A comparative analysis of facework strategies of Australians and Sri Lankans working in Australia

Amala Dilani Amarasinghe BBus (Management), MBus (International Business)

Master of Business Research

Faculty of Business

Queensland University of Technology

2011

ii

Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made.

Signature:

Date:

iii

iv

Acknowledgements

I first and foremost offer my sincere gratitude to Professor Caroline Hatcher, my principal supervisor in this research who provided me with guidance, courage, and every support in carrying out and bringing this study to completion. It is difficult to express in words the remarkable care and concern she has shown for me throughout the whole of this research project.

An incalculable thank you to all the participants in this research, who gave their precious time in providing their valuable responses to the survey questionnaire, and for the interviewees for their very generous responses to the interview questions in this investigation. Without your contributions this research could not have been accomplished.

I express my sincere thanks to all the research, academic, and learning support staff who assisted me in fulfilling the necessary tasks in completing this research. All your contributions have been essential, in numerous ways, for carrying out this study.

I am most grateful to all research administration staff who provided much support throughout my candidature in this Master of Business Research project. All the assistance I received from you when I was in need has been outstanding.

v

vi Abstract

Face is the public image that a person wants to present in a social setting, and facework refers to the communicative strategies one uses. Australia is a multicultural society. It has hosted a large migration of people from Asian countries that are culturally very distinct from the majority of Anglo-Celtic population. To communicate effectively with people of these different countries, it is important to learn as much as possible about their cultures and communication and be sensitive to them. Australia has a culturally diverse workforce, yet very few studies in Australia have examined the impact of different value orientations on workplace interactions, and it would seem that there are no studies that have been done on facework, other than Brew & Cairns’ research about interactions involving conflict between Anglos and the Chinese in Australia. This study investigates the facework of Sri Lankans in comparison to the other Anglo-Celtic and European origin Australians working in Australia.

The investigation aimed to find answers to three research questions in providing elucidation to this research investigation. These three research questions are:

RQ1. What are the facework strategies of Sri Lankans working in Australia, in comparison to the Australians of European origin working in Australia? RQ2. What are the values that influence the facework of Sri Lankans working in Australia? RQ3. How have Sri Lankans adapted their facework strategies to the Australian culture?

The research adopts Oetzel and Ting-Toomey’s face negotiation model to investigate the facework differences and similarities between the Australians and the Sri Lankans who work in Australia. The face negotiation model describes the differences and similarities in face and face-work during conflict across individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Australia is categorised as having an individualist culture, and Sri Lanka having a collectivist culture. The face negotiation model explains the self construal (independent self, interdependent self),

vii face concerns (self face, other face), and the conflict solution strategies (dominating, integrating, and avoiding) of individualist and collectivist cultural groups.

A survey questionnaire was used to find facework strategies identified in the face negotiation model of the Sri Lankans and the Australians. This survey instrument was constructed by using three previously validated and reliable instruments: Singelis’s self construal instrument, Ting-Toomey & Oetzel’s face concern instrument, and Putnam and Wilson’s Organisational Communication Conflict Instrument (OCCI) to answer research question 1. Interviews were then conducted with the Sri Lankans working in Australia to investigate their values and behaviours, the adjustments Sri Lankans make to Australian culture, and their values and behavioural change during the cultural adaptation phase in finding answers to research questions 2 and 3.

According to the face negotiation model, individualistic cultures have an independent self schema, a greater concern for self-face and lesser concern for other-face, and tend to use more dominating conflict strategies than collectivistic cultures. In contrast, collectivistic cultures have an interdependent self schema, have a greater concern for other-face and lesser concern for self-face, and use more integrating and avoiding conflict strategies. The survey found quite different answers in analysing the responses given by the Sri Lankans, compared to other collectivist cultures as explained by the face negotiation model. The Sri Lankans show a movement to individualist values during the face negotiation.

