Running head: FACE SAVING 1

Adventure English: Face-Saving

Lisa Lang

Brandman University

COMU 315

Professor: Scott Kirchner

Date: September 11, 2016

FACE SAVING 2

Part 1:

1. How did Jackie Wong establish a relationship with Cory Wright and the Adventure

English company?

In the case study by Cardon & Scott (n.d.) Wong “state[d her] needs and wants in an

honorable manner” (Rosenburg, 2004, para. 18). She was extremely respectful in apologizing for

interrupting Wright and reaffirmed his program by mentioning the group from last year that

spoke highly of their time with Adventure English. Wong made it clear that she planned to have

an ongoing connection between her students and the Adventure English program. In this way,

she attempted to “build relationships” between her school and the company (Rosenburg, 2004,

para. 11).

How does this relate to the notion of face? Wong displayed “face-assertive behavior”

in the way that her request was made (Rosenburg, 2004, para. 18). Additionally, by trying to

show reverence to the Adventure English program and its directors she displayed “face-giving

behavior” (Rosenburg, 2004, para. 18).

2. How did Cory Wright initially respond to Jackie Wong?

Cory Wright thanked Jackie Wong her for the call and immediately asked for details of

the trip to gather information. By doing so, Wright demonstrated that he was merely “problem-

solv[ing and not attempting to] build relationships”(Rosenburg, 2004, para. 11). Since

“Taiwanese ways of life fall into… a high-context style” that values relationship building,

Wright’s communication with Wong was problematic (Huang, & Mujtaba, 2010, p. 3). Adding
FACE SAVING 3

further complications, Wright did not make “positive overtures of respect [to ensure] face-

honoring” (Rosenburg, 2004, para. 17). However, by his own standards, as part of a low-context

culture, Wright was likely unaware that he was doing anything wrong. He was simply attempting

to “find and convey information” as is culturally acceptable in the United States (Rosenburg,

2004, para. 13).

How well did this response address the face of Jackie Wong? Not well. In Jackie

Wong’s culture individuals are “expected to consider each others’ face in an interaction

in order to make it go smoothy” (Richard, & McFadden, 2016, p. 308). By not acting in a way

that was warm or personal, he did not “affirm the new… relationship” (Richard, & McFadden,

2016, p. 308). In so doing, Wright failed to acknowledge the face of Wong, which is a “face-

threatening” behavior (Rosenburg, 2004 para. 16).

4. In terms of face, how do you think Jackie Wong felt about receiving Cory Wright’s

prompt price proposal fax?

Wong probably felt that Wright’s behavior was rude and disrespectful. Even after their

phone conversation, Wright simply faxed a breakdown of program costs. He took no steps to

engage in the “face-honoring process” by getting to know Wong or engaging in pleasantries

(Rosenburg, 2004, para. 17). He was only interested in “getting to the point” (Rosenburg, 2004,

para. 18). This likely caused Jackie Wong a great deal of distress.

Part 2:
FACE SAVING 4

1. What expectations do you think the Taiwan group leaders had for being greeted the

airport? Do you think they felt the airport and transportation arrangements were

respectful? Why?

The leaders probably had expectations that their hosts would honor them by greeting

them at the airport. In their culture, “an individual or group can only have face if others treat that

person or group as if certain status is warranted” (Cardon, & Scott, 2003, p. 14). When they

arrived to find that the hosts were not there this took away from their ability to have face, or, be

treated as though they were persons of status. Furthermore, due to the differences in “relational

position” between students and leaders, the leaders likely had expectations that their

transportation would be different, and better, from that of the students (Cardon, & Scott, 2003, p.

11).

2 In what order did Superintendent Li and Jackie Wong present their American

counterparts with their gifts? Was there a distinction among gifts? What do you think this

manner of gift-giving indicated about face-saving and face-granting?

The gifts from Superintendent Li and Jackie Wong were presented in order from the

person considered to be in the highest position of Adventure English down to the lowest position

in descending order. The gift for the president was the most impressive and gave a clear message

that there was hope of an ongoing relationship. The next gift was also impressive and made

mention of the Taiwanese school district. The final gift, although nice, was not focused on the

relationship between the school district and the Adventure English program. The gift giving

highlighted the fact that “Chinese cherish hierarchical status in social relations” (Hwang, 1987,
FACE SAVING 5

p. 949). By giving gifts in and appropriate to hierarchical order, the Taiwanese leaders took

“action to enhance the honor” of those involved in Adventure English and displayed face-

granting behavior to honor those in the highest positions (Rosenburg, 2004, para. 18). Providing

gifts with an implied intention of a lasting relationship was a strategic move which exhibited

face-saving behavior (Rosenburg, 2004).

3. How did Robin Phillips present gifts to and accept gifts from members of the Taiwan

group? In what ways was this different from the Chinese approach? Why do you think

Superintendent Li may have felt a loss of face?

Robin Phillips opened the gift immediately, not waiting to first give gifts to the

Taiwanese. He then gave gifts to the students first and gave Pat Li and Jackie Wong their gifts at

the same time. By not following the hierarchical order as the Chinese had done, Superintendent

Li’s position was not honored and Li felt a loss of face. To further the loss of face felt by Li, the

gifts were not representative of any desire to continue a relationship.

Part 3:

1. Do you think Jackie Wong’s apology was based on a feeling that Jackie had done

something wrong? Why? How do you think Robin Phillips interpreted the apology? Why?

