Final Paper
Hierarchy of Collaboration
by Dani Hagemeister
Overview
I would like to better define the correlation between conflict styles and face-saving, specifically
how face-saving relates to the moves, behaviors, and communication choices we make. The
primary concepts related to my topic are conflict styles and face-saving. A recurring secondary
concept is Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Conflict is present everyday, everywhere, if the most
mutually effective conflict style is collaboration, why is it so difficult to achieve? Because, when
face-saving is present it is impossible to communicate collaboratively.
Theory/Concept
"Face is a central theoretical concept used in a wide array of disciplines (Folger, Poole, 2009,
p.174)." Face is concerned with identity and the public image people want to share.
Characteristics of face-saving include working to alter the perception of yourself in one of two
ways, because face can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, you either desire approval of others
(positive face) or desire autonomy (negative face), either way face is concerned with the value
of self, not others (Folger, Poole, 2009, p.175).
Threats to face and desire to preserve or alter this public image motivates decisions we make
related to interaction or conflict with others. “Conflict styles are patterned responses, or clusters
of behavior, that people use in conflict (Hocker, Wilmot, 2011, p.144).” I will be focusing on the
five style conflict style classification established by Kilmann and Thomas that consists of
collaboration, accommodation, competition, avoidance, and compromise, where response
behaviors range between varying levels of assertiveness and cooperativeness (Kilmann, n.d.).
Collaboration, specifically, is achieved by constructive engagement, working toward goals
outside of our own motivations, and considering others besides self (Hocker, Wilmot, 2011,
p.168).
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs presents that human beings have certain needs and they are
ranked on a hierarchy, such as basic physiological and safety needs, and more developed
social and egocentric needs (Burton, 2012). The highest level of need, self actualization, can
only be attained once the other needs are met and means that a person has reached their
fullest potential; self actualization requires honesty, independence, awareness, objectivity,
creativity, and originality (Burton, 2012). Although self actualization includes the word self it is
largely related to concepts that do not concern motivations of self or the desire to save face.
Conflict styles vary widely from one person to another based on their degree of assertiveness
and cooperativeness, however, a factor always present in their reaction to conflict, except
collaborative conflict styles, is the desire to save face, this desire to save face is motivated by
our social and egocentric needs.
Analysis
It could be said the reason face is so integral to the decisions we make with regard to
communication is because of where identity and face fall on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Once
our basic needs are met, such as physiological demands and the need for security, we progress
on to the desire to be loved and belong, and then onto the need for self-esteem, recognition,
and power (Burton, 2012). These needs, driven by feeling and emotion, are also dependent on
interaction with others. Because of this interpersonal interaction we feel the need to alter or
preserve the way we portray ourselves to others, or face-save, in order to gain our desired
social and egocentric needs. In the pursuit of meeting our needs we are compelled to take
specific tactics in conflict and communication scenarios. According to Folger and Poole, “face is
something that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must constantly be attended to in
interactions (Folger, Poole, 2009, p.175).” Because of this, tactics - known as moves, behaviors,
and communication choices- driven by face-saving significantly alter the way we interact with
others and the way we resolve conflict through competition, compromise, avoidance,
accommodation, and collaboration (Hocker, Wilmot, 2011, p.145).
Positive face refers to a person’s desire to acquire the approval of others (Folger, Poole, 2009,
p.174). In an effort to gain others approval we may make communication choices, such as
accommodating others requests, when we might otherwise be more assertive or less
cooperative in our own interest. Negative face refers to a person’s desire for autonomy or to not
be imposed on by others (Folger, Poole, 2009, p.175). In a negative face situation a person
trying to save face might react to being told to do something, especially in front of others, by
becoming more assertive and uncooperative in an attempt to save face. The amplitude of
positive or negative face is influenced by the social distance between involved parties, the
relative power of the parties, and the intrusiveness of the the request or act (Folger, Poole,
2009, p.175). In all of these situations conflict arises because of our concern with face-saving
and self not with concern for achieving shared goals or collaborative resolutions.
Reciprocal acceptance of others is the ultimate effort of collaborative communication and
inhibits the impulse to save-face. In order to be truly collaborate we must forsake face, or at
least what we know the meaning of face to be on the surface. If we are in a purely collaborative
communication setting face is not at stake. The goal of communication in this situation is not of
superficial self-interest, but self-interest in achieving the mutual goal by means that do not
concern face. Collaborative efforts that include others-interest, honesty, independence from
face, objectivity, creativity, and originality parallel Maslow’s concept of self-actualization and
reaching our fullest potential.
Reflection
I try, whenever possible, to work collaboratively. I didn’t realize it though until we covered these
topics in class. I also didn’t realize that the reason it was sometimes difficult to work with others
was because they had other motivations, such as face-saving. Reflecting back on my
communication experiences and comparing them to what I’ve learned in this class I think the
most obvious culprit of lack of collaboration is what they call “politicking” in the corporate world.