This investigation also found that Sri Lankans have higher scores in interdependent self construal, self face concern and other face concern than the Australians. Yet, the Sri Lankans are similar to the other Australians of Anglo-Celtic and European origin Australians in their use of all other face work strategies on the face negotiation model: independent self construal, and the three conflict solution strategies (dominating, integrating, and avoiding). These findings may be on that they have adapted to the Australian culture, and also by the values they hold. The participants in this investigation are of mainly Buddhist religion, holding Buddhist values such as non-harm, right speech, proper conduct, and respect to one’s self and other. The researcher concluded that Sri Lankans have not changed their values by living in

viii Australia yet they make behavioural adjustments having to integrate into the Australian culture, and have to make some changes to the way they do things.

ix Table of contents

Page Chapter 1 - Introduction

Leading the way to the thesis

Introduction ...... 2 Diversity in business ...... 3 Benefits of diversity ...... 4 Facework and diversity ...... 5 Significance of this research ...... 5 Theoretical framework ...... 7 Research questions ...... 8 Research methodology ...... 8 Data analysis and conclusions ...... 9 Limitations ...... 9 Overview of the thesis ...... 10

Chapter 2 - Literature review

Exploring the means to face work leading to the research

Introduction ...... 14

Part A

Analysis of culture, communication and conflict ...... 16 Culture ...... 17 Culture shock ...... 17 Intercultural adaptation ...... 18 Connection between culture and self ...... 20 Variations in cultures ...... 21 Models of culture and communication ...... 21

x Hofstede’s dimensions of culture ...... 21 Hall’s communication model ...... 25 Communication style differences in collectivist and individualist cultures...... 27 Independent – interdependent self schema ...... 28 Monochronic/polychronic time orientation ...... 28 Communicating across cultures ...... 29 Intercultural business communication model...... 29 Implications for negotiating across borders ...... 30 Ethnocentrism ...... 30 How culture affects negotiation in coming to an agreement ...... 31 Negotiating across individualist and collectivist cultures ...... 32 Communication and conflict ...... 33 Discovering issues in intercultural conflict ...... 34 Identity issues in intercultural conflict ...... 34 Identity of individualist and collectivist cultures ...... 35 Managing conflict in high context/low context cultures ...... 35 Communication style differences among Asians ...... 36 Conflict behaviour in gender differences ...... 37 Understanding communication differences across cultures ...... 38 How ‘Taking Conflict Personally’ (TCP) differs among individuals ...... 38 Aggressive communication predisposition ...... 39 Culture-based, ‘Conversational Constraints Theory’ ...... 40 Social appropriateness as a communication constraint ...... 40 Conversational constraints ...... 41 Interactive constraints ...... 41 Importance in ‘Distinctiveness’ in interaction ...... 42 Horizontal versus vertical cultures ...... 43

Part B

The metaphor of face ...... 44 Face and facework...... 44 The origin of the notion of face...... 45 Politeness and face ...... 46

xi Importance of face ...... 47 Significance of face in negotiation ...... 48 Face concerns in Asia-Australia communication ...... 48 Face concerns of individualist/collectivist cultures ...... 49 Conflict style and cross cultural face concerns ...... 49 Understanding culture, face, and conflict ...... 49 Face negotiation theory ...... 51 Face saving strategies ...... 52 Face-negotiation model ...... 53 Facework strategies ...... 54 Preventative and restorative facework strategies ...... 55 Conditions of face-threatening process (FTP) ...... 55 FTP and communication in individualist/collectivist cultures ...... 56 Cross cultural theories of communication ...... 56 Lack of multicultural vision for communication ...... 57 Influence of power in communication ...... 58 Power distance and facework ...... 58 Power distance and individualist/collectivist cultures ...... 59 Cross cultural facework and aspects of power distance ...... 59 How power distance influence facework strategies ...... 60 Power distance in Australia and Asia ...... 60 Research context in facework ...... 61 Research in intercultural facework ...... 61 Investigation of facework and Hofstede’s culture dimensions ...... 64

