Read the following case study called $$Saving Face$.$ Discuss or consider the concept of saving face. If

you are aware of this cultural way of viewing the world, how might it affect the tone of your written

correspondence? What sort of issues need to be carefully dealt with and what sort of responses need

to be carefully interpreted?

Case Study: Saving Face

Jim Lazar was becoming increasingly agitated. $$Your product quality is simply unacceptable! None

of my other suppliers have shipped me anything like this. My ten year old can make better products

than what you$$re making here!$$

He knew he was exaggerating. Nevertheless, Lazar wanted to make sure his supplier got the

message loud and clear. He had not come all the way to Malaysia to exchange niceties and pretend

everything was fine. Product quality had been a problem of late, and he was not going to take that.

The room fell silent. The Malaysians were all looking down, seemingly too embarrassed to talk. Their

leader was blushing.

$$Ok$,$ Lazar said, $$We need a break. Let$$s meet again in the morning to discuss how you will fix this.$$

The next morning, Jim Lazar learned his supplier had cancelled the meeting, quoting $$urgent other

matters$.$ He called its office but was unable to reach any of his usual contacts. Back at his own desk

a few days later, he was in for an even bigger surprise: the Malaysian supplier had cancelled the

contract and returned the latest orders. While volumes were moderate, his company urgently

needed these products to meet its own customer commitments. This was a major problem.

We have all heard of the concept of face. Unfortunately, Western businesspeople frequently

underestimate how important it can be when working across cultures. Causing counterparts to lose

face, as Jim Lazar did, does not necessarily end business relationships. However, stepping over this

line, even if done inadvertently, inevitably leads to hurt feelings, loss of trust, weakened

relationships and greater risks for your business success.

Harmony and Face

Many cultures, especially in southeast Asia or in the Middle East, share a strong preference for

preserving group harmony$$a desire to continually maintain positive relations across all members of

a group or organization. In such cultures, individual embarrassment represents a disturbance to the

harmony of the group or groups to which the individual belongs. Whether an unpleasant situation

centres on a single individual or the whole group makes little difference. In both cases, the group is

likely to perceive a collective loss of face and react with a feeling of shame.

Face is the external representation of a positive and harmonious self as viewed by others. The term

is not limited to individuals. Families, groups, organizations or even whole nations may have face in

this sense. If a group views actions or behaviours causing loss of face as inappropriate, as in Jim

Lazar$$s case, it is likely to turn against the person causing it$.$ This may affect that person$$s

organization as well. For instance, a South Korean company perceiving face issues caused by a

representative of a Swedish partner company may place blame on the company as a whole, not just

the individual.

Many actions carry the risk of causing loss of face. Examples include openly turning down someone$$s

request, singling out an individual for public critique or praise, failing to show respect and losing

one$$s temper.

The indirect communication approach often employed by members of such cultures reflects this:

rather than saying $"$no$",$ they use phrases such as$"$maybe$,"$we will see" or "this will need further

analysis" to express disagreement in a way that saves face. Similarly, they rarely confront problems

openly, and sometimes do not even acknowledge them, which again serves as a way to preserve

harmony.

What Can You Do if You Stepped Over the Line?

People often ask $$How can I recover if I inadvertently caused loss of face?$$ The answer is that since

relationships are affected, it is vital to make active efforts to regain your counterparts$$ trust by

apologizing, expressing respect for the individual and$/$or group, and trying hard to build new

bridges. In Lazar$$s case, an apology might help get the communication going again. For example, $$I

regret what might have been an unfortunate choice of words and would like to assure you that I

have great trust in your ability to solve the quality problems. Let us please continue to work together

towards our mutual business success.$$ However, he would have to continually demonstrate his

respect for the Malaysian vendors through words as well as actions to win back their trust.

In some cases, your only hope may be to find a third party willing to act as a mediator. Assuming

this person has the trust of the group you offended, he or she may be able to restart

communications between the parties.

The Bottom Line

Seemingly small infr