Call me naive but I want business efforts to concern business, not self-preservation and ulterior
motives. Most of the aha moments for me in this class came as I was comparing the different
relationships I have with coworkers and superiors. It’s interesting to see that I have a
relationships at each of the five conflict styles, including one that is heavily collaborative.
Understanding and adapting to working with each of these conflict styles has been invaluable.
When I am able to recognize the conflict style, during conflict, I can make strategic decisions
about how I’ll respond in a way that de-escalates the situation.
References
Hocker, J. L., Wilmot, W. W. (2011) Interpersonal Conflict - Conflict Styles
Folger, J. P., Poole, M. S., Stutman, R. K. (2009) Working through conflict; Strategies for
relationships, groups and organizations. Pearson
Burton, N. M. (2012, May 23). Our Hierarchy of Needs. Retrieved from Psychology Today:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201205/our-hierarchy-ne
eds
Kilmann, T. (n.d.). An Overview of the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI).
Retrieved from Kilmann Diagnostics:
http://www.kilmanndiagnostics.com/overview-thomas-kilmann-conflict-mode-instru
ment-tki
I would like to better define the correlation between conflict styles and face-saving, specifically
how face-saving relates to the moves, behaviors, and communication choices we make. The
primary concepts related to my topic are conflict styles and face-saving. A recurring secondary
concept is Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Conflict is present everyday, everywhere, if the most
mutually effective conflict style is collaboration, why is it so difficult to achieve? Because, when
face-saving is present it is impossible to communicate collaboratively.
Theory/Concept
"Face is a central theoretical concept used in a wide array of disciplines (Folger, Poole, 2009,
p.174)." Face is concerned with identity and the public image people want to share.
Characteristics of face-saving include working to alter the perception of yourself in one of two
ways, because face can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, you either desire approval of others
(positive face) or desire autonomy (negative face), either way face is concerned with the value
of self, not others (Folger, Poole, 2009, p.175).
Threats to face and desire to preserve or alter this public image motivates decisions we make
related to interaction or conflict with others. “Conflict styles are patterned responses, or clusters
of behavior, that people use in conflict (Hocker, Wilmot, 2011, p.144).” I will be focusing on the
five style conflict style classification established by Kilmann and Thomas that consists of
collaboration, accommodation, competition, avoidance, and compromise, where response
behaviors range between varying levels of assertiveness and cooperativeness (Kilmann, n.d.).
Collaboration, specifically, is achieved by constructive engagement, working toward goals
outside of our own motivations, and considering others besides self (Hocker, Wilmot, 2011,
p.168).
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs presents that human beings have certain needs and they are
ranked on a hierarchy, such as basic physiological and safety needs, and more developed
social and egocentric needs (Burton, 2012). The highest level of need, self actualization, can
only be attained once the other needs are met and means that a person has reached their
fullest potential; self actualization requires honesty, independence, awareness, objectivity,
creativity, and originality (Burton, 2012). Although self actualization includes the word self it is
largely related to concepts that do not concern motivations of self or the desire to save face.
Conflict styles vary widely from one person to another based on their degree of assertiveness
and cooperativeness, however, a factor always present in their reaction to conflict, except
collaborative conflict styles, is the desire to save face, this desire to save face is motivated by
our social and egocentric needs.
Analysis
It could be said the reason face is so integral to the decisions we make with regard to
communication is because of where identity and face fall on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Once
our basic needs are met, such as physiological demands and the need for security, we progress
on to the desire to be loved and belong, and then onto the need for self-esteem, recognition,
and power (Burton, 2012). These needs, driven by feeling and emotion, are also dependent on
interaction with others. Because of this interpersonal interaction we feel the need to alter or
preserve the way we portray ourselves to others, or face-save, in order to gain our desired
social and egocentric needs. In the pursuit of meeting our needs we are compelled to take
specific tactics in conflict and communication scenarios. According to Folger and Poole, “face is
something that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must constantly be attended to in
interactions (Folger, Poole, 2009, p.175).” Because of this, tactics - known as moves, behaviors,
and communication choices- driven by face-saving significantly alter the way we interact with
others and the way we resolve conflict through competition, compromise, avoidance,
accommodation, and collaboration (Hocker, Wilmot, 2011, p.145).
Positive face refers to a person’s desire to acquire the approval of others (Folger, Poole, 2009,
p.174). In an effort to gain others approval we may make communication choices, such as
accommodating others requests, when we might otherwise be more assertive or less
cooperative in our own interest. Negative face refers to a person’s desire for autonomy or to not
be imposed on by others (Folger, Poole, 2009, p.175). In a negative face situation a person
trying to save face might react to being told to do something, especially in front of others, by
becoming more assertive and uncooperative in an attempt to save face. The amplitude of
positive or negative face is influenced by the social distance between involved parties, the
relative power of the parties, and the intrusiveness of the the request or act (Folger, Poole,
2009, p.175). In all of these situations conflict arises because of our concern with face-saving
and self not with concern for achieving shared goals or collaborative resolutions.