Part C

Theoretical framework ...... 66 The research problem of investigation ...... 67 Australia versus Sri Lanka – an insight to the two nations ...... 68 Summary ...... 72

xii Chapter 3 - Research methodology

Exploring methods to gain insight to the research questions

Introduction ...... 76

Part A Significance of research ...... 76 Unit of analysis ...... 77 Type of investigation ...... 77 Implications of an exploratory research ...... 78 The rigor in a mix method study ...... 78 Justification of research design ...... 80

Part B Procedures/methods ...... 81 Stage 1: Survey ...... 81 Stage 2: Interviews ...... 82 Ethical concerns in data collection and reporting ...... 83 Limitations of the study ...... 83 Theoretical framework ...... 84 Research questions ...... 86 Research methods...... 89 Sampling ...... 89 Time horizon ...... 90 Data collection ...... 91 Survey sample ...... 91 Demographics of the sample ...... 91 Comparison of demographics of the Australians and the Sri Lankans ...... 99 Interviewee profile ...... 100 Procedures ...... 101 The survey approach ...... 101 Survey questionnaire instrument ...... 102 The interview approach ...... 104

xiii Data analysis methods ...... 107 Conclusion ...... 109

Chapter 4 - Quantitative (survey) data analysis

Exploring the strategies in face negotiation: learning from quantitative research

Introduction ...... 111 Data analysis ...... 111 Research questions ...... 112 SPSS data analysis ...... 112 Hypothesis testing ...... 113 Self schema ...... 113 Face concern ...... 115 Conflict solution strategy ...... 116 Findings of data analysis ...... 119 Answers to the research questions ...... 119 Relationship between variables ...... 120 Discussion ...... 121 Conclusion ...... 124

Chapter 5 - Qualitative (interview) data analysis

Understanding the hidden roles of face negotiation

Introduction ...... 129 Communication style difference ...... 130 Interaction with the manager ...... 134 Interaction with peers ...... 140 Interaction in a conflict situation ...... 142 Concern for self face and other face ...... 148 Dependence – independence ...... 149 Change ...... 151 Values ...... 156

xiv Findings on the research questions ...... 162 Self schema & face concerns ...... 163 Conflict solution strategies ...... 165 Values ...... 167 Adaptation ...... 168 Conclusion ...... 169

Chapter 6 - Conclusion

Unfolding facework strategies of Sri Lankans and Australians

Introduction ...... 171 Research findings ...... 171 Survey investigation (RQ1) ...... 171 Interview investigation (RQ2, RQ3) ...... 173 Discussion of research findings ...... 175 Face negotiation ...... 175 Changes made in Australia ...... 177 Values ...... 178 Culture dimensions and facework ...... 179 Comparing facework on the face negotiation model ...... 180 Comparison with other Asians ...... 182 Difference in male and female responses ...... 182 Summary ...... 183 Future research ...... 183

Appendix A Survey Questionnaire ...... 186

Appendix B Interview Questions ...... 197

References ...... 202

xv

Chapter 1

Introduction

1 Leading the way to the thesis

Introduction

Asia-Australia trade has traditionally involved exchanged commodities such as cars, electronic goods, coal and wheat. It has also increasingly involved the provision of tourism and travel services, and the export of education from Australia’s standpoint (Irwin, 1996). “As well, there has been significantly increased immigration to Australia” (Irwin, 1996, p.4). Australia is also one of the most multicultural societies on the globe. Through the immigration policies, especially during the past fifty years, people have come to Australia from all corners of the world (Chavan, 2005).

As Australian Bureau of Statistics (Australian Social Trends, 1997) has identified: “Australia has one of the largest immigrant populations in the world. When compared to other major host countries in the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), in 1993, only the United States of America, Germany and Canada had bigger migrant populations”. People from around 200 countries have made Australia their home, and over 200 languages are spoken in Australia (Healey, 2005, p.3). These people have brought with them a wealth of different languages, cultures, and traditions. No organisation or government can afford to ignore utilising Australia’s linguistic and cultural diversity to economic benefit (Chavan, 2005). To manage relationships effectively, these organisations need a means to understand and improve intercultural communication (Harvey & Griffith, 2002).

