-term-oriented cultures are not focused on a single
process but rather an interconnected whole—they are collectivistic—in
which they are part of the people they are involved with. Thus, work by
itself is connected to the other pieces in their lives. In Confucianism, people
see themselves as being interdependent and strongly embedded in the
surrounding social context (Dunning & Kim, 2007).
The downside of embeddedness could possibly be corruption. In fact,
there are two interesting outcomes for cultures with long-term orientation
related to corruption. First, while values may dictate that it is desirable to
plan ahead, society members do not always comply with this value (val-
ues > practices) (Gelbrich, Stedham, & Gäthke, 2016; Minkov &
 9 LONG/SHORT-TERM ORIENTATION, FACEWORK … 237

Hofstede, 2014). The resulting lack of clear-cut future plans precipitates

ambiguity, which intensifies an objective view of rules. Laws and policies
end up being subject to capricious interpretations (Rodriguez,
Uhlenbruck, & Eden, 2005), which tempts citizens to engage in arbitrary
corruption (Uhlenbruck, Rodriguez, Doh, & Eden 2006).
Arbitrary corruption (as opposed to pervasive corruption which is
habituated corruption) is characterized by uncertainty regarding the size,
target, and number of corrupt transactions required to obtain approval
(Pillay & Dorasamy, 2010; Rodriguez et al., 2005). Thus, as corrupt
activities become less arbitrary, principals find it difficult to enjoy the
benefits that are derived from engaging corrupt officials; so that the ability
to plan for corruption diminishes. Second, as Minkov and Hofstede (2014)
pointed out, as a high future orientation discrepancy (differences between
what is valued and what is practiced) may occur, when planning ahead is
more practiced than desirable (values < practices) then such perceived
regulatory overkill may also result in ambiguity and leave room for a
capricious interpretation of rules and arbitrary corruption(Gelbrich et al.,
2016). Significant findings bear these assumptions out in results showing a
positive relationship between a future orientation discrepancy and arbitrary
corruption (Gelbrich et al., 2016).
On the other hand, those from short-term oriented cultures who stress
the concept of reducing uncertainty tend to believe that truth is absolute,
that there is a right and wrong, that laws are to be obeyed, and that the same
rules apply to all, no matter where one is situated on a social hierarchy.
Of course, this is sometimes skirted by individuals, but the bottom-line
value of those with short-term-orientated values is that there can only be
one truth. Rather than focus on harmony, short-term oriented cultures are
more likely to stress work as a goal in itself. This explains research showing
that specifically the dimension—admiration of work itself—of a Protestant
work ethic is significantly positively related to a short-term orientation
(Zhang et al., 2012), as well as to other aspects of a Protestant work ethic,
namely, the hard work and internal motive dimensions of a Protestant
work ethic.
According to Hofstede and Bond (1988), the traits of the short-term
orientation pole of Confucian dynamism are in opposition to Protestant
work ethic values. Nevertheless, later research has found that a Protestant
work ethic and Confucian dynamism work ethic have both similarities and
238 R.S. MERKIN

differences (Lim, 2003; Zhang et al., 2012). For example, the idea that the
saving face aspect of a short-term orientation obstructs the ability to make
money because such values mean that people respect traditions and social
status regardless of the cost, may not be the case (Hofstede & Bond, 1988;
Hofstede, 1993); because later findings show that individuals who highly
endorse the value of ‘‘protecting face’’ work hard and even glorify work
itself to acquire their face (Zhang et al., 2012).
Relationships are valued in all cultures but the conditions of these
relationships differ. What is more, later findings show that Confucian
dynamism and a Protestant work ethic are not totally culturally specific
(Zhang et al., 2012). Lim (2003) found that Confucian dynamism and
Protestant work ethic are similar in that they both promote values such as
thrift and industriousness. In addition, a comparison of the findings of
Furnham et al. (1993) and Hofstede (1994) shows that economic growth
was much higher for East Asian countries than for Western countries over
the past two decades (Hofstede, 1994). Additionally, the same comparison
indicates that countries displaying low Protestant work ethic scores such as
Germany, the United States, and New Zealand are also the same countries
displaying low scores in Confucian dynamism. Finally, countries with a
higher Protestant work ethic such as India and Hong Kong are the same
countries that have high scores in Confucian dynamism (Zhang et al.,
2012). Essentially, just as Confucian dynamism has also been found to be
strongly correlated with rapid economic development and the main
underlying reason for the economic successes of the five Asian Dragons;
namely China, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore (Chinese
Culture Connection, 1987; Fellague & Bennafla, 2015; Hofstede, 1991;
Lim & Lay, 2003), the Protestant work ethic has also been considered to
be the main impetus behind the economic successes of America and
European countries (Zhang et al., 2012).
There are also similarities in the forces that drive success and wealth in
business in all societies. People from all societies appear to excel when they
exert internal motivation and hard work (Minkov & Hofstede, 2010;
Zhang et al., 2012). What appears to vary, are all of the relationships that
emerge. Relationships are key for business success in all societies, however,
hierarchical values that preserve face are particularly important to those
from Eastern cultures. Sensitivity, cooperation, and harmonious commu-
nication is essential in cross-cultural interactions of all kinds and if it is not
present, relationships and deals often collapse.
 9 LONG/SHORT-TERM ORIENTATION, FACEWORK … 239

Before moving on to descriptions of the more specific characteristics of

long and short-term orientation, to avoid confusion, it should be pointed
out that there are other cultural models that have brought scholars
much-needed insights into the structure of national cultures, including the
GLOBE (the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness)
Model (House, Javidan, Hanges, & Dorfman, 2002), which has a similar
description of a cultural dimension termed “future orientation”. This is
noted presently to avoid any conceptual confusion because the constructs
are labeled similarly but measured differently. Venaik (2013) examined the
time orientation dimensions—long‐term orientation and future orientation
—in the national culture models of Hofstede (1980, 2001) and GLOBE
(House et al., 2002) respectively, and concluded that Hofstede’s long‐term
orientation and GLOBE’s future orientation dimensions (House et al.,
2002) explain different aspects of cultural time orientation. In particular,
Hofstede’s long‐term orientation focuses on past (tradition) versus future
(thrift) aspect of societies while the GLOBE future orientation practices
(House et al., 2002) capture the present versus future (planning) practices of
societies. Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov (2010) point out that GLOBE’s
long-term orientation is not statistically related to Hofstede’s long-term
orientation. Given these fundamental differences and given that their overall
differences in research design cause different results when the two dimen-
sional models are applied to different research fields (Shi & Wang, 2011),
this book will only consider studies testing Hofstede’s long-term orienta-
tion. Thus, Hofstede’s conceptualization of long-term orientation refers to
the degree to which a culture conveys to its members harmony and delayed
gratification of their needs (Dereskey, 2008).

CHARACTERISTICS OF LONG/SHORT-TERM ORIENTATION

Perseverance and thrift reflect the Confucian value of moderation
(Hofstede et al., 2010). Clearly, those who delay gratification by perse-
vering and not spending for the present-day are more focused on the
future. An example of this is how those from long-term-oriented cultures
mainly use cash or debit cards (concerned with not spending what they do
not presently have), as opposed to credit cards (De Mooij & Hofstede,
2002). Overall, long-term orientation is manifested in behaviors that foster
cooperative long-term relationships (Deresky, 2008). These relationships
reflect the value of humility through a respect for hierarchy, saving others’
faces, and having a sense of shame or negative self-consciousness (Cohen,
240 R.S. MERKIN

Wolf, Panter, & Insko, 2011). In other words, humility is employed by

respecting those in higher positions than oneself such as a parent or a boss.
In interpersonal relationships, humility is employed by giving the other face
through harmonious and cooperative facework and by being polite. Shame
is what gives those within hierarchical systems the wherewithal to abide by
Confucian ethical values supporting interrelatedness (Hofstede et al.,
2010). Moreover, a sense of shame contributes to a greater sensitivity to
others’ face and to being mindful of the importance of fulfilling one’s
obligations (Hofstede et al., 2010). Remember that this dimension is
correlated with recent economic growth and predicted long-term eco-
nomic growth (Hofstede et al., 2010) so that these values have shown
themselves to lead to successful economic outcomes.
In contrast, values endorsed by those from short-term-oriented cultures
focus more on the needs at hand. They subscribe to a series of dictums such
as respecting traditions, fulfilling social obligations, and showing personal
control and dependability, which, when followed, give them a sense of
pride. Often, those from cultures with a short-term orientation are con-
cerned with reciprocating greetings, favors, and gifts in the most stylish,
appropriate, and effortless manner. This is because managing the presen-
tation of poise accurately and seemingly effortlessly, contributes to a per-
son’s face in short-term oriented cultures. The cultures that are most
short-term oriented include Australia, New Zealand, the United States,
Great Britain, and a number of African nations. On the other hand, the
most long-term-oriented cultures include Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan,
South Korea and Singapore. (Hofstede et al., 2010). Differences in tem-
poral orientations can be enduring but can also be situationally activated
and limited (Kopalle, Lehmann, & Farley, 2010). Consequently, the dif-
ference between having a long-term versus a short-term orientation can
influence how employers, employees, businesses and their customers per-
ceive different conditions and situations differently based on their particular
cultural values. Examples of some of the consequences of these different
perspectives such as views on rewards, stress, job satisfaction and turnover
intentions, as well as customer perspectives will be presented below.

LONG-TERM ORIENTATION AND CONSUMERS

Individuals with a short-term orientation use the present as a reference
point, whereas those with a long-term orientation are more likely to
consider situations from the perspective of the future (Wong & Wyer,
 9 LONG/SHORT-TERM ORIENTATION, FACEWORK … 241

2016). As a result of a more general disposition to think about the

implications of present behavior with reference to the future, persons with
a long-term orientation may acquire greater flexibility because they can
imagine both the present and the possible future consequences of an action
(Wong & Wyer, 2016). More specifically, a long-term orientation is likely
to predispose persons to adopt an allocentric perspective—where their
focus is outside themselves when construing social events—rather than an
egocentric perspective which entails thinking mainly of themselves (Wong
& Wyer, 2016). Similar to the collectivism cultural dimension (Hofstede,
1980, 2001), a long-term orientation predisposes individuals to take an
allocentric perspective, focusing their attention and activities on other
people rather than themselves when they interpret the implications of a
social event, which, in turn, also gives them greater functional flexibility
(Wong & Wyer, 2016).
For example, when people plan to rent an apartment a year from now,
they may focus on its living space and facilities. Though, if people are
looking for accommodations next week, they would be more likely to give
more weight to availability and moving expenses (Kim, Park, & Wyer,
2009). Thus, if the features of a stimulus differ in desirability, evaluations of
the apartment at different points in time might appear to be inconsistent
(e.g., Zhao, Hoeffler, & Zauberman, 2007). Therefore, collectivists or
persons with a long-term orientation perceive future events or events that
involve strangers as less distant, but also perceive immediate events that
involve themselves as more distant, than do persons who are either indi-
vidualistic or have a short-term temporal orientation (Wong & Wyer,
2016). Thus, different perceptions of time change perceptions of events
and corresponding interactions with relation to time.
Consumer behavior is one aspect of human behavior that is influenced
by a long-term orientation due to the different ways that different cultures
understand and allocate time (Brodowsky & Anderson, 2000). A high
long-term orientation leads consumers to place values on persistence and
loyalty (Fletcher & Brown, 1999). People with a long-term orientation are
willing to delay attaining short-term goals in order to prepare for the future
(Brislin & Kim, 2003). Such a culture among consumers allows them to
make short-term sacrifices to attain long-term gains (Sivakumar & Nakata,
2001). In fact, research shows that people with a future orientation prefer
delaying rewards (Klineberg, 1968). Given that rewards can be delayed or
are other than monetary, for those from long-term-oriented cultures, it is
possible to provide such customers with different incentives. Consequently,
242 R.S. MERKIN

customers with a long-term orientation tend to show better reactions to

nonmonetary promotions such as sweepstakes and loyalty rewards pro-
grams, which are more long-term and loyalty-based (Foxman, Tansuhaj, &
Wong, 1988). There are even those who contend that, to customers with a
high long-term orientation, there is no difference in the effect of different
types of rewards, whether they are immediate or accumulated and mone-
tary or nonmonetary (Park, Chung, & Woo, 2013).
In contrast, customers with a short-term orientation have a
past-oriented perspective with an emphasis on traditions (Fletcher &
Brown, 1999). Consumers in such cultures show a preference for
short-term planning and immediate financial gains (Sivakumar & Nakata,
2001). This gives rise to the fact that people with a short-term orientation
as less likely to save for the future. As a result, such consumers tend to
write-off nonmonetary promotions (Huynh, 2016) because they want the
money to use and the money soon. In short, rewards programs that require
delayed gratification are less likely to work with short-term-oriented cus-
tomers (Foxman et al., 1988). Instead, short-term-oriented consumers
prefer monetary promotions more because they offer immediate benefits.
Correspondingly, employees with a short-term orientation also need
more care. Findings show that those from short-term-oriented cultures are
more likely to report a negative relationship between work strain and job
satisfaction when compared with employees from long-term-oriented
cultures (Sims, Ruppel, & Zeidler, 2016). Work strain appears to be
greater for those with a short-term orientation who are not used to
delaying gratification because they feel a greater immediate reduction in
job satisfaction, followed by a greater intention to quit than their
long-term-oriented counterparts. Findings indicate that a long-term ori-
entation moderates the relationship between work strain and both
employee attitudes and intentions. Specifically, the relationship between
respondents’ work strain and their corresponding level of job satisfaction
was moderated by the national culture in which they worked, leading them
to feel less bothered by work strain given their view that the work would
help them in the long run (Sims et al., 2016). Indeed, a short-term ori-
entation was connected to a reduced ability or willingness to adapt to
challenging or changing conditions, a necessary ability in coping with work
stress. An inability to adapt is likely to lead to greater work stress and leave
the employee with decreased job satisfaction. This example shows how
adopting a long-term perspective increases flexibility.
 9 LONG/SHORT-TERM ORIENTATION, FACEWORK … 243