Reciprocal acceptance of others is the ultimate effort of collaborative communication and
inhibits the impulse to save-face. In order to be truly collaborate we must forsake face, or at
least what we know the meaning of face to be on the surface. If we are in a purely collaborative
communication setting face is not at stake. The goal of communication in this situation is not of
superficial self-interest, but self-interest in achieving the mutual goal by means that do not
concern face. Collaborative efforts that include others-interest, honesty, independence from
face, objectivity, creativity, and originality parallel Maslow’s concept of self-actualization and
reaching our fullest potential.
Reflection
I try, whenever possible, to work collaboratively. I didn’t realize it though until we covered these
topics in class. I also didn’t realize that the reason it was sometimes difficult to work with others
was because they had other motivations, such as face-saving. Reflecting back on my
communication experiences and comparing them to what I’ve learned in this class I think the
most obvious culprit of lack of collaboration is what they call “politicking” in the corporate world.
Call me naive but I want business efforts to concern business, not self-preservation and ulterior
motives. Most of the aha moments for me in this class came as I was comparing the different
relationships I have with coworkers and superiors. It’s interesting to see that I have a
relationships at each of the five conflict styles, including one that is heavily collaborative.
Understanding and adapting to working with each of these conflict styles has been invaluable.
When I am able to recognize the conflict style, during conflict, I can make strategic decisions
about how I’ll respond in a way that de-escalates the situation.
References
Hocker, J. L., Wilmot, W. W. (2011) Interpersonal Conflict - Conflict Styles
Folger, J. P., Poole, M. S., Stutman, R. K. (2009) Working through conflict; Strategies for
relationships, groups and organizations. Pearson
Burton, N. M. (2012, May 23). Our Hierarchy of Needs. Retrieved from Psychology Today:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201205/our-hierarchy-ne
eds
Kilmann, T. (n.d.). An Overview of the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI).
Retrieved from Kilmann Diagnostics:
http://www.kilmanndiagnostics.com/overview-thomas-kilmann-conflict-mode-instru
ment-tki
Reflection
I am nearing the end of my journey at SLCC and this class has been one of the most valuable I've taken. The reason it's been so valuable is because of the real-world application. I took this class because it was one of the only (or the only) classes that satisfied the credit requirement I needed and was available online, and it has turned out to be the better decision regardless of my constraint at the time.
I've recently started work in my first salary position. I have worked in settings that were more corporate than the one I'm in now, but because I was an hourly employee I was immune to some of the communication nuances in the workplace. I feel better prepared now for adapting to these nuances and recognizing that everyone has their own unique communication style. Sometimes both people in a conflict scenario are able to adapt but more often than not it's up one person to make the change. Along those same lines, I think when one person is willing to adapt the other realizes they can let their guard down, stop face-saving, and try to work collaboratively. It starts with the one person who's willing to take a step back and look at the situation from the other's perspective.
The more I learned in this class the more aware I became of examples of concepts in the real world. Simple things like when I was reading "Shoe Dog" by Phil Knight and was better able to understand what was happening in his communication and relations with Japan and other countries. Things that he learned the hard way from trial and error I was able to recognize based on our readings about international conflict styles and how each culture has unique perspectives and norms when it comes to communication.
The other thing I really appreciated about this class was learning the psychology behind the choices we make in communication. Communication doesn't happen in a vacuum, we have to interact with others to communicate, but we are heavily influenced by our own internal dialogue. That internal dialogue is what drives the communication behaviors, choices, and moves we make.
I've recently started work in my first salary position. I have worked in settings that were more corporate than the one I'm in now, but because I was an hourly employee I was immune to some of the communication nuances in the workplace. I feel better prepared now for adapting to these nuances and recognizing that everyone has their own unique communication style. Sometimes both people in a conflict scenario are able to adapt but more often than not it's up one person to make the change. Along those same lines, I think when one person is willing to adapt the other realizes they can let their guard down, stop face-saving, and try to work collaboratively. It starts with the one person who's willing to take a step back and look at the situation from the other's perspective.
The more I learned in this class the more aware I became of examples of concepts in the real world. Simple things like when I was reading "Shoe Dog" by Phil Knight and was better able to understand what was happening in his communication and relations with Japan and other countries. Things that he learned the hard way from trial and error I was able to recognize based on our readings about international conflict styles and how each culture has unique perspectives and norms when it comes to communication.
The other thing I really appreciated about this class was learning the psychology behind the choices we make in communication. Communication doesn't happen in a vacuum, we have to interact with others to communicate, but we are heavily influenced by our own internal dialogue. That internal dialogue is what drives the communication behaviors, choices, and moves we make.