Very few studies in Australia have examined the impact of different value orientations on workplace interactions (Brew & Cairns, 2004), and it would seem that no studies have been done on facework other than Brew & Cairns’ (2004) research about interactions involving conflict between Anglos and the Chinese in Australia. Australia has a culturally diverse workforce that is made up from people of different countries. To communicate effectively with people of these different countries, it is important to learn as much as possible about their cultures and communication and be sensitive to them (Chavan, 2005; Dou, William, & Clark, 1999; Taylor, 2006). Building on the available research on facework of different

2 cultural groups, this study aims to discover the facework of Sri Lankans who live in Australia.

Diversity in business

In a world where every competitive advantage must be fully exploited, productive diversity offers a practical resource. Sensible employers have begun to make use of this resource (Chavan, 2005). Diversity is, “otherness, or those human qualities present in other individuals and groups that are different from our own and outside the groups to which we belong” (Kakabadse, Bank, & Vinnicombe, 2004, p.95). Diversity in the workplace is explained as the approach that values human differences for the important contributions they can make to organisational success (Toma, 2004).

When properly managed, “diversity optimizes the willingness and ability of all employees to contribute to that success, and encourages each to draw fully on the talents, different points of view, skills and practices that benefit both the individual and the organisation” (Toma, 2004). In explaining how to deal with diversity, Maccoby (2006) emphasises the need to be aware of cultural differences, to bring them out in the open and to harmonize on behavioural expectations and decision- making procedures. It is also important to approach communication phenomenology, that is to understand how cultures differ in relation to the patterns of face-to-face conversation: the actual behaviours, gestures, and levels of expression exchanged by individuals as they interact (Morand, 2003).

As international business relations grow, many businesses operate on a global scale, and the culturally diverse workforce is made up of different people from different countries, and cultures. To communicate effectively with people of these different countries, it is important to learn as much as possible about their culture and communication (Dou, William et al., 1999; Hendon, Hendon, & Herbig, 1998; Taylor, 2006). As global competition intensifies, it is also necessary for organisations to have strong intercultural relationships with the culturally diverse employees, business partners and the customers. To manage these relationships

3 effectively, organisations need a means to understand and improve intercultural communication (Harvey & Griffith, 2002).

A panel of 32 members of International Association of Business Communicators, including members from Mexico, the Netherlands, Australia, United States, Canada, Finland, Brazil, England, Slovenia and China have argued that understanding and engaging diversity is the biggest global communication issue organizations face (Geddie, 1999). For example, in a multicultural setting, obtaining information from others requires a high degree of cross cultural communication competence (Matveev & Nelson, 2004). Similarly, understanding interpersonal facework responses of different cultures could help smooth intercultural encounters and prevent potential intercultural conflicts (Merkin, 2006a). Yet, there is limited research that investigates how different nations communicate with others.

Benefits of diversity

Businesses are gaining competitive advantage by capitalising on the linguistic skills, cultural knowledge and business contacts of migrants and ethnic communities. Small businesses are also beginning to recognise the economic benefits and opportunities that lie in multiculturalism. Also, productive diversity is shown to make a difference to business performance, whether it is products or services, the domestic market or export (Chavan, 2005). Productive diversity includes taking advantage of Australia’s multicultural workforce in doing business for the skills and talents that comes with diverse languages and understanding of international business environments (Pyke, 2005). Productive diversity has steered export ventures, developed niche markets in Australia, masterminded product innovation and provided a competitive edge for the companies and organisations that have adopted it as a strategic approach (Chavan, 2005).