A long-term orientation also includes a preference for long-term rela-

tionships between customers and known brands (De Mooij & Hofstede,
2002). For example, unlike those from more short-term-oriented cultures
who want immediate gratification and therefore, enjoy the online banking
process, those under the cultural influence of long-term orientation, con-
tinue to be hesitant to use online banking because it disrupts their
banker/client relationships (Leelien Ken, 2017). Given the focus and
concern with face-to-face long-term bank relationships among those from
long-term-oriented cultures and the connection they have and need to
ensure future gratification, there is a strong resistance to giving up
long-standing relationships for a different social status which cuts out
personal connections (Leelien Ken, 2017). Even the business promotions
that people from long-term-oriented cultures choose most offer long-term
saving opportunities, such as saving stamps that build relationships with a
retailer or brand (De Mooij & Hofstede, 2002). In accordance with the
key values of long-term orientation, such as being sparing with resources,
long-term-oriented consumers prefer to go to stores and relate to sales
personnel rather than have merchandise delivered to their homes. Thus, a
long-term orientation suggests less receptivity to e-commerce (De Mooij
& Hofstede, 2002).
Long/short-term orientation defines the context in which work strain is
experienced and employee attitudes and intentions are expressed. It also
influences how cultural members’ perceptions create cultural schemata that
filter the way experiences are viewed and interpreted, ultimately influencing
patterns of thinking and behavior (Sims et al., 2016). In a long-term ori-
ented culture, success is tied to determination and persistence, which is
necessary, especially in challenging situations. Those with Confucian values
expect satisfaction when they attain success, no matter how many problems
they had to tolerate during the process. Thus, consistent with the concept
of long-term orientation, research indicates that no matter how high the
reported levels of work strain, Chinese respondents do not report corre-
sponding decreases in job satisfaction nor greater turnover intentions (Sims
et al., 2016). Thus, long-term orientation effectively makes participative
management practices irrelevant. Additionally, employees in long-term-
oriented cultures are clearly not motivated by the same factors as
employees in short-term-oriented cultures. International businesses,
therefore, need to take differences of emphasis into account when trying to
manage employees with different time orientations. Specifically, more
short-term oriented employees need to feel satisfied with their job to
244 R.S. MERKIN

remain motivated, to work hard, and to stay, while more long-term ori-
ented employees need to feel honor through rewards. They will slog
through difficulties that are tied to the group; they do not want achieve-
ment awards that make them stand out, instead preferring to feel con-
nected with their work group.
Thus, a long versus short-term orientation effects marketing. If suppli-
ers, marketers, or other businesses are trying to acquire sales, it is important
to know what effects a particular sales pitch would be likely to have on
potential customers and employees. It will be useful for them to know that,
in the case of constituents with a short-term orientation, the effect of
rewards increases for monetary rewards more than for nonmonetary ones
and for immediate rewards more than for accumulated ones (Park et al.
2013). Consequently, if one were to delay rewards this could have
decreased the customer’s motivation.

LONG/SHORT-TERM ORIENTATION AND RELATIONSHIPS

We see from some of the examples above that though long-term orien-
tation and collectivism are independent constructs, most long-term-
oriented cultures also tend to be collectivistic (Minkov & Hofstede,
2014; Zai-xiao & Mingli, 2013). In fact, the high regard for harmony and
hierarchy in the Confucian system are fundamentally similar to two of
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, namely collectivism and power distance
(Dunning & Kim, 2007; Zai-xiao & Mingli, 2013). Like collectivistic
relationships, those from long-term-oriented cultures view relationships
according to an accepted status hierarchy. But, in the case of long-term
orientation, relationships emanate from the Confucian concept of humility.
Those who are older, wiser, and more experienced receive deserved
respect. The acknowledgement of such authority allows for clear func-
tioning within a hierarchical system and the continuation of multiple
interconnected cooperative long-term relationships. For example, findings
show that people from long-term-oriented cultures tend to engage in
cooperative and harmonious facework (Merkin, 2004) which promotes
relationships over the long-term. Thus, when citizens of long-term-
oriented societies negotiate, they also communicate unpretentiously
because they value humility, long-term alliances, and trust, which can only
be developed when there is an absence of conflict and disagreement. In
turn, those from long-term-oriented cultures tend to take a longer time
when getting to know someone, but are also patient and persistent in their
 9 LONG/SHORT-TERM ORIENTATION, FACEWORK … 245

attempts at relationships. However, as is the case in India, there sometimes

is a prioritization of relationships in business, as opposed to a task orien-
tation, and stronger trust and harmony in relationships is established as a
result of one’s in-group status (Rizvi, Jamal, & Steinberg, 2016).
As introduced earlier in this chapter, the special in-group relationship,
guanxi can also be described as a power relationship, where one’s control
over a valued good or access to it, gives power over others (Gold, 1985).
Osland (1990) describes guanxi as a special relationship between people
where one person needs something and the other person has the ability to
give something. Given the long-term orientation of the Chinese, findings
show that when Chinese buyers perceive there to be better guanxi, they are
more likely to evaluate such Sino–US business relationships in a positive
way (Yen & Abosag, 2016). Elements of how long-term relationships are
viewed positively include increased trust, commitment, communication,
and cooperation, as well as decreased emotional conflict, task conflict,
opportunism and uncertainty, as well as affirming existing works (Barnes,
Yen, & Zhou, 2011; Yen & Barnes, 2011; Zhuang, Xi, & Tsang, 2010).
Additionally, studies show that when Chinese buyers perceive there to be
higher levels of guanxi with their suppliers, their perception of financial
performance and their willingness to engage in the relationship over the
long-term increases (Lee & Dawes, 2005; Luo, Huang, & Wang, 2012).
Furthermore, guanxi has been shown to moderate both the relationship
between trust and financial performance and between uncertainty and
long-term orientation; so, if there is guanxi, there is greater trust and better
financial performance, and there is less uncertainty and more chance of a
long-term relationship.
Chinese people prefer relationships based on guanxi because they save
face for both parties. Participants in these relationships employ harmonious
and cooperative facework, engaging in predictable hierarchical ritualistic
behavior. This reciprocal exchange means a guanxi is more likely to give or
preserve face (Merkin, 2004) for the parties who have equal stakes in the
exchange and both may benefit. Given that a key aspect of
long-term-oriented Chinese culture is its high degree of collectivism
(Hofstede 1980, 2001; Minkov & Hofstede, 2014), people develop
in-group relationships through guanxi, wherein sensitive ties are predom-
inant (Lee & Dawes, 2005) such as the case of a new product launch that
someone wants the promoting party to be quiet about. The Chinese value
attachment, harmony, hierarchy, and long-term relationships because their
worldview as interconnected members of a group requires these values
246 R.S. MERKIN

ENVIRONMENT AND OTHER PARTIES

LONG TERM ORIENTATION

GI IVE
ES
TE AT
RA ER
ST OP
EXPECTIONS / RESPONSES
US

CO
IO ES
ON GI
M
R AT E
HA TR
S

INDIVIDUALISTIC COLLECTIVISTIC

FACE
MASCULINE FEMININE

SHORT TERM ORIENTATION

ENVIRONMENT AND OTHER PARTIES

Fig. 9.1 Facework model: short term and long term orientation

(Lee & Dawes, 2005). According to the model (see Fig. 9.1), face is a
reflection of the self, in the case of guanxi, usually the collectivistic self.
Those with a collectivistic self are likely to use harmonious facework
(Merkin, 2015) and corresponding long-term-oriented facework, which
tends to be both harmonious and cooperative (Merkin, 2004). Both of
these facework strategies work to foster face-saving long-term
relationships.
The harmony created by guanxi relationships and a long-term-oriented
Chinese perspective act as a substitute for organizational trust as it is
 9 LONG/SHORT-TERM ORIENTATION, FACEWORK … 247

understood in Western cultures. In fact, a guanxi relationship can even

replace the need for a contract in some cases (Yen, Yu, & Barnes, 2007;
Yen & Abosag, 2016). In general, parties can avoid communication
breakdowns and business mishaps by employing a deliberate long-term
orientation as a governance mechanism to deal with risks arising from
exchange vulnerabilities. This can also curtail suppliers’ opportunistic
behavior (Lui & Ngo, 2012). A study on guanxi conducted in the Chinese
context between sales representatives and procurement managers indicated
that overall, guanxi’s embodiment of harmony and acceptance of hierarchy
provides a safeguard to maintain the longevity of relationships, counter-
balancing the negative impact of uncertainty (Jorgensen & Petelle, 1992;
Yen & Abosag, 2016).
Knowledge of the influence of long-term orientation also helps to forge
contractual relationships formed in countries with differing levels of
long-term orientation. Research indicates that long-term oriented com-
panies tend to prefer “soft” contracts, particularly when they possess a
power advantage over their suppliers; short-term-oriented partners with
asymmetrical power advantages prefer “hard” contracts with explicitly
detailed written requirements (Ryu & Kim, 2010). Short-term-oriented
parties use these detailed contracts to reduce uncertainty and substitute for
the kind of trust found in cultures with guanxi-like relationships—prefer-
ring instead to keep a separation between their work and personal lives.
Undoubtedly, long-term-oriented companies use guanxi and long-term
relationships to police their contracts while those from more
short-term-oriented cultures are in a sense “disarmed” when in such
relationships, since they are not schooled in relating in this way.
Furthermore, in China, contracts are not the main method of preventing
uncertainty or unscrupulous behavior (Huo, Fu, Zhao, & Zhu, 2016).
Rather, maintaining long-term stable cooperative relationships for rela-
tional exchanges works best in China, despite the discomfort those from
short-term-oriented cultures might experience (Huo et al., 2016) partici-
pating in these unfamiliar exchanges. Because of the unstable institutional
structure for contract enforcement and the subjugation of law enforcement
to patriarchy and personal accommodation in China (Zhou and Poppo,
2010), it is difficult to achieve desired results using the legal system to
enforce compulsory contracts in China (Zhou & Poppo, 2010). Given the
pervasiveness of guanxi and collectivism in China, the use of contacts as a
monitoring device has a negative effect on cooperative relationships and
stimulates opportunism in more long-term oriented cultures (Huo et al.,
248 R.S. MERKIN

2016). Even if contracts are agreed to by both sides, the chances of liti-
gating in a fair way are unlikely in China.
Even so, more short-term-oriented business partners tend to rely on
low-context contracts with detailed provisions meant to protect their
interests. This method tends to work for them in their short-term-oriented
cultures where contracts are the norm. They are also able to defer to the
courts, which are willing to resolve business disputes. In addition,
short-term oriented cultures may have long-term work associates, but these
relationships are usually based only on business dealings, while the details
of their personal and family lives are kept private. This indicates that the
level of trust is lower than in the case of guanxi relationships. One other
factor which should be pointed out is that collectivistic long-term oriented
cultures also tend to be homogeneous so that their in-groups tend to be
made up of very similar types of people. The make-up of the in-groups
themselves in Confucian cultures enables a sense of correspondence that
reduces the uncertainty in their interactions. In the case of more
short-term-oriented cultures, however, more heterogeneous employees
comprise their workgroups. Consequently, there is greater uncertainty and
trust is harder to achieve. Parties, therefore, prefer formal contracts, despite
their high costs, because they must make sure that business provisions are
understood and can be arbitrated. Then the discomfort associated with
having to trust the other person without enough knowledge is dissipated
due to the accountability work partners have to the contract which, if
needed, could be litigated or settled if misunderstandings or opportunism
arise.