Jackie Wong did not apologize because she had done anything wrong. She was cautiously

addressing the problem they were experiencing while trying to reduce the threat to face (Park &

Guan, 2009). From my own perspective, I would assume Phillips interpreted the apology as

Wong attempting to be humble and somewhat anxious about highlighting an issue. I would also
FACE SAVING 6

think she felt bad about causing extra work for Phillips who would have to deal with the

problem. Phillips low-context culture dictates that “language… is direct and manifested through

an active voice” (Tindal, 2012, p. 2). For this reason, Phillips would likely believe that although

Wong was delicately stating a concern she actually was somewhat sorry and, feeling bad about

bringing up the problem.

2. For whom was Jackie Wong acting as an intermediary? How did Jackie Wong’s acting

as an intermediary help save face?

Wong acted as an intermediary for Superintendent Li. By having Wong address Phillips,

Li was able to avoid “face-to-face confrontation and reduce the risk of losing face” if the

interaction did not well (Jandt, 2013, p. 72).

4. Why didn’t Superintendent Li voice her concerns when Robin Phillips approached her?

Robin Phillips approaching Superintendent Li violated social norms of Chinese culture

and created a very uncomfortable situation. Li would naturally avert “direct confrontation and…

avoid expressing a clear no” (Rosenburg, 2004, para. 9). Instead of expressing what was wrong

Li engaged in the use of “inaccurac[ies]… in order to keep appearances pleasant” (Rosenburg,

2004, para. 9).

Epilogue:

1. Why do you think Jackie Wong and Superintendent Li would not return phone calls or

other communications?
FACE SAVING 7

Wong and the superintendent felt a considerable lack of courtesy from their hosts. Their

cultural values regarding face behavior were consistently neglected by all associates of

Adventure English. The Taiwanese “view relationships as important to… nature, development,

and resolution” and their attempts to create relationships were not reciprocated in a way that was

face-honoring to them (Tindal, 2012, p. 2). Because of the extreme loss of face that the

Taiwanese leaders experienced they felt “humiliated” and no longer desired a relationship with

the disrespectful leaders of Adventure English (Rosenburg, 2004, para. 9).

2. Do you think Jenny Chan lost face? Why? What effects might this have on Adventure

English?

Jenny Chan did lose face because of the situation. Because of her relationship with Wong

she had an increased responsibility to safeguard Wong against threats to face (Park & Guan,

2009). By contributing to a situation where Superintendent Li and Wong would lose face, Chan’s

face was also threatened. This negatively affected the desire of the associated Taiwanese to do

business with Adventure English.

3. How could the American hosts have acted differently to show respect (give face) to the

Taiwan group leaders and avoid loss of their business in subsequent years?

If the Americans had researched Chinese culture they would have been aware of the

intricacies involved in face behaviors and, could have used their knowledge to offer respect to

the Taiwanese group leaders though face-honoring practices. For instance, had the Americans

known how important honor and hierarchies are to the Chinese, they could have made some very
FACE SAVING 8

simple changes like guaranteeing their president and marketing director were at the airport to

offer greetings. They also could have been more intentional about buying gifts that were

appropriate that would make their guests feel valued and, they could have given out the gifts in

the appropriate order. Additionally, they would have known that Chinese culture uses mediators

to resolve their problems. Therefore, when Wong approached Phillips, they could have gone

through the appropriate channels to resolve the conflict rather than inappropriately directly

addressing the superintendent who then lost face as a result. Cultural mindfulness should not be

the only goal. Rather, a mentality of acceptance and regard for the honor of diverse groups must

be upheld. Clearly, fostering and sustaining positive intercultural relationships depends on it.
FACE SAVING 9

References

Cardon, P.W., & Scott, J. C. (n.d.). Case study: “Adventure English: Experiences with face-

saving”. Retrieved from http://cms.bsu.edu/web/00jjzhao/abc-intl/jimscott3.htm

Cardon, P. W., & Scott, J. C. (2003). Chinese business face: communication behaviors and

teaching approaches. Business Communication Quarterly, 66(4), 9-22. doi:

10.1177/108056990306600402

Huang, K. Y., & Mujtaba, B. G. (2010). Stress, task, and relationship orientations of Taiwanese

adults: An examination of gender in this high-context culture. Journal of International

Business and Cultural Studies, 3, 1 - 13. Retrieved from http://www.aabri.com/

manuscripts/09297.pdf

Hwang, K. H. (1987). Face and favor: The Chinese power game. The American Journal of

Sociology, 92(4), 944-974. Retrieved from

http://www.psy.ntu.edu.tw/download/kkhuang/

Face%20and%20favor%20The%20Chinese%20power%20game.pdf

Jandt, F. E. (2013). An introduction to intercultural communication: Identities in a global

community (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Park, H.S., & Guan, X. (2009). Culture, positive, and negative face threats, and apology

intentions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 28(3), 244-262. doi:

10.1177/0261927X09335249
FACE SAVING 10

Richard, E. M., & McFadden, M. (2016). Saving face: Reactions to cultural norm violations in

business request emails. Journal of Business Psychology, 31, 307-321. doi: 10.1007/

s10869-015-9414-9

Rosendale, S. (2004). Face. Beyond Intractability. Eds. Burgess, G, & Burgess, H. Conflict

Research Consortium, University of Colorado: Boulder CO.

Tindale, S. T. (2012). Conflict resolution: Cultural understanding imperative. The Journal of

Value Based Leadership, 4(2), 1-6. Retrieved from http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/

viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=jvbl