Cross culturally and communicatively competent members of a multicultural team are able to establish interpersonal relationships with a foreign national through effective exchange at both verbal and non verbal levels of behaviour. Cross cultural communication improves the decision making and problem solving abilities of managers in the global market place and, cross cultural communication capability increases the possibility of achieving high team performance as the team members

4 can clearly express themselves and better understand their colleagues (Matveev & Nelson, 2004). One important aspect of cross cultural communication competence is the management of cultural sensitivities of self and others. Oetzel, Ting-Toomey, Masumoto, Yokochi, Pan, Takai, and Wilcox (2001) call this concept facework.

Facework and diversity

Why is understanding facework imperative in a global environment? The term face is defined by Goffman (1972, p.5) as, “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact”. The symbol of face is important in bringing many aspects of personal communication to the forefront. Face is equated to your public identity - the “you” presented to others (Domenici & Littlejohn, 2006). As Domenici & Littlejohn (2006) explain, a vital part of our life’s participation involves face: how people want to be seen by others, how people want others to treat them, and how people treat others. Also face explains a great deal of our attitude in relationships.

Face is tied to the emotional importance and thinking that a person attaches to his/her own social self-worth and the social self-worth of others. Face is therefore a precious identity resource in communication. As Ting-Toomey (2005) suggests, face can, both on an emotional reactive level and on a cognitive appraisal level, be threatened, enhanced, undermined, and bargained. On an emotional level, a face- threatening act in the conflict situation can arouse a mixed package of identity related emotions. On the cognitive judgment level, a degree of face threat or face disrespect is experienced when how we think we should be treated does not match with how the other person is actually treating us. When the difference is greater between an individual’s face need expectation and the actual encounter, the individual will then need to use different facework behaviours to manage the problematic event (Ting- Toomey, 2005).

Significance of this research

This research aims to understand the facework strategies of the Sri Lankans who work in Australia. Researchers have analysed facework in conflict communication behaviour of numerous countries. However, these investigations are limited to a

5 number of cultures compared to the number of nations of the globe. Ting-Toomey (1992) analyses facework of US, Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan, Australia, Thailand, and India. Oetzel et al (2001) have analysed facework in China, Germany Japan and the United States. Brew & Cairns (2004) investigate facework of Anglos and Chinese in Australia. Merkin (2000; Merkin, 2006a; Merkin, 2006b) investigates facework in Japan, Sweden, Israel, Hong Kong, Chile and the US. Siira, Rogan, & Hall investigate facework of Finns and Americans (2004). Moriizumi (2009) and Gagné (2010) have analysed facework strategies in Japan. Merkin & Ramadan (2010) have recently investigated facework in Syria and the United States. Yet these studies do not include Sri Lanka.

It is significant to understand the facework strategies of Sri Lankans as there is no previous research done about facework strategies of the Sri Lankans. There are investigations of different cultures and communication styles but these studies do not include Sri Lanka. For example, Hofstede’s 1980 study of 66 countries that investigates the dominant values of different cultures (Hofstede, 1984) does not include Sri Lanka. A small scale research study in Sri Lanka indicates that Sri Lanka has a collectivist, high power distant, feminine and a low uncertainty avoidance culture (Waisfisz, 1992). Hall’s ‘low context’ and ‘high context’ dichotomy describes communication of cultures of the world (Hall & Hall, 1990), yet this study does not investigate the communication style of Sri Lankans.

The face-negotiation model (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003) explains face and facework in a conflict situation of individualist and collectivist cultures, but this research (Oetzel, Ting-Toomey et al., 2001) also does not include Sri Lanka. Merkin (2000) investigates facework and Hofstede’s culture dimensions of different cultures, however her study also does not include Sri Lanka. Brew & Cairns (2004) investigate styles of managing interpersonal workplace conflict of Anglos and Chinese in Australia. Yet, there are no other cultures that are being analysed in Australia for their facework strategies. This earlier research has established a useful theoretical background for analysing the facework strategies of the Sri Lankans that work in Australia.