LONG/SHORT-TERM ORIENTATION AND COOPERATION

A study conducted in a short-term-oriented culture (Spain) also indicated
that firms and suppliers established commitments through lasting rela-
tionships determined by cooperation, communication, satisfaction, and
trust with each other (Cambra-Fierro & Polo-Redondo, 2011).
Specifically, the relationships followed the pattern that firm-supplier posi-
tive cooperation and communication has a positive influence on the
industrial buyer’s level of trust in its suppliers. The industrial buyer’s trust
in and perceived satisfaction with suppliers has a positive influence on the
level of commitment to the relationship. Then, the perceived satisfaction
has a positive influence on the long-term orientation of the supply function
(Cambra-Fierro & Polo-Redondo, 2011). Thus, short-term-oriented
 9 LONG/SHORT-TERM ORIENTATION, FACEWORK … 249

business people prefer proven experiences of reliability that provide a

greater sense of certainty, leading to a more “proven” evidence-based type
of trust. This pattern shows that short-term-oriented suppliers and buyers
also enjoy long-term relationships but they are not based on the same kind
of relational trust as guanxi. Instead, those from short-term-oriented cul-
tures base their relationships on mutual reliability and clear low-context
communication. In short-term oriented cultures, business partners can
work with each other and develop trusting business relationships that are
completely divorced from personal matters. However, guanxi relationships,
which are closer and intertwined are more multifaceted, feel constrained by
black-and-white distinctions based on contract terms and reliability, for
example. To bridge this gap between cultures, business people in more
short-term-oriented cultures should establish, maintain, and enhance
relationships with all partners and shape a complete and reliable chain from
suppliers of raw materials to the end consumer (Cambra-Fierro &
Polo-Redondo, 2011; Parente, Lee, Ishman, & Roth, 2008).
Cooperative facework, therefore, can be used in many types of har-
monious partnerships including alliances, joint-ventures, licenses, cooper-
ative marketing, and research agreements. When agents perceive positive
outcomes from relationships, their interest in maintaining and developing
these relationships will increase and long-term relationships are likely to
result (Cambra-Fierro & Polo-Redondo, 2011). Thus, face in the case of
short-term-oriented cultural members is dependent on cooperative and
harmonious facework that is predicated on and maintained by reliability
and clear communication (Merkin, 2004, 2015).
Business partners in long-term oriented guanxi relationships have the
joint goals to sell products to the consumer and to maximize profits. If the
products cannot be sold to the consumer, neither partner will generate
profit; thus, the activities of these partners are motived by mutual interest
(Chen & Wu, 2011). This situation impacts the long-term influence on the
course of social life and economic activities that these long-term-oriented
parties to a possible guanxi relationship share. The short-term equivalent
might be that those with a short-term orientation plan the strategic
advantage to last for the long-term, but instead of creating tight rela-
tionships between partners, create long-term investments from particular
governance conditions, and engender competitive asymmetries such as
organizational qualities that are hard for other firms to copy, while also
creating capabilities that are sustainable. This can be accomplished by
making investments in staff and training, creating tacit knowledge, and
250 R.S. MERKIN

preserving it within the firm (Breton‐Miller & Miller, 2006). Additionally,

participants can devote efforts to decision-making that supports a com-
pelling mission and dedicate most investments to a core competency.
When participants harmoniously cooperate to accomplish a business’ goals,
they build trust. When investments are farsighted, orchestrated, and
ongoing, capabilities tend to evolve in a growing positive course, making
them doubly hard to imitate, and thereby extending a competitive
advantage (Breton‐Miller & Miller, 2006). Both strategic modes of func-
tioning focus on what each entity accomplishes best, which is likely to drive
long-term success.

LONG/SHORT-TERM ORIENTATION, HARMONY & GUANXI

A long-term orientation is related to the Confucian value of harmony
which is also related to collectivism (Zai-xiao & Mingli, 2013). Since a
long-term orientation is related to collectivism (Zai-xiao & Mingli, 2013)
and collectivism is related to in-group/out-group distinctions (Triandis,
2001), long-term-oriented Chinese employees tend to distinguish between
their in-groups, with whom they tend to share guanxi relationships, and
out-groups, which includes everybody else. Findings bear this out and
show that, generally, Americans are more willing to communicate with the
Chinese than the Chinese are with Americans (Yu & Chia-Fang, 2008).
People will cherish harmony all the more so in interactions with people
who have good guanxi with them, because they are reluctant to hurt an
otherwise stable guanxi by actively pursuing a dispute (Zai-xiao & Mingli,
2013).
Given the importance of such relationships, the question arises as to
what occurs when there may be a conflict between the members of a
guanxi in-group versus the members of one’s organization who are part of
a different level in-group. Which group takes precedence? Does the guanxi
relationship interfere with the organizational work group? A study exam-
ining this particular phenomenon in the context of the Chinese workplace
showed that Guanxi circles (the phenomenon examined) are ego-centered
guanxi networks with a powerful person at the center (Luo et al., 2016).
Although a circle leader and his or her group members exchange favors for
private goals, they tend to actively balance their own interests with the
interests of people or groups outside the guanxi circle, so as to maintain a
harmonious relationship with the larger network. For this reason,
extra-role performances benefiting the larger network are encouraged in
 9 LONG/SHORT-TERM ORIENTATION, FACEWORK … 251

the management of a guanxi circle. Thus, a wide variety of circle roles

facilitate extra-role performance, and ultimately benefit organizations as a
whole (Luo et al., 2016).
While this phenomenon has not been studied in other cultures, this
concept is likely to be carried out based on Confucian values underlying
these practices. The concept of yin and yang is responsible for harmonious
relationships, wherein the group leader participates in favor of exchanges
with his or her members in order to preserve the interconnection of an
in-group circle, while also increasing a personal social network and culti-
vating trust in a larger network. The leader also needs to maintain equity at
work (Hwang, 1987). Furthermore, the leader will likely achieve greater
success in his or her career when he or she has more connections with the
larger network. However, he or she may have to deal with feelings of poor
treatment within his or her own small circle if they prioritize the greater
group. Thus, maintaining harmony in a larger network may conflict with
maintaining the interests of a smaller circle (Luo et al., 2016). This is
because focusing on very long-term exchanges as well as controlling
short-term self-interests cannot always hedge every risk. Balancing interests
from both inside and outside their small-group circle is a careful dance.
Leaders must focus on maintaining harmony while maintaining the ability
to mobilize the larger network in the future. This situation makes
long-term self-interest compatible with organizational benefits.
Overall, a long-term orientation involves a focus on the future that
increases the likelihood that saving face will be stressed. In particular,
harmony-maintaining facework is an important Confucian goal in rela-
tionships (Chandler, Zachary, Brigham, & Tyge, 2016). In order, to
maintain that harmony, long-term oriented facework also tends to focus on
cooperative facework strategies. Long-term oriented facework is depicted
in the facework model below.

CASE STUDY 7: LENOVO

Adapted from: Fairchild, C. (2014, October 31). Lenovo’s secret M&A
recipe. Fortune Magazine. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2014/
10/31/lenovos-mergers-motorola/?iid=sr-link.
For most of the 1990s and early 2000s, IBM had a strong PC business,
and the ThinkPad was the anchor of its portable personal computer line.
However, by 2004 IBM’s business had changed, and it was interested in
getting out of the PC hardware business. As a result, in 2005, IBM sold
252 R.S. MERKIN

their personal computer business to Lenovo and over the last 10 years
Lenovo has become the Number 1 PC business in the world.
Within three months of being hired as chief diversity officer at Lenovo in
2007, Yolanda Conyers was called out for being disrespectful to her
Chinese coworkers. Ms. Conyers, a perfectly well-mannered woman from
Port Arthur, Texas, was stunned by the criticism because she thought she
had worked diligently to be courteous to her new team.
Apparently, Ms. Conyers efforts were misunderstood. When she sent
emails to her senior colleagues to “request” a meeting, she thought she was
being very deferential. But the word request translates in Mandarin to a
term that executives use when asking for a meeting with someone below
them. Unknowingly, Conyers was telling her new managers that she
thought she was above them. This simple accidental slight generated a lot
of mistrust. Following this incident, a lot of effort had to be made to create
better understandings between different cultures within the company.
In order to better understand the nuances of corporate behavior Conyers
decided to take the time to go live in China while Qiao, her Chinese
counterpart, went to live in the US. Their personal journeys alongside
Lenovo’s path to becoming a truly global company is documented in the
book entitled The Lenovo Way. The book outlines the tech giant’s initial
struggles with corporate cultural clashes. For Conyers and Qiao, figuring out
how to bring people together with each new acquisition was just as essential
as mixing supply chains and distributions networks. Without a concrete plan
for successful interactions, mergers and acquisitions too often fail.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

1. Explain what aspect of long-term orientation was responsible for the

miscommunication between the superior and Ms. Conyers.

a. Were all aspects of the miscommunication driven by culture?

b. Which aspects of miscommunication were due to Confucian
values?
c. Which aspects of miscommunication were specifically due to
attitudes toward hierarchy?
2. How would you suggest Ms. Conyers should have addressed her
superiors so that there would be no face-threat?
 9 LONG/SHORT-TERM ORIENTATION, FACEWORK … 253

3. How might Ms. Conyers have used cooperation strategies to com-

municate with her superiors successfully?
4. How might Ms. Conyers have used harmony strategies to commu-
nicate with her superiors successfully?
5. Do you believe that the issues of insubordination could have been
addressed and resolved? Why? Why not?
6. What workplace policies would you institute to help facilitate cultural
understanding between employees of the US and China?

REFERENCES
Alston, J. P. (1989). Wa, guanxi, and inhwa: Managerial principles in Japan, China,
and Korea. Business Horizons, 32(2), 26–31.
Bajarin, T. (2015, May 4). 10 years later, looking back at the IBM-Lenovo PC
deal. PC Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.pcmag.com/article2/
0,2817,2483557,00.asp.
Barnes, B. R., Yen, D., & Zhou, L. (2011). Investigating guanxi dimensions and
relationship outcomes: Insights from Sino-Anglo business relationships.
Industrial Marketing Management, 40(4), 510–521.
Bearden, W. O., Money, R. B., & Nevins, J. L. (2006). A measure of long-term
orientation: Development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 34, 456–467. doi:10.1177/0092070306286706.
Breton-Miller, L., & Miller, D. (2006). Why do some family businesses
out-compete? Governance, long-term orientations, and sustainable capability.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 731–746.
Brigham, K. H., Lumpkin, G. T., Payne, G. T., & Zachary, M. A. (2014).
Researching long-term orientation: A validation study and recommendations for
future research. Family Business Review, 27(1), 72–88. doi:10.1177/
0894486513508980.
Brislin, R. W., & Kim, E. S. (2003). Cultural diversity in people’s understanding
and uses of time. Applied Psychology, 52(3), 363–382.
Brodowsky, G. H., & Anderson, B. B. (2000). A cross-cultural study of consumer
attitudes toward time. Journal of Global Marketing, 13(3), 93–109.
Cambra-Fierro, J. J., & Polo-Redondo, Y. (2011). Post-satisfaction factors affecting
the long-term orientation of supply relationships. Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, 26(6), 395–406.
Chandler, J. A., Zachary, M. A., Brigham, K. H., & Tyge, G. (2016). Long-term
orientation. In F. W. Kellermanns & F. Hoy (Eds.), Routledge companion to
family business (pp. 70–89).
254 R.S. MERKIN

Chen, M.-J. (2008). Re-conceptualizing the competition-cooperation relationship:

A transparadox perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(4), 288–304.
Chen, X., & Wu, J. (2011). Do different guanxi types affect capability building
differently? A contingency view. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(4),
581–592.
Chinese Culture Connection. (1987). Chinese values and the search for
culture-free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18,
143–164.
Cohen, T. R., Wolf, S. T., Panter, A. T., & Insko, C. A. (2011). Introducing the
GASP scale: A new measure of guilt and shame proneness. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 100(5), 947.
De Mooij, M., & Hofstede, G. (2002). Convergence and divergence in consumer
behavior: Implications for international retailing. Journal of Retailing, 78(1),
61–69.
Deresky, H. (2008). International management: Managing across borders and
cultures. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Dunning, J. H., & Kim, C. (2007). The cultural roots of guanxi: An exploratory
study. World Economy, 30(2), 329–341.
Fairchild, C. (2014, October 31). Lenovo’s secret M&A recipe. Fortune Magazine.
Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2014/10/31/lenovos-mergers-
motorola/?iid=sr-link.
Fan, Y. (2002). Questioning guanxi: Definition, classification and implications.
International Business Review, 11(5), 543–561.
Fang, T. (2003). A critique of Hofstede’s fifth national culture dimension.
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 3, 347–368.
Fang, T. (2012). Yin Yang: A new perspective on culture. Management and
Organization Review, 8(1), 25–50.
Fellague, M., & Bennafla, K. (2015). Organizational culture and the implemen-
tation of total quality management. Indian Journal of Management Science,
5(1), 1–11.
Foxman, E. R., Tansuhaj, P. S., & Wong, J. K. (1988). Evaluating cross-national
sales promotion strategy: An audit approach. International Marketing Review,
5(4), 7–15.
Furnham, A., Bond, M., Heaven, P., Hilton, D., Lovel, T., Masters, J., et al.
(1993). A comparison of Protestant work ethic beliefs in thirteen nations.
Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 185–197.
Gelbrich, K., Stedham, Y., & Gäthke, D. (2016). Cultural discrepancy and national
corruption: Investigating the difference between cultural values and practices
and its relationship to corrupt behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26(2), 201–
225. doi:10.1017/beq.2016.29.
 9 LONG/SHORT-TERM ORIENTATION, FACEWORK … 255