Why is it important to understand face work of Sri Lankans in Australia? As Domenici & Littlejohn (2006) explain: a vital part of our life’s participation involves

6 face: how people want to be seen by others, how people want others to treat them, and how people treat others. “Facework is the never ending process of presenting self to others and acting toward others in the ongoing narrative of life” (Domenici & Littlejohn, 2006, p.11). Cultures have developed different norms for treating face, and these different norms are at the heart of many cross-cultural communication problems (Morand, 2003). Learning to understand different face concerns, and face negotiation styles in conflict is a major step toward building a more harmonious multicultural community (Oetzel, Ting-Toomey et al., 2001). Therefore, this study aims to investigate the facework strategies of Sri Lankans who are working in Australia.

Theoretical framework

Face negotiation theory was developed in 1988 by Ting–Toomey and her colleagues (Brew & Cairns, 2004; Oetzel, Ting-Toomey et al., 2001). The face-negotiation theory explains conflict style differences and similarities across individualistic and collectivistic cultures (Korzenny & Ting-Toomey, 1990). Available research suggests that Sri Lanka is a collectivistic culture (Waisfisz, 1992), and Australia represents an individualistic culture (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). The face negotiation model (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003) is a basic conceptualisation that helps to understand people of different cultures in their interaction and communication behaviour in conflict. This research adopts the face negotiation model as the basis to investigate the facework differences and similarities between the Australians and the Sri Lankans who work in Australia.

The face-negotiation model (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003) explains that individualist cultures have an independent self schema, and collectivist cultures have an interdependent self schema. Members of individualistic cultures have a greater concern for self-face and lesser concern for other-face than members of collectivistic cultures. Also, members of individualistic cultures tend to use more dominating conflict strategies than members of collectivistic cultures. The study investigates the self schema, face concern and the conflict solution strategies of the Sri Lankans who work in Australia. This forms the basis for investigating their facework.

7 Research questions

The research questions to be investigated are:

1. What are the facework strategies of Sri Lankans working in Australia, in comparison to the Australians of European origin working in Australia?

Adapting the face negotiation model, the researcher will find answers to the following three facets of the face negotiation model in a conflict communication situation of the Sri Lankans and the Australians working in Australia:

i. Self Construal: Independent or Interdependent ii. Face Concern: Self Face or Other Face iii. Conflict Strategy: Dominating or Integrating or Avoiding

A survey questionnaire is used to find the above facework strategies of the Sri Lankans and the Australians.

2. What are the values that influence the facework of Sri Lankans working in Australia?

3. How have Sri Lankans adapted their facework strategies to the Australian culture?

Questions 2 and 3 are investigated through interviews with the Sri Lankans working in Australia. These interviews include an investigation of the values and behaviours of the Sri Lankans, the adjustments Sri Lankans make to Australian culture, and the values and behaviours that have not changed during the cultural adaptation phase.

Research methodology

This research is built on Oetzel and Ting-Toomey’s (2003) face negotiation model. This investigation will employ an exploratory research method as there are no previous studies that investigate facework of Sri Lankans. As for the method of an exploratory investigation, this study uses a mix method (quantitative and qualitative)

8 investigation. The methods of collecting research data include a survey questionnaire (quantitative), and to further explore way Sri Lankans use of facework, interviews of Sri Lankan (qualitative) is undertaken. The researcher used a convenience purposive sample in collecting data for this study. The investigator administered the questionnaire, and also interviewed the Sri Lankans who live and work in the state of Queensland in Australia.

Data analysis and conclusions

There are two methods of data analysis that were completed separately: the quantitative data analysis and the qualitative data analysis. The quantitative data is analysed using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) statistical software version 16. When confirming conclusions to the research questions, the final conclusions are made by analysing results of both quantitative and qualitative analyses. The themes in this study are drawn from concepts of the face negotiation model, and other behaviour styles that will be discovered by the analysis. The final analysis of the research data to the research questions is achieved through analysing the results of both the quantitative and qualitative data as findings of this research.