Geletkanycz, M. A. (1997). The salience of ‘culture’s consequences’: The effects of

cultural values on top executive commitment to the status quo. Strategic
Management Journal, 18(8), 615–634.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday.
Gold, T. B. (1985). After comradeship: Personal relations in China since the
cultural revolution. The China Quarterly, 104, 657–675.
Goodapple, J. (2015). Navigating leadership in U.S.-based multinationals. Cornell
HR Review, 1–4.
Gunkel, M., Schlaegel, C., & Taras, V. (2016). Cultural values, emotional
intelligence, and conflict handling styles: A global study. Journal of World
Business, 51(4), 568–585.
Hodgetts, R. M., & Luthans, F. (2002). International management: Culture,
strategy, and behavior. New York: Irwin McGraw Hill.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership and organization: Do American
theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics., 9, 42–63.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and organization: Software of the mind. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of
Management Executive, 7, 81–94.
Hofstede, G. (1994). Management scientists are human. Management Science, 40,
4–13.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: International differences in
work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucian connection: From cultural
roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16, 4–21.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations:
Software of the mind (Vol. 2). London: McGraw-Hill.
Holt, D. H. (1997). A comparative study of values among Chinese and US
entrepreneurs: Pragmatic convergence between contrasting cultures. Journal of
Business Venturing, 12, 483–505.
House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding
cultures and implicit leadership theories across the GLOBE: An introduction to
project GLOBE. Journal of World Business, 37(1), 3–10.
Huo, B., Fu, D., Zhao, X., & Zhu, J. (2016). Curbing opportunism in logistics
outsourcing relationships: The role of relational norms and contract.
International Journal of Production Economics, 182, 293–303.
Huynh, K. T. (2016). Sales promotion effectiveness: The impact of culture on
demographic level. International Business Research, 9(4), 123.
Hwang, K. K. (1987). Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal
of Sociology, 92(4), 944–974.
256 R.S. MERKIN

Hwang, K. K. (2012). 26 social exchange and face dynamism in Confucian society.

In X. Huang & M. H. Bond (Eds.), Handbook of Chinese organizational
behavior: Integrating theory, research and practice (pp. 480–501). Northampton,
MA: Edward Elgar.
Jaw, B. S., Ling, Y. H., Wang, C. Y. H., & Chang, W. C. (2007). The impact of
culture on Chinese employees’ work values. Personnel Review, 36(5), 763.
doi:10.1108/00483480710774034.
Jorgensen, J. D., & Petelle, J. L. (1992). Measuring uncertainty within organi-
zational relationships: An analysis of the clues instrument. Management
Communication Quarterly, 6(2), 180–203.
Kim, Y. J., Park, J., & Wyer, R. S., Jr. (2009). Effects of temporal distance and
memory on consumer judgments. The Journal of Consumer Research, 36,
634–645. doi:10.1086/599765.
Klatzky, R. L. (1998, January). Allocentric and egocentric spatial representations:
Definitions, distinctions, and interconnections. In C. Freksa, C. Habel, & K.
F. Wender (Eds.), Spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary approach to represent-
ing and processing spatial knowledge (pp. 1–18). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Klineberg, S. L. (1968). Future time perspective and the preference for delayed
reward. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(3), 253–257.
Kopalle, P. K., Lehmann, D. R., & Farley, J. U. (2010). Consumer expectations
and culture: The effect of belief in karma in India. Journal of Consumer Research,
37(2), 251–263.
Lee, D. Y., & Dawes, P. L. (2005). Guanxi, trust, and long-term orientation in
Chinese business markets. Journal of International Marketing, 13(2), 28–56.
Leelien Ken, H. (2017). A cultural model of online banking adoption: Long-term
orientation perspective. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing,
29(1), 1–22. doi:10.4018/JOEUC.2017010101.
Li, P. P. 2008. Toward a geocentric framework of trust: An application to
organizational trust. Management and Organization Review, 4(3), 413–439.
Lim, V. K. G. (2003). Money matters: An empirical investigation of money, face
and Confucian work ethic. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 953–970.
Lim, C., & Lay, C. S. (2003). Confucianism and the Protestant work ethic. Asia
Europe Journal, 1, 322–323.
Lu, L., Rose, G. M., & Blodgett, J. G. (1999). The effects of cultural dimensions
on ethical decision making in marketing and exploratory study. Journal of
Business Ethics, 18, 91–105.
Lu, C. S., Hsu, C. N., & Lee, C. H. (2016). The impact of seafarers’ perceptions of
national culture and leadership on safety attitude and safety behavior in dry bulk
shipping. International Journal of e-Navigation and Maritime Economy, 4, 75–87.
Lui, S. S., & Ngo, H. (2012). Drivers and outcomes of long-term orientation in
cooperative relationships. British Journal of Management, 23(1), 80–95. doi:10.
1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00719.x.
 9 LONG/SHORT-TERM ORIENTATION, FACEWORK … 257

Luo, Y. (2004). A coopetition perspective of MNC–host government relations.

Journal of International Management, 10(4), 431–451.
Luo, Y. (2007). A coopetition perspective of global competition. Journal of World
Business, 42(2), 129–144.
Luo, Y., Huang, Y., & Wang, S. L. (2012). Guanxi and organizational performance:
A meta-analysis. Management and Organization Review, 8(1), 139–172.
Luo, J. D., Cheng, M. Y., & Zhang, T. (2016). Guanxi circle and organizational
citizenship behavior: Context of a Chinese workplace. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 33(3), 649–671.
Ma, L. C. (1986). The Protestant ethic among Taiwanese college students. Journal
of Psychology, 120, 219–224.
Merkin, R. S. (2004). Cultural long-term orientation and facework strategies.
Atlantic Journal of Communication, 12(3), 163–176.
Merkin, R. S. (2006). Uncertainty avoidance and facework: A test of the Hofstede
model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(2), 213–228.
Merkin, R. (2015). The relationship between individualism/collectivism:
Consultation and harmony needs. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 39.
Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2012). Hofstede’s fifth dimension: New evidence
from the world values survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(1), 3–14.
Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2014). A replication of Hofstede’s uncertainty
avoidance dimension across nationally representative samples from Europe.
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 14(2), 161–171.
Modigliani, A. (1971). Embarrassment, facework, and eye contact: Testing a theory
of embarrassment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17(1), 15–24.
Osland, G. E. (1990). Doing business in China: A framework for cross-cultural
understanding. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 8(4), 4–14.
Parente, D. H., Lee, P. D., Ishman, M. D., & Roth, A. V. (2008). Marketing and
supply chain management: A collaborative research agenda. Journal of Business
& Industrial Marketing, 23(8), 520–528.
Park, S. B., Chung, N., & Woo, S. C. (2013). Do reward programs build loyalty to
restaurants? The moderating effect of long-term orientation on the timing and
types of rewards. Managing Service Quality, 23(3), 225–244. doi:10.1108/
09604521311312246.
Pillay, S., & Dorasamy, N. (2010). Linking cultural dimensions with the nature of
corruption: An institutional theory perspective. International Journal of Cross
Cultural Management, 10(3), 363–378.
Ralston, D. A., Gustafsori, D. J., Elsass, P. M., Cheung, F., & Terpstra, R. H. (1992).
Eastern values: A comparison of managers in the United States, Hong Kong, and
the People’s Republic of China. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 664–671.
Redding, G. S. (1990). The spirit of Chinese capitalism. Berlin: Gruyter.
Redding, G. S., & Ng, M. (1982). The role of ‘face’ in the organizational
perception of Chinese managers. Organizational Studies, 3, 201–219.
258 R.S. MERKIN

Rizvi, A., Jamal, M., & Steinberg, H. (2016). India and Japan: A cultural
dimensional study of supply chain management. In Allied academies interna-
tional internet conference (p. 165).
Robertson, C. J., & Hoffman, J. J. (2000). How different are we? An investigation
of Confucian values in the United States. Journal of Management Issues, 12,
34–47.
Rodriguez, P., Uhlenbruck, K., & Eden, L. (2005). Government corruption and
the entry strategies of multinationals. Academy of Management Review, 30,
383–396.
Rowland, D. (1993). Japanese business etiquette. New York: Warner Books.
Ryu, S., & Kim, E. (2010). The moderating effect of long-term orientation on the
relationship between interfirm power asymmetry and interfirm contracts: The
cases of Korea and USA. Journal of Applied Business Research, 26(6), 135–146.
Shi, Z. (2016). Cross culture analysis to reconstruct the dimensions of long-term
orientation and uncertainty avoidance. Doctoral dissertation, TU Delft, Delft
University of Technology.
Shi, X., & Wang, J. (2011). Interpreting Hofstede model and GLOBE model:
Which way to go for cross-cultural research? International Journal of Business
and Management, 6(5), 93.
Sims, R. L., Ruppel, C. P., & Zeidler, P. (2016). Work strain, job satisfaction, and
intention to quit: The moderating effect of long-term orientation. International
Journal of Stress Management, 23(1), 23–43. doi:10.1037/a0039755.
Sivakumar, K., & Nakata, C. (2001). The stampede toward Hofstede’s framework:
Avoiding the sample design pit in cross-cultural research. Journal of
International Business Studies, 32(3), 555–574.
Tang, T. L.-P. (1990). Factors affecting intrinsic motivation among university
students in Taiwan. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 219–230.
Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Soo Kim, H., Lin, S. L., et al.
(1991). Culture, face maintenance, and styles of handling interpersonal conflict:
A study in five cultures. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2(4),
275–296.
Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism-collectivism and personality. Journal of
Personality, 69(6), 907–924.
Uhlenbruck, K., Rodriguez, P., Doh, J., & Eden, L. (2006). The impact of
corruption on entry strategy: Evidence from telecommunication projects in
emerging economies. Organization Science, 17, 402–414.
Venaik, S., Zhu, Y., & Brewer, P. (2013). Looking into the future: Hofstede long
term orientation versus GLOBE future orientation. Cross Cultural
Management: An International Journal, 20(3), 361–385.
Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons.
 9 LONG/SHORT-TERM ORIENTATION, FACEWORK … 259

Williams, S., & Sandler, R. L. (1995). Work values and attitudes: Protestant and
Confucian ethics as predictors of satisfaction and commitment. Research and
Practice in Human Resource Management, 3, 1–13.
Wong, V. C., & Wyer, R. J. (2016). Mental traveling along psychological distances:
The effects of cultural syndromes, perspective flexibility, and construal level.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(1), 17–33. doi:10.1037/
pspa0000048.
Yang, M. H. (1994). Gifts, favors, and banquets: The art of relationships in China.
New York: Cornell University Press.
Yen, D. A., & Abosag, I. (2016). Localization in China: How guanxi moderates
Sino–US business relationships. Journal of Business Research, 69(12), 5724–
5734. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.05.002.
Yen, D. A., & Barnes, B. R. (2011). Analyzing stage and duration of
Anglo-Chinese business-to-business relationships. Industrial Marketing
Management, 40(3), 346–357.
Yen, D. A., Yu, Q., & Barnes, B. R. (2007). Focusing on relationship dimensions to
improve the quality of Chinese-Western business-to-business exchanges. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence, 18(8), 889–899.
Yu, L., & Chia-Fang, H. (2008). Willingness to communicate in intercultural
interactions between Chinese and Americans. Journal of Intercultural
Communication Research, 37(2), 75–88. doi:10.1080/17475750802533356.
Zai-xiao, Z., & Ming-li, Z. (2013, July). Guanxi-oriented attitude and the selection
of communication modality under friction events. In 2013 International
Conference on Management Science and Engineering (ICMSE) (pp. 1325–
1331). IEEE.
Zhang, S., Liu, W., & Liu, X. (2012). Investigating the relationship between
protestant work ethic and Confucian dynamism: An empirical test in mainland
China. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(2), 243–252. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-
0993-8.
Zhao, M., Hoeffler, S., & Zauberman, G. (2007). Mental simulation and
preference consistency over time: The role of process-versus outcome-focused
thoughts. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3), 379–388.
Zhou, K. Z., & Poppo, L. (2010). Exchange hazards, relational reliability, and
contracts in China: The contingent role of legal enforceability. Journal of
International Business Studies, 41(5), 861–881.
Zhuang, G., Xi, Y., & Tsang, A. S. (2010). Power, conflict, and cooperation: The
impact of guanxi in Chinese marketing channels. Industrial Marketing
Management, 39(1), 137–149.
 CHAPTER 10

Overview and Facework Model

Application for the Cross-Cultural
Workplace

Rapidly emerging communication and transportation technology has

connected nearly every part of the world (Samovar, Porter, McDaniel, &
Roy, 2015). This connectedness has led to the globalization of the mar-
ketplace. A global economy requires constant and complex intercultural
communication. The stakes are high for corporate actors trying to navigate
unfamiliar facework exchanges, but if they prepare themselves by recon-
sidering their intercultural communication flexibility (Niendorf, 2015) they
may be better prepared for successful international partnerships. It is with
this in mind that we strive to understand how such differences between
people working in organizational or business contexts are influenced by
facework. In doing so, it is necessary to start by examining socialization.
Socialization is the programming of the mind (Hofstede, 2001) that takes
place in the culture in which we grow up.
Feelings are attached to one’s self, and one’s self is expressed through
face (Goffman, 2005). The self, therefore, is the starting point in the
conceptualization a person holds of his/her face. Goffman defined face as
“the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line
others assume he has taken during a particular contact” (Goffman, 1967,
p. 5). Face resides in “the flow of events in the encounter” (Goffman,
1967, p. 7). It does not reside in the individual, but is negotiated between
parties. Because face is negotiated, it is enacted through interaction
(Garber-Barron & Si, 2013). This communication enactment process is
called facework and is comprised of communication strategies.

© The Author(s) 2018 261

R.S. Merkin, Saving Face in Business,
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59174-6_10
262 R.S. MERKIN

A person tests such strategies to present face, but no matter what

message the individual wishes to send, the other participant(s) assume that
the individual intentionally took his or her stand. For example, purchasing
luxury brands is considered a way of keeping face for the collectivistic
Chinese (Li & 李玲, 2016). However, if this act is interpreted as showing
off, depending on the audience, then, to maintain face, the fashionable
communicator would have to correct this impression. Thus, the individual
must handle the impression that he or she has created (Goffman, 2005).
When people are brought up in similar cultures, their intentions can be
tacitly understood, but when they are brought up with different cultural
assumptions, intentions are more likely to be misunderstood.
In facework, individuals enact various strategies according to their cul-
ture and the situation. After experiencing a response to the face they
presented, individuals determine whether to amend their strategies or not.
Through facework, members of different cultures are able to negotiate
their relationships, which will lead to a greater focus on mutuality and
understanding. The cultural model presented applies Hofstede’s (1980,
2001) cultural dimensions to the workings of the self, face, and facework.
By identifying a cultures’ characteristics, it is possible to approximate the
likelihood of those cultural members’ use of facework and facework pref-
erences. Of course, this book could not address individual differences and
idiosyncrasies. However, it was able to describe facework strategies anyone
can use to prepare for patterns of basic functioning that are most likely to
ensue when encountering others from different cultures. The communi-
cation tactics researchers refer to as “facework”, when applied appropriately
while keeping in mind cultural norms, can be a powerful way to forge
relationships in business and interpersonal contexts. This is because the
need to preserve face has a powerful impact on social behavior (Goffman,
2005). If we can manage to accomplish our business goals while preserving
face for all, the odds are that we will be successful.
Scholarship suggests that preserving face facilitates effective communi-
cation because people, on the whole, are motivated by what others think
about them (Ellingsen & Johannesson, 2007, 2008; Eriksson & Villeval,
2012). Social psychologists have shown how preserving one’s image is
important for humans in all societies (Spencer, Fein, & Lomore, 2001;
Baumeister, Campbell, & Krueger, 2005; Mruk, 2006). Studies show that
self-esteem and considerateness for others lead people to preserve self- and
others’ face in social encounters (Eriksson, Mao, & Villeval, 2016).
Goffman (2005) explained that face-saving practices are a condition for
 10 OVERVIEW AND FACEWORK MODEL … 263

social interactions. Face addresses a widespread form of social interaction

among individuals concerning how people present themselves to others
and how we evaluate ourselves (Goffman, 2005; Earley, 1997; Yu, 2003).
Although culturally complex, face is regarded as a universal form of social
interaction (Goffman, 2005; Earley, 1997; Yu, 2003). Face-saving is “the
perceived appropriateness of a particular behavior for a person’s social
status” (Cho, Thyroff, Rapert, Park, & Lee, 2013). Face-saving is acted out
by choosing appropriate behavioral strategies for avoiding business mishaps
and retaining social standing in the face of a potentially damaging situation
or condition (Keil, Im, & Mähring, 2007). Attempts to save face are
necessary to avoid losing face and experiencing embarrassment.
Empirical evidence indicates that embarrassment is associated with
efforts to improve one’s presented self through facework (Modigliani,
1971). Facework is used to remediate face-threats. Face-threats cause
people to report greater tension and nervousness (Jackson & Latane,
1981) causing those under threat to engage in more face-saving behavior
that reveals embarrassment (Brown & Garland, 1971; Garland & Brown,
1972). This occurs particularly when people perceive themselves to be less
rather than more competent at a specific task or when they are performing
before competent as opposed to incompetent others. The amount of
supportive feedback one receives during an interaction also affects expec-
tations of success and hence, anxiety (Schlenker & Leary, 1982).
Researchers state that face is lost when an individual is not successful in
meeting the requirements placed upon him or her in relation to his or her
social position (Ho, 1976; Keil et al. 2007). A person’s belongings (such as
their car) when they are members of explicit individualistic low-context
cultures are considered to be part of their face (Hofstede, 1991). Hence, if
a person unexpectedly bumps into a colleague in a supermarket and is
driving her teenage son’s old broken-down car, she may lose face because
the artifact is inconsistent with the face she usually presents to her col-
league. Subsequently, to save face, that person might want to explain that
her car is in the shop and she was just using her son’s car in the interim.
This, or another appropriate behavior may help to realign her presentation
to a socially-appropriate position. Another example is when people get into
an argument and one’s face is attacked with words that disconfirm the
recipient’s identity. When words are used to attack a person’s face, it
reminds the recipient of his or her role in society and how the attacker is
violating social obligations in rejecting the recipient’s social standing. Thus,
communications attacking face also provide information about the
264 R.S. MERKIN

relationship between speaker and recipient. But, in this case, attacking the
recipient’s face communicates that the speaker views him or herself as
superior and the recipient as inferior in the relationship (Goffman, 2005).
Then, the recipient may try to regain or maintain his or her face by
retaliating in kind (Brett et al., 2007). Individualistic cultural members
who are more prone to use direct embarrassing questions or statements as
facework strategies need to take care when using such communication
(even if they have honorable intensions) because the consequences can be
dire for future business prospects (Stahlin, Harris, & Kinkela, 2014). This
is because, as (Goffman, 2005) explained, the need to maintain face is a
prevalent cultural value and people will do costly things to maintain face—
even kill business deals.
On the other hand, since losing face, besides being hurtful, strains
further communication, participants usually try to preserve each other’s
face during intercultural interactions (Goffman, 1967). Thus, face is
shared. Consequently, if a face-threat occurs in a Western culture, if, for
example, someone is embarrassing themselves, people look away or feel
uncomfortable and try to give the person some leeway because face is
shared by the group that witnesses the presentation. In Eastern cultures,
however, the Chinese, for example, talk of everyone having face, sug-
gesting that if one member of a group loses face, the entire group loses
face. Also, sometimes those with a lower status feel obligated to protect
their superior’s face, trying to give face to the superior through self-effacing
behaviors (Kim & Nam, 1998).
Westerners do not necessarily understand this and may see different
members of an in-group as individuals and treat them accordingly.
Misunderstandings of this concept can create problems for those with more
individualistic orientations. Accordingly, particular care must be taken to
treat all of a groups’ members with respect, particularly in the case of
Eastern colleagues (Cardon & Scott, 2003). Those from Eastern cultures
also have an implied obligatory commitment to respect and protect each
other’s face and give face to each other when necessary (Cardon & Scott,
2003; Li, Qiu, & Liu, 2016). For example, when a group of business
people attend a social function, each member of the group frequently
mentions the status and accomplishments of the other members (particu-
larly the high-status members) of the business (Cardon & Scott, 2003).
Whereas the Eastern version of giving face is all about giving more face
as opposed to regaining it, giving face in a Western culture occurs when
people respond to a slip-up in one’s performance in a manner that diffuses
 10 OVERVIEW AND FACEWORK MODEL … 265

embarrassment (Goffman, 2005). Giving face can also involve allowing the
recipient to receive a better outcome than she or he might otherwise have
been able to take, thereby getting face given to her or him (Goffman,
2005). To those from Asian countries, to give face means to give praise to
someone in an organization (Lim & Basnyat, 2016). To the Chinese, face
is their most precious possession, and foreigners must be careful not to
cause them to lose face (Brett et al., 2007). Foreigners should also
endeavor to give face when appropriate (Brunner & You, 1988). In both
Western and Eastern cultures giving face also leads the receiver to deduce
that the speaker respects the receiver and perceives him or her to have high
standing, honor, and integrity in society (Brett et al., 2007). Social
recognition, as communicated by displaying affirmation and acquiescent
behavior, affirms the recipient’s self-image of dignity and generates positive
emotions (Goffman, 2005; Lim & Basnyat, 2016). Alternatively, the
recipient can gain face when speakers express powerlessness, putting the
recipient in a socially superior position and activating a sense of obligation
to the speaker (Drake & Moberg, 1986).
When there is conflict, a particularly face-threatening situation, a central
determining factor of whether words affect the probability that a dispute
will resolve at any given point in time is whether the words give face to or
attack the face of the other party (Brett et al., 2007). Condemning a
person’s status or reputation causes them to lose face (Lim & Basnyat
2016). In contrast, words that give face to the other party in a dispute
stimulate openness to new ideas and further discussion (Brown &
Levinson, 1987). Significantly, giving face may establish verbal immediacy,
a mechanism for creating closeness and promoting a positive relationship
(Drake & Moberg, 1986). Giving face should encourage compliance
during dispute resolution, either by encouraging a positive emotional
atmosphere or by reminding the recipient of his or her social obligations
(Brett et al., 2007). Alternatively, when using a third-party mediator with
authority, so that face is given to a higher status individual, both parties to a
conflict may be willing to make concessions in the name of honoring the
higher status mediator’s face (and thus, saving their own face)
(Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998). Furthermore, individuals, particularly
from Eastern cultures, who wish to preserve their own face, often try to
reduce conflict because avoiding the loss of face is vital in maintaining their
own image in social contexts (Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998). In China,
for example, as well as in Chinese-dominated businesses throughout Asia,
company suitors should give face (honor and respect) to a potential
266 R.S. MERKIN

partner’s decision makers by investing the personal time of their own

leaders (Kanter, 1994), as using lower-level businesspersons to close deals
is considered an act of disrespect.
While the need to save face is present in all cultures, it differs in how it is
established and displayed (Earley, 1997; Ting-Toomey et al. 1991).
Findings show that face maintenance is important in Western cultures
(Ting-Toomey et al., 1991). Moreover, research evidence in cross-cultural
psychology, sociology, and anthropology points to the strong influence of
face on much of the social interactions in Asian countries (e.g. Bond &
Lee, 1981; Ho, 1976; Hu, 1944; Kim, & Nam, 1998; Markus &
Kitayama, 1991; Yang, 1945). Face is a key to social interactions in
Confucian cultures, as well (Hu, 1944; Redding & Ng, 1982; Qi, 2011).
Indeed, the Chinese are concerned with face during the socialization
process and use shaming techniques to indoctrinate a strong sensitivity to
group belonging and others’ opinions (Cardon & Scott, 2003; Eriksson,
et al., 2016). Chinese businesspersons use various communication strate-
gies to save face and give face, including indirectness, intermediaries,
praising, requests, and shaming (Cardon & Scott, 2003). Giving face, or
the concern for others’ face, begins early and is stressed to a larger extent in
collectivistic, high-power-distance and long-term-oriented cultures (Kim &
Nam, 1998; Li & Su, 2007; Merkin, Taras, & Steel, 2014; Ting-Toomey
et al., 1991). Face also works as a powerful social force when Asian man-
agers make decisions and choose a course of action (Kim, & Nam, 1998)
so that face is a driver of behavioral strategies in the workplace.
Culture also influences values and consequential behavior. In order to
understand culture’s influences, scholars have categorized a set of cultural
dimensions and compared different cultures along those dimensions using
several models, such as the Hofstede Model (Hofstede, 2001; Hofstede &
Hofstede, 2005; Minkov & Hofstede, 2010), studies by Schwartz & Bilsky
(1987), Trompenaars (1993), and the GLOBE Model (Hanges, Javidan,
Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). Studies also have made inroads into the main
impasses related to conflict and dealing with them (Kluckhohn &
Strodtbeck, 1961; Inkeles, 1997). However, Hofstede’s model has been
applied the most (Fang, 2012; Mooij & Hofstede, 2010).
As was demonstrated in the preceding chapters, culture drives both the
presentation of face and the reactionary facework to others’ presentations
that play a vital role in the success or failure of cross-cultural interactions.
Building on Geert Hofstede’s seminal research on cultural dimensions,
more recent research in business, communication, cross-cultural
 10 OVERVIEW AND FACEWORK MODEL … 267