Limitations

This research is limited to the Australian context. The participants in this study are all from Australia. The Sri Lankans who live in Australia would adjust to the Australian culture. Sri Lankans who live in other countries would adapt to the cultures they live in. This study is therefore applicable only to Australia. Also, this is not a study of the Sri Lankans who live in Sri Lanka. To investigate the facework of Sri Lankans, a study has to be done in Sri Lanka of the people who live in Sri Lanka. Thus, this study is limited to the Sri Lankans who live in Australia. The survey responses in this study are limited to 126 as the surveys were conducted in the state of Queensland and not throughout Australia. The qualitative investigation consists of a limited number of respondents. This was constrained by availability of resources.

9 Overview of the thesis

Chapter 2 Literature review - exploring the means to face work leading to the research

This chapter discusses the literature about facework, and how the face negotiation model (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003) is used in this research. In this chapter, the researcher investigates what the available research suggests about how facework is different across cultures and the factors that contribute to these differences. Firstly, this chapter discusses the importance of understanding facework of other nations different to your own in a global environment. Also, it analyses how people adapt to another culture, when having to live in a culture different to their own. Secondly, the chapter provides an in depth analysis into how cultures vary around key different dimensions and how this impacts their communication styles. Thirdly, this chapter investigates the research that has been done so far on facework of different nations, and how they differ in their communication styles. Finally, it proposes to investigate the facework differences between the Australians and the Sri Lankans who live in Australia, using the face negotiation model as the theoretical framework of the investigation.

Chapter 3 Research methodology - exploring methods to gain insight to the research question

This chapter discuss the research methods that were employed to find the data for the investigation. Firstly, it describes the type of research that is being used. As this study uses an exploratory method (mixed method of quantitative and qualitative), it explains the implications of an exploratory research, and the rigor in a mixed method study. The second half of this chapter describes the procedures/methods that are being used to collect the research data, ethical concerns in data collection and reporting, and the limitations of the study. Finally, it provides a description about the instruments that are being used in this investigation to collect the research data, the validity and reliability of research data, and the data analysis methods.

10 Chapter 4 Quantitative data analysis - exploring the strategies in face negotiation: learning from quantitative research

This chapter analyses the responses to the survey questionnaire on variables tested in the face negotiation model. A description of the demographics of the respondents who provided data to this investigation is provided in the first section of this chapter. The later section analyses the responses to the research questions. Data analyses of the responses to the survey questionnaire using statistical analysis software (SPSS) are described in this section. Findings from the data collected for the research questions by hypothesis testing are further explained in the later half of this chapter. Finally, the findings of the survey are summarized.

Chapter 5 Qualitative data analysis - understanding the hidden roles of face negotiation

This chapter analyses the interview responses given by the Sri Lankan respondents to the research questions about facework. The researcher aims at exploring data about the variables on the face negotiation model (self schema, face concern, and conflict solution strategies) as a further explanation to the survey responses provided by the Sri Lankan respondents. Through the interviews, the researcher aims to explore their values and behaviour, and the adjustments Sri Lankans make to Australian culture and the values and behaviours that have not changed.

Chapter 6 Conclusion – unfolding facework strategies of Sri Lankans and Australians

This chapter describes the findings to draw conclusions about the research questions. The final conclusions are made by analysing the results of the quantitative investigation and the results of the qualitative investigation. The overall conclusions to this investigation then synthesise understanding of the facework strategies of the Sri Lankans that are explained on Oetzel & Ting-Toomey’s (2003) face negotiation model, the values that contribute to these facework strategies, the behaviours that

11 have changed to adapt to Australian culture, and the facework differences between the Australians and the Sri Lankans who live in Australia.

12

Chapter 2

Literature review

13 Exploring the means to face work leading to the research

Introduction

This chapter discusses the literature that has informed understanding about the research topic about facework. This led to the adoption of face negotiation model as the basis on which this study is being conducted. The face negotiation model provides a basic platform where intercultural communication differences can be analysed. It distinguishes between the conflict communication strategies of individualistic and collectivistic cultures.