psychology and sociology has been presented together with an operational

model for a better understanding of how facework is carried out overall
during cross-cultural interactions. Merkin’s model illustrates particular
facework communication strategies which are preferred by those possessing
different combinations of cultural individualism-collectivism and
masculinity-femininity and how these combinations drive cultural mem-
bers’ choice of ensuing facework applied to presenting face. Once face has
been presented, there are reactions to others which are guided by the level
of cultural dimensions perceived. The reactive cultural dimensions include
(high/low) power distance, (high/low) uncertainty avoidance and
long/short-term orientation. Understanding how face shapes the way
people communicate and receive responses in different cultures can be
mapped out based on the response strategies indicated in the model.
Though the strategies presented clearly do not represent the entire universe
of all facework strategies, the provided strategies can be used as a starting
point in planning and strategizing possible tactics to gain influence or to
mitigate possible mishaps using the knowledge of what strategies one
might ordinarily use, but should avoid using when interacting with
members of other cultures.

SUMMARY
The purpose of this book has been to explain the delicate maneuvers of
facework that are most likely to be employed by people from different
cultures. Using Hofstede’s cultural dimensions as a classification system
and heuristic devise, the facework model depicts the expected facework
that will likely emanate from each corresponding cultural dimension.
Depending on the strength of the particular dimension, particular strate-
gies are, in turn, more likely to dominate communication. The different
strategies presented in the model help the reader to anticipate strategies
likely to be encountered during intercultural interactions. Additionally, the
model can be used to strategize the appropriate facework to be enacted
during business communications. Given that culture and saving others’
face play a vital role in the success or failure of cross-cultural interactions,
we will review the principles discussed in the preceding chapters.
As depicted in the final facework model, strategies classically used to deal
with face-threatening situations vary by different combinations of
Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) cultural dimensions. To review, both
individualism-collectivism and masculinity-femininity make up a person’s
268 R.S. MERKIN

self and corresponding face (Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Inkeles & Levinson,
1969; Merkin, 2005). People reflect their inner self by presenting their
face. Facework strategies are the vehicle used to present face. They cor-
respond to both predictors (i.e., individualism-collectivism and
masculinity-femininity) and are likely to be communicated based on the
stronger predictor. Individualism tends to be enacted using particularly
direct low-context facework that includes self-attribution or taking
responsibility for one’s actions and communication. Collectivism tends to
be enacted using indirect, cooperative, harmonious and ritualistic strate-
gies. These communication strategies often oppose each other and caution
is necessary when communicating with those who use strategies from the
opposite pole of one’s own culture. The second set of predictors of face
include masculinity, which is revealed via competitive facework, and fem-
ininity, which is reflected in more modest, sensitive, face-saving, and
leveling facework.
The cultural dimensions that are reactive to others’ presentations are
more likely to be employed during negotiations and to be observed after
others have presented themselves to the recipient. As facework is interac-
tive, the responses are attempts to influence what was presented through
previous facework. Specifically, the level of power distance, uncertainty
avoidance, or short or long-term oriented reactions people have to what
they may perceive as face-threats, cause them to use certain types of face-
work to manage potentially face-threatening situations. Though uncer-
tainty avoidance and short/long-term orientation tend to be more emic
conceptualizations (Earley, 1997), they are included in this model because
their cultural implications impact facework strategies and subsequent
communication (Merkin, 2004, 2006b, 2010).
Power distance influences a person’s sense of obedience. Those from
cultures high in power distance keep their face intact by following what is
required for their position in their social and professional hierarchy. They
enact facework strategies to preserve their position and acknowledge the
power positions of superiors by showing sensitivity and concern for face
(Merkin et al., 2014). In turn, a high-power distance is associated with
facework strategies that are indirect and cooperative.
The converse is true for those who are from low-power-distance cultures
because they are less respectful of a person’s position and believe that all
men are created equal. This is characterized by their greater tendency to
interrupt others (Merkin et al., 2014). Those with this view perceive that
they should be consulted by superiors before policies are made or at least
 10 OVERVIEW AND FACEWORK MODEL … 269

carried out (Merkin, 2006a). As a result, if those from low-power-distance

cultures are not consulted or given feedback on the job, they tend to feel
slighted. Consequently, consultation expectations are associated with a
low-power distance (Merkin, 2006a).
Uncertainty avoidance is a strong feeling that one needs control in order
to reduce uncertainty. The uncertainty must be reduced before the person
can relax and be agreeable (Merkin, 2006b). This is why a high uncertainty
avoidance is associated with seemingly conflicting facework strategies. On
the one hand, aggression strategies will be used when the high uncertainty
avoidant person feels under particular threat of experiencing uncertainty, as
when interacting with strangers, for example. In order not to rock the boat
or stir up threatening situations, those with a high uncertainty avoidance
have greater sensitivity and face-saving concerns (Merkin et al., 2014).
However, once there is more or less a feeling of equilibrium, those with a
high uncertainty avoidance tend to use ritualistic strategies, which are more
predictable by nature, in order to predict how the relationship interactions
will be conducted (Merkin, 2006b).
Finally, those with a long-term orientation believe in cultivating rela-
tionships for the long-term. They take their time getting to know people
because they view relationships as a longstanding association. In order to
keep the relationship from breaking apart, they focus on long-term oriented
Confucian strategies to maintain relationships including harmony and
cooperative strategies, which helps relationships progress, and smooths over
difficulties that might arise in the course of a relationship (Merkin, 2004).
When facework strategies are combined, they reflect two cultural
dimensions. That is, both individualism-collectivism and masculinity-
femininity levels combine in the presentation of face and facework strate-
gies follow. While this is not true in all cases, reactions to face are often
similar within different dimensions. Accordingly, those with a high-power
distance, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation all have high
sensitivity, many face-saving concerns, and prefer to maintain the status quo
(Merkin et al., 2014). Members of cultures with a long-term orientation also
tend to have a high-power distance and both are most likely to employ
facework strategies that are indirect and cooperative which promotes har-
mony. Nevertheless, strategies likely to be used as reactions can differ. When
those from high uncertainty avoidant cultures feel face-threats, they are
likely to express aggression and hostility to relieve their extreme emotions.
Later, when their sense of equilibrium is restored, those with a high
uncertainty avoidance tend to use more predictable ritualistic strategies.
270 R.S. MERKIN

Russians, for example, are both collectivistic and feminine, meaning that
they tend to present their face using more indirect and leveling strategies.
The collectivistic aspect makes the face presentation vary depending on the
in-group versus the out-group status. It is hard to do business in Russia
because together with collectivism, it is a high-context culture (Bogdanova,
2015). In fact, without a trustworthy Russian counterpart, it is nearly
impossible to do business in there due to all the unwritten rules
(Bogdanova, 2015). Studies show that Russians are concise in their face-
work due to their cultural value of being sincere (Bunker, 2014). They
tend to view the large quantity of US politeness communication such as
“how are you” and “have a nice day” as phony (Bunker, 2014). Perhaps
the Russian way of carrying out leveling is by being respectfully honest in
their communication. When their face feels threatened, (if, for example,
someone pointed out to them that the company they are working at is
having multiple losses and that they should be looking for a new job
because “the writing is on the wall”) their high uncertainty avoidance
could cause them to become aggressive. Studies show that Russinas are less
willing to communicate than those from other cultures (Christophel,
1996). Their high-power distance facework tendencies might kick in if the
other person has a higher status than them, and a long-term orientation
might cause them to enact harmonious facework. Together, the strong
influence of both power distance and long-term orientation would likely
cause the person to smooth over the face-threat so as to not threaten the
relationship at hand.
If one cannot interpret why a person acts the way they do, before jumping
to conclusions, these cultural dimension and facework strategy guidelines
provide a tool to figure things out. However, the critical issue in the man-
agement of face in multicultural contexts is really how to go about estab-
lishing a sense of reassurance and trust with others. Hofstede’s cultural
dimensions can provide initial know-how about a host country’s cultural
orientation and enable us to compare it to someone’s own culture. Once we
have knowledge, it is along these lines that we can reduce the possible
negative impact of misunderstanding during intercultural communication
(Heinz, 2014). Face is of utmost importance to all because it underlies so
many important aspects of business relationships. Face is associated with
respect, honor, status, reputation, credibility, competence, loyalty, and trust
(Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998). Upholding face is essential to relational
indebtedness and obligation issues as well (Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998).
As a result, if face is lost, a number of related elements in a relationship are
 10 OVERVIEW AND FACEWORK MODEL … 271

likely to follow and it will prospectively be very difficult to regain trust again.
It is therefore best to maintain face because if face is guarded there is always
an opening for negotiating success.
Below is a depiction of the facework likely to be carried out based on
cultural indicators. The model below can also be used to strategize future
communication with those from cultures other than one’s own. Expectations
tend to influence reactions people have to events—particularly stressful ones
(Osman, Paczynski, & Jha, 2017). Focusing on what is likely to be expected
provides the opportunity to prepare oneself for future interactions with those
whose worldviews are different from our own (Fig. 10.1).

ENVIRONMENT AND OTHER PARTIES

LONG TERM ORIENTATION

EXPECTIONS / RESPONSES

Y
ON
ARM
H

INDIVIDUALISTIC COLLECTIVISTIC

AGGRESSION
FACE
MASCULINE FEMININE

SHORT TERM ORIENTATION

ENVIRONMENT AND OTHER PARTIES

Fig. 10.1 Facework model: cultural dimensions and facework

272 R.S. MERKIN

REFERENCES
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2005).
Exploding the self-esteem myth. Scientific American, 292(1), 84–91.
Bogdanova, E. (2015). Cross-cultural collaboration in contemporary Russia:
Problems of contracting. Zhurnal Issledovanii Sotsialnoi Politiki = The Journal
of Social Policy Studies, 13(1), 123–136.
Brett, J. M., Olekalns, M., Friedman, R., Goates, N., Anderson, C., & Lisco, C. C.
(2007). Sticks and stones: Language, face, and online dispute resolution.
Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 85–99. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.
24161853.
Brown, B. R., & Garland, H. (1971). The effects of incompetency, audience
acquaintanceship, and anticipated evaluative feedback on face-saving behavior.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7(5), 490–502. doi:10.1016/0022-
1031(71)90011-4.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Brunner, J. A., & You, W. (1988). Chinese negotiating and the concept of face.
Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 1(1), 27–44.
Bunker, E. (2014). A Cross-cultural study on politeness and facework among
Russian, American and Russian-American cultural groups. Doctoral disserta-
tion, The Ohio State University.
Cardon, P. W., & Scott, J. C. (2003). Chinese business face: Communication
behaviors and teaching approaches. Business Communication Quarterly, 66(4),
9–22.
Cho, Y. N., Thyroff, A., Rapert, M. I., Park, S. Y., & Lee, H. J. (2013). To be or
not to be green: Exploring individualism and collectivism as antecedents of
environmental behavior. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1052–1059.
Christophel, D. M. (1996). Russian communication orientations: A cross-cultural
examination. Communication Research Reports, 13, 43–51.
De Mooij, M., & Hofstede, G. (2010). The Hofstede model: Applications to global
branding and advertising strategy and research. International Journal of
Advertising, 29(1), 85–110.
Drake, B. H., & Moberg, D. J. (1986). Communicating influence attempts in
dyads: Linguistic sedatives and palliatives. Academy of Management Review,
11(3), 567–584.
Earley, P. C. (1997). Face, harmony, and social structure: An analysis of
organizational behavior across cultures. Oxford University Press.
Ellingsen, T., & Johannesson, M. (2007). Paying respect. Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 21(4), 135–149. doi:10.1257/jep.21.4.135.
 10 OVERVIEW AND FACEWORK MODEL … 273

Ellingsen, T., & Johannesson, M. (2008). Pride and prejudice: The human side of
incentive theory. American Economic Review, 98(3), 990–1008. doi:10.1257/
aer.98.3.990.
Eriksson, T., Mao, L., & Villeval, M. C. (2016). Saving face and group identity.
SSRN 2616168.
Eriksson, T., & Villeval, M. C. (2012). Respect and relational contracts. Journal of
Economic Behavior and Organization, 81(1), 286–298. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.
2011.10.019.
Fang, T. (2012). Yin Yang: A new perspective on culture. Management and
Organization Review, 8(1), 25–50.
Garber-Barron, M., & Si, M. (2013, November). The role of gender and age on
user preferences in narrative experiences. In International Conference on
Interactive Digital Storytelling (pp. 114–120). Springer International
Publishing.
Garland, H., & Brown, B. R. (1972). Face-saving as affected by subjects’ sex
audiences’ sex and audience expertise. Sociometry, 35(2), 280–289.
Goffman, I. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York:
Doubleday.
Goffman, E. (2005). Interaction ritual: Essays in face to face behavior. Chicago:
Aldine Transaction.
Hanges, P. J., Dickson, M. W., & Sipe, M. T., (2004). Rationale for GLOBE
statistical analysis: Societal rankings and test of hypotheses. In R. J. House,
P. J. Hanges, J. Mansour, P. W. Dorfman and V. Gupta, (Eds.). Culture,
leadership, and organizations (pp. 219–233). The GLOBE study of 62 societies.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Heinz, M. (February 28, 2014). Four keys to marketing team communication &
productivity. Retrieved from http://www.heinzmarketing.com/2014/02/
four-keys-marketing-team-communication-productivity/
Ho, D. (1976). On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology, 81, 867–884.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership and organization: Do American
theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9, 42–63.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: International differences in
work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the
mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.).
(2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage publications.
Hu, H. C. (1944). The Chinese concept of ‘face’. American Anthropologist, 46(1),
45–64.
274 R.S. MERKIN

Inkeles, A. (1997). National character: A psycho-social perspective. New Brunswick,

NJ.: Transaction Books.
Inkeles, A., & Levinson, D. (1969). National character: The study of modal
personality and sociocultural systems. In G. Lindsey & E. Aronson (Eds.),
Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 418–492). Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Jackson, J. M., & Latane, B. (1981). All alone in front of all those people: Stage
fright as a function of number and type of co-performers and audience. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 73–85.
Kanter, R. M. (1994). Collaborative advantage. Harvard Business Review, 72(4),
96–108.
Keil, M., Im, G. P., & Mähring, M. (2007). Reporting bad news on software
projects: The effects of culturally constituted views of face-saving. Information
Systems Journal, 17(1), 59–87. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2006.00235.x.
Kim, J. Y., & Nam, S. H. (1998). The concept and dynamics of face: Implications
for organizational behavior in Asia. Organization Science, 9(4), 522–534.
Kluckhohn, F. R., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientation.
New York: HarperCollins.
Li, M., Qiu, S. C., & Liu, Z. (2016). The Chinese way of response to hospitality
service failure: The effects of face and guanxi. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 57, 18–29.
Li, J. J., & Su, C. (2007). How face influences consumption. International Journal
of Market Research, 49(2), 237–256.
Li, L., & 李玲. (2016). The relationship between global brand and face in the
Chinese market: A comparative study of Chinese and American global cell
phone brands. International Review of Business, 16, 49–64.
Lim, S. S., & Basnyat, I. (2016). Face and online social networking. In S. S. Lim &
C. Soriano (Eds.), Asian perspectives on digital culture: Emerging phenomena,
enduring concepts (pp. 17–32). New York: Routledge.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for
cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224.
Merkin, R. S. (2004). Cultural long-term orientation and facework strategies.
Atlantic Journal of Communication, 12(3), 163–176.
Merkin, R. (2005). The influence of masculinity-femininity on cross-cultural
facework. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 34(3/4), 267–289.
Merkin, R. (2006a). Power distance and facework strategies. Journal of
Intercultural Communication Research, 35, 139–160.
Merkin, R. S. (2006b). Uncertainty avoidance and facework: A test of the Hofstede
model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(2), 213–228.
Merkin, R. (2010). Uncertainty avoidance. In R. Jackson (Ed.), The encyclopedia of
identity (p. 230). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
 10 OVERVIEW AND FACEWORK MODEL … 275

Merkin, R., & Ramadan, R. (2010). Facework in Syria and the United States: A
cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34
(6), 661–669.
Merkin, R. (2012). Middle Eastern impression-management communication.
Cross-Cultural Research, 46(2), 109–132.
Merkin, R. (2015). The relationship between individualism/collectivism:
Consultation and harmony needs. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 39.
Merkin, R., Taras, V., & Steel, P. (2014). State of the art themes in cross-cultural
communication research: A systematic and meta-analytic review. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 38, 1–23.
Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2010). Hofstede’s fifth dimension: New evidence from
the world values survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(3), 336–352.
Modigliani, A. (1971). Embarrassment, facework, and eye contact: Testing a theory
of embarrassment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17(1), 15–24.
doi:10.1037/h0030460.
Mruk, C. J. (2006). Self-esteem research, theory, and practice: Toward a positive
psychology of self-esteem (3rd ed.). New York: Springer.
Niendorf, M. A. (2015). Understanding intercultural communication.
Sociolinguistic Studies, 9(4), 507.
Osman, A., Paczynski, M., & Jha, A. P. (2017). Affective expectations influence
neural responses to stressful images in soldiers. Military Psychology, 29(1), 41.
Qi, X. (2011). Face: A Chinese concept in a global sociology. Journal of Sociology,
47, 279–296.
Redding, S. G., & Ng, M. (1982). The role of ‘face’ in the organizational
perceptions of Chinese managers. Organization Studies, 3(3), 201–219.
Samovar, L. A., Porter, R. E., McDaniel, E. R., & Roy, C. S. (2015).
Communication between cultures. Toronto, ON: Nelson Education.
Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A
conceptualization model. Psychological Bulletin, 92(3), 641–669. doi:10.1037/
0033-2909.92.3.641.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of
human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550–562.
Spencer, S. J., Fein, S., & Lomore, C. D. (2001). Maintaining one’s self-image vis-
à-vis others: The role of self-affirmation in the social evaluation of the self.
Motivation and Emotion, 25(1), 41–65. doi:10.1023/A:1010659805978.
Stahlin, W. A., Harris, P., & Kinkela, K. (2014, January). Increasing your cultural
awareness. In Global Conference on Business & Finance Proceedings (Vol. 9,
No. 1, p. 177). Institute for Business & Finance Research.
Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Soo Kim, H., Lin, S. L., et al.
(1991). Culture, face maintenance, and styles of handling interpersonal conflict:
A study in five cultures. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2(4),
275–296.
276 R.S. MERKIN

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.
Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the wave of culture: Understanding the cultural
diversity in business. London: The Economics books.
Yang, M. C. (1945). A Chinese village: Taitou, Shatung Province. NY: Columbia
University Press.
Yu, M.-C. (2003). On the universality of face: Evidence from Chinese compliment
response behavior. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1679–1710.
 INDEX

A C
Abid, G., 154 Cardon, P.W., 23, 50, 130, 264, 266
Achievement, 41 Castro, M.R., 142
Arundale, R.B., 23 Chang, E.C., 96, 99
Autonomy, 41, 51–52, 83, 86, 88, 90, Chang, H., 97
98, 128, 137, 166, 171, 182 Chang, L., 170
Chang, Y.Y., 26
Chen, C.C., 126–127
B Chen, G.M., 36, 46
Baer, M., 175 Chen, M., 128, 129
Bajdo, L.M., 145 Chi-Ching, E., 143
Barrett, A., 147 Cho, M.K., 28, 45, 121, 199
Beamer, L., 7 Cho, Y.N., 263
Benevolence, 41, 138, 219 Choi, J., 207
Bergman, M., 151–152 Chow, S., 14
Bomey, N., 145 Christie, P.M., 217
Bond, Michael, 15, 38, 81, 92, 99–100, Coca-Cola, 22
181, 218, 229, 232–238, 266 Cocroft, B.K., 5, 12, 45–46, 56, 60–61,
Brandau-Brown, F.E., 48 64, 102, 119, 122, 124
Brett, J., 54, 120, 144, 264–265 Cohen, A., 147
Brown, B.R., 263 Cohen, D., 92, 100
Brown, P., 51, 57, 140, 265 Cohen, P., 62
Brown, S., 96 Cohen, T.R., 239
Buffet, Warren, 21 Confucian dynamism, vi, 15, 229, 232,
Buser, T., 142 236–238 See also
Bush, George H.W., 4, 6, 16, 121 Long-termorientation-short-term
Butts, M.M., 147 orientation

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018 277

R.S. Merkin, Saving Face in Business,
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59174-6
278 INDEX
Confucianism, 53, 58, 95, 98, 180, 229
−230, 232–234, 236–240,
243–244, 248, 250–252, 266, 269
Collectivism
Asian culture and, 15, 25, 27–28,
38, 58–61, 123, 168
communication and, 48–49,
123–125
Confucianism and, 232, 234
concept of face, 50–51
emphasis on harmony, 53–54
GLOBE and, 42
harmony and, 53–54, 98–104
individualism and, 48
in-group/out-group distinctions,
52–53, 250
long/short-term orientation and,
230– 232, 239–245, 248
Millennials and, 127–130
power distance and, 165–168, 170,
171
relationships and, 126–128
saving face and, 22
self and, 10, 36, 45, 64
US and, 60–62 See also
Individualism-collectivism
Coltrane, S., 141
Communication
direct, 25, 50, 119–121, 138, 204
direct competitive, 141, 143, 151
high/low-context, 48–50
indirect, 5, 60, 104, 121–124, 129,
141, 169, 174
Conformity, 41
Confucianism
collectivism and, 95
dynamism, 15, 180, 229, 232,
236–238
family and, 234
harmony and, 58, 98, 250
ideals of, 58
Confucianism (cont.)
long/short-term orientation and,
229, 232–233, 243–244, 248
moderation and, 239
social relationships and, 234, 236
values, 232–234, 236, 240–241,
243, 251
Conyers, Yolanda, 252–253
Cooper-Chen, A., 145
Coopetition, 230
Corruption, vi, 128, 172, 221,
236–237
Crompton, R., 146
Cross-Cultural workplace
conflict and, 265–266
embarrassment and, 263
facework and, 261–263
self and, 261–262
Western vs. Eastern culture,
264–266
Culture and face enactment
case study, 65–66
cultural model of lacework, 65
facework, 43–47
functional approach, 56, 61, 64;
collectivistic Japan, 60–61; effect
of two predictors on facework
strategies, 59–60; feminine
cultures, 57–58; individualistic
US, 61–63; masculine cultures,
58–59
individualism and masculinity’s
influence, 44–47; collectivistic
concept of face, 50–55;
high-context/low-context
communication, 48–50
individualism-collectivism, 48
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, 35,
40–43
masculinity-femininity, 55–56
overview, 33–34
 INDEX 279