The face negotiation model is further described and also, how it is being adopted in this study, in the latter part of this chapter and in chapter 3 on research methods. It is important to investigate intercultural communication literature that explains face negotiation. In order to understand a range of issues linked to intercultural communication, this chapter reviews research around culture, communication and conflict, before proceeding to report intercultural face negotiation in detail.

Part A Culture, communication and conflict

Firstly, this chapter will discuss the importance of understanding facework in a global environment. Also, it analyses how people adapt to another culture, when having to live in a culture different to their own. Secondly, the chapter provides an overview of the literature on how cultures vary around key different dimensions and how this impacts their communication styles. Researchers often investigate facework of different cultures based on Hofstede’s culture dimensions. The researcher draws on Hofstede’s (1984) culture dimensions in understanding different cultures, and also Hall’s (1990) communication framework to understand communication style differences. Conflict behaviours in communication are further analysed in this chapter.

14 Part B Intercultural face negotiation

Thirdly, this chapter investigates the literature that has been done so far on the concept of facework of cultures, and how this affects communication styles. The face negotiation model provides an explanation of facewok differences using the main culture dimension – individualism vs. collectivism. Other culture dimensions also provide an important role in intercultural facework differences. Hence, this model provides limited explanation into how and why facework differs across cultures. However, as there is very limited data to explain Sri Lankan culture, the researcher takes this model as an initial starting point. Facework is also influenced by other factors such as age, gender, spirituality, educational level, and social and economic status (Orbe, 2007). Thus, this chapter further investigates how facework is different across cultures and the factors that contribute to these differences.

Part C Theoretical framework

Finally, the chapter proposes to investigate the facework differences between the Australians and the Sri Lankans who live in Australia, using the face negotiation model as the basis of the investigation. A quantitative analysis is provided to measure the variables of the face negotiation model in finding the self schema, face concern and the conflict solution strategies of the two nations. This is followed by a qualitative investigation to analyse other factors and their influence on the facework differences.

15 Part A

Analysis of culture, communication and conflict

Face is the public image that a person wants to present in a social setting, and facework refers to the communicative strategies one uses (Kiyoko, 2004; Oetzel, Ting-Toomey et al., 2001). The domain of face-to-face contact – ‘the interaction order’ is vital, providing the ground for intercultural communication. People must not only apprehend how others think, but must also come to know how they act (Morand, 2003). “The gentle and respectful handling of other’s face is a vital social behaviour in any cultural context” (Morand, 2003). Cultures have developed different norms for treating face, and these different norms are at the heart of many cross-cultural communication problems (Morand, 2003). Learning to understand different face concerns, and face negotiation styles in conflict is a major step toward building a more harmonious multicultural community (Oetzel, Ting-Toomey et al., 2001).

Cross cultural communication is imperative in this globalised world. Miscommunications can occour in cross-cultural communication because of cultural differences in interactions. Researchers have analysed facework in conflict communication behaviour of the people of United States, Australia, Sweden, Germany, Finland, Chile, Israel, Japan, China, Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, India, and Syria (Brew & Cairns, 2004; Gagné, 2010; Merkin, 2000; Merkin, 2006a; Merkin, 2006b; Merkin & Ramadan, 2010; Moriizumi, 2009; Oetzel, Ting-Toomey et al., 2001; Siira, Rogan et al., 2004; Ting-Toomey, 1992). These studies are limited, as only a small number of countries represent these investigations about their facework compared to all the nations of the world of different cultures.

People from different cultures have distinct behavior patterns. Understanding these differences is important when having to interact with people from other cultures. It is also essential to understand the process of how other people embrace and adjust to another culture when having to live in a different culture to theirs. Literature on the process of how other nations adapt to a new culture is now presented to identify current understanding of these issues.

16