theories of cultural dimensions, F

40–43; GLOBE, 41–43;
Schwartz theory of basic values,
41
thought questions, 66
Cultural dimensions
explained, 33–34
facework and, 43–47
GLOBE theories of, 40–43
Schwartz theory of basic values, 41
D Fernandez-Crehuet, J., 146
Darroch, J., 145
De Jong, E., 14, 199, 201, 217, 219
De Mooij, M., 11, 44, 60, 92, 94, 96,
99, 141, 202–203, 207, 239, 243
Demeure, V., 5
Difference, acceptance of, 7–8
Direct vs. Indirect facework
case study, 127
collectivism moving towards
individualism, 127–130
direct communication, 119–121
indirect communication, 122–123
task vs. relationship orientations,
125–127
thought questions, 131
Dow chemical, 84–85
Dugri speech, 57 See also Israel
E 261
Eagly, H., 145
Earley, P.C., 95, 138, 175–176, 182,
204, 207–209, 210, 214, 263, 266
Eby, L.T., 12, 98
Egalitarianism, 41–42, 57, 61–62, 87,
137
Embeddedness, 41, 86, 137, 236
Exclusionism, 40
Face. See losing face; saving face
Facework
effect of two predictors on, 59–60
face-threatening situations, 8–9
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and,
43–47
individualism and masculinity’s
influence, 44–47 See also Saving
face
Fang, T., 33, 90, 230, 235, 250, 266
Fang, X., 17
Fine, G.A., 10
Flexibility, 40
Frincke, J., 147
Functional approach
collectivistic Japan, 64
effect of two predictors on facework
strategies, 59–60
feminine cultures appearing
masculine, 57–58
individualistic United States, 61–63
masculine cultures appearing
feminine, 58–59
G
Gagne, N., 5
Gibb, J.R., 6, 23
Gladwell, Malcolm, 14, 174, 184
Globalization, 7, 21, 127, 128, 153,
GLOBE (Global Leadership and
Organizational Behavior
Effectiveness)
background, 41–43
cultural dimensions and, 40–43
culture and, 266
independent vs. Interdependent self,
86–87
280 INDEX
GLOBE (Global Leadership and
Organizational Behavior
Effectiveness) (cont.)
individualism-collectivism and, 86
long/short-term orientation and,
239
Schwarz and, 41
uncertainty avoidance and, 199–200
Goffman, Erving, 2, 10–11, 23–27, 29,
44–47, 49, 51, 94, 121, 152, 169,
235, 261–265
Goodman-Delahunty, J., 154
Green, F., 146
Gross, E., 6, 23
Guanxi
explained, 229
harmony and, 244–246, 250–251
long/short-term orientation and,
244–248
misunderstanding of, 125
power and, 245
saving face and, 246
Guowei, J., 13
Gutterman, A., 138
H long/short-term orientation and,
Håkansson, H., 143
Harmony
collectivism and, 54–55, 93–96,
98–99, 102, 142
Confucianism and, 234, 244
culture and, 38–39, 244–246
direct communication and, 119, 121
feminine cultures and, 13, 65, 138,
141
Guanxi and, 250–251
hierarchy and, 99–102
high-context communication and,
102–104
Harmony (cont.)
indirect communication and,
122–123
individualism-collectivism and, 81,
83–85, 93–95
in–group, 53, 89–90
Kibun and, 93
long-term focus and, 99
long-term–orientation and, 38–39,
229–230, 239, 269
masculine cultures and, 58, 138, 151
mastery vs. harmony, 41, 137–138
power distance and, 165–166, 171
Schwartz theory of basic values and,
41
self-promotion and, 13, 96–97
short-term-orientation and, 237
yin and yang, 230
Hedonism, 41
Hierarchy
collectivism and, 22, 84, 88, 94, 96,
99–102
communication and, 54–55
Confucianism and, 232, 234–235
egalitarianism vs., 41, 137
face and, 2
237–239, 241–243, 244, 250
masculinity-femininity and, 55,
58–64
power distance and, 165–166, 167,
168, 170, 175–178, 268
social, 104, 129
uncertainty and, 212
Hite, L., 142
Ho, D., 2, 23, 51, 94, 100, 166, 175,
263, 266
Hofstede, Geert
background, 3–4
collectivism harmony, 98–104

cultural dimension theory, 5, 9–11,
35–40, 43–47
facework, 43–47
GLOBE research and, 41–43
indirect communication, 122
individualism-collectivism, 48–55,
81–83
long-term orientation, 229–241,
244–247
masculinity-femininity, 55–63,
137–142, 146–147, 148–149,
151
power distance, 165–173, 175–181
Schwartz and, 40–41, 137
self, 11, 86–90, 92–93, 97
socialization, 261–263, 266–270
uncertainty avoidance, 197–205,
205–217
Holmes, J., 58, 93, 99, 119, 122
Holmes, P., 12
Hotta, J., 16
Hulbert, J., 150
I masculinity’s influence, 44–47
Iacocca, Lee, 4–5
Individualism
communication and, 44, 51–52,
119–124
explained, 37, 86
facework and, 37–38, 44–47,
55–56, 229
GLOBE and, 42
high/low-context cultures and, 49
honesty and, 25
identity and, 36
in-group/out-group distinctions, 52
masculinity and, 44–47, 59–61, 64,
139, 142
Millennials and, 127–130
power distance and, 165–168
INDEX 281
relationship orientation and,
125–127
self and, 27, 86–93, 96–98, 230
self-face focus, 90–94
US culture and, 12, 22, 51, 61–63,
85 See also
Individualism-Collectivism
Individualism-Collectivism
case study, 104
collectivism and harmony, 98–99
collectivism harmony; hierarchy and,
99–102; long-term focus and, 99
explained, 60–61; collectivistic
concept of fear, 50–55;
high/low-context
communication, 48–50
face and, 94–96
high-context communication,
102–104
independent vs. interdependent self,
86–89
individualism and self-promotion,
96–97
in-groups vs. out-groups, 89–90
other-face vs. self-face focus, 90–93
overview, 81–86
thought questions, 105
Indulgence, 40
Inglehart, R., 7
In-groups
collectivism and, 42, 51–55, 61,
98–99, 270
cultural misunderstandings and,
264, 270
exclusions and, 40
gaining face and, 96
guanxi and, 245
long/short-term orientation and,
250, 267
masculinity and, 65, 141–142, 144
282 INDEX

In-groups (cont.) Long/Short-term orientation (cont.)

Millennials and, 128 harmony and guanxi, 250–251
out-groups and, 89–90 long-term orientation and
power distance and, 176–177 consumers, 240–244
saving face and, 81–89 overview, 233–245
tight cultures and, 206 relationships and, 244–248
uncertainty avoidance and, 215 thought questions, 252, 253
Initial interactions, 5–6, 8, 16 Loose cultures, 206
Inkeles, A., 11, 44, 46, 142, 266, 268 Losing control, 4, 212
Interaction rituals, 24–25 Losing face
Israel, 9, 14–15, 35, 57 Asian culture and, 166
avoiding, 8, 17
collectivism and, 36, 50, 119, 121
J communication and, 23, 261–262
Jiang, K., 154 consequences of, 6, 21, 23, 25
Jiang, X., 123 cultural misunderstandings and, 4–5,
Jiang, Y., 182 22
Johnson, T., 138–140, 151 harmony and, 100, 121
individualism and, 96
insecurity about, 22
K masculine cultures and, 141
Katriel, T., 57 power distance and, 172–175
Kawabata, M., 93, 102, 123–124, regaining face, 2
142–143 self and, 26, 29, 43–44
Keating, L., 153 sexual harassment and, 150
Kermally, S., 140 uncertainty avoidance and, 198, 215
Kibun, 93 work-life balance and, 145
Krahé, B., 148
Kumar, S., 142
Kume, Yutaka, 5 M
Mantle, J., 5
Masculinity
L femininity and, 55, 58
Larson, L., 151 individualism-collectivism and,
Leete, L., 146 44–47
Levinson, S.C., 51, 57, 140, 265 in-groups and, 65, 141, 142
Lewis, D., 152 losing face and, 143
Long/Short-term orientation self-promotion and, 13, 139, 140,
case study, 249–250 147 See also
characteristics of, 239–240 Masculinity-femininity
cooperation and, 248–250 Masculinity-Femininity
 INDEX 283

case study, 152–155 O

gender differences, 141, 142, 144, Openness, 16–17
145 Other-face, 50–51, 57, 90–94
overview, 138, 141, 142, 146
sexual harassment, 148–155; face
and, 152–155; typical targets of, P
151–152 Panama Canal, 28
thought questions, 156, 157 Parker Pen, 105–106
work-life balance, 145, 146, 147 Pedersen, P., 24
workplace and, 144–145 See also Petronio, S., 27
Femininity; Masculinity; Sexual Porter, M., 21
harassment Power, 41
Masikuni, C., 153 Power distance
Mastery vs. harmony, 41, 137, 138 case study, 182–183
Matsumoto, Y., 16, 52, 54, 64, 88, 94, culture and, 165–169
100, 103, 119, 166 defined, 178
McCormick, J., 121 high power distance, 166–169,
McCrae, R.R., 199, 201 171–172
McEvily, B., 219 innovation and, 175–178
McGrath, H., 60 leadership and, 178–179
McGuire, C., 181 low power distance, 169–170, 173
McLaughlin, H., 151 motivation and, 181–184
McLuhan, M., 7, 21 overview, 165–175
McMillan, H., 147 paternalistic relationships, 172–173
McSweeney, B., 10, 42 power distinctions, 168–169
Merkin, R., 166–179, 198–202, self and, 167–168
212–214, 216–218, 232, 235, 240, superior/subordinate relationships
244–246, 266–269 and, 180–181
Minkov, M., 7, 9, 34, 38–42, 55, 81, thought questions, 185
137–139, 165, 199, 201–203, 203,
208–209, 211–219, 230–233,
236–239, 244, 245 Q
Mirivel, J., 27 QR codes, 54
Miyazawa, Kiichi, 4 Quayson, A., 22
Monumentalism, 40 Quijano, Jorge, 28
Mujtaba, B., 25

R
N Ralston, D., 10, 22, 29, 61
National culture, 7, 34, 40, 42, 64, 82, Relativism, 217, 221, 234
201, 206, 213, 218, 239 Requests, 5–6, 8–9, 16, 25, 27, 43–44,
123, 252, 266
284 INDEX
Restraint, 40, 122, 129
Richard, E., 25, 43, 45
Richards, J., 60
Robert, C., 182
Roberts, B., 151–152, 154
S Shaw, K., 145, 198
Salin, D., 152
Sapolsky, R., 27
Saving face
communication and, 5, 9
facework processes and, 24–25
individual-level face enactment,
25–29
individualism-collectivism and, 12
long/short-term orientation and, 15
overview, 21–23
significance of face, 23–24
uncertainty avoidance and, 14
See also Facework
Schor, J., 146
Schwartz, S.H.
cultural value orientations, 137–138
on culture, 33–34, 266
and GLOBE theories of cultural
dimensions, 40–43
on power distance, 165, 178
theory of basic values, 41
universal values, 41
Security, 41
Self-direction, 41, 209
Self-promotion
communication and, 119
feminine cultures and, 13
harmony and, 13, 96–98, 122
individualism and, 83, 91, 94,
96–99, 119
masculine cultures and, 13,
137–138, 145
restraint and monumentalism, 40
Senior, J., 146–147
Sennett, R., 147–148
Sexual harassment
face and, 152–153
overview, 146–150
typical targets of, 151–152 See also
Masculinity-femininity
Sheaffer, Z., 140
Shimanoff, S.B., 56–57, 64
Smith, G., 47
Smith, P.B., 9, 201, 217
Social bonds, 5–6
Spitzer, Elliot, 2
Stimulation, 41
Stress and
anxiety expressed as aggression,
216–217
avoidance of ambiguity, 213–214
dissatisfaction, 214–216
Suárez-Orozco, M., 21
Sueda, K., 25
Sugihara, Y., 142
T
Tight cultures, 205–206
Tims, C., 144
Ting-Toomey, S., 5–6, 12, 14, 16, 27,
45–46, 48–49, 52–54, 56, 60–61,
63–64, 90–91, 98, 102–103, 119,
122, 124, 143, 165, 171, 173,
175–176, 201–202, 234, 265–266,
270
Toker, Y., 144
Tosi, H., 13, 137, 139–140, 210
Townsend, P., 22
Tracy, K., 26, 28–29
Tradition, 25, 38, 41, 66, 127–129,
147, 166, 169, 176, 230, 233,
238–240, 242
 INDEX 285

Tran, P., 23, 207 Universalism, 40–41

Triandis, H., 51–52, 61, 83–84, 90, 92,
143, 205–207, 250
V
Valde, K., 152
U Van de Vliert, E., 38, 173, 182
UBS bank, 155–156, 220–221 Van der Vegt, G., 177
Uncertainty avoidance
case study of, 220
culture and, 11, 14–15, 35–36, 65, W
87, 152, 174, 229–231, 235, Wagner, E., 23
243, 245, 247, 265–268 Whistleblowing, 218, 220
defined, 5, 41 White, J., 22
examples, 150, 166, 198–201 White, M., 146
facework and, 11–12, 47, 65, Woods, Tiger, 1–2
202–204 Woolsey, J., 21
formalization and leadership, Work-life balance, 89, 145–147
209–212
GLOBE and, 42
maintenance of status quo and, Y
207–208 Yin and Yang, 230, 251
overview, 199–202 Young, I., 5
power distance and, 166–167,
169–170, 173, 178
rules and rituals, 208–209 Z
scores by country, 203 Zaixiao, Z., 232, 234, 244, 250
sexual harassment and, 217–218 Zhang, D., 95
stress and; anxiety expressed as Zhang, H., 128
aggression, 216–217; avoidance Zhang, Q., 90, 95, 171, 174
of ambiguity, 213–218; Zhang, S., 231, 234, 236–237
dissatisfaction, 214–216 Zhang, X.A., 26, 48
thought questions, 221 Zhao, M., 241
tightness and, 205–207 Zhou, K.Z., 247
trust and, 218–220; UBS and, 154, Zhuang, G., 245
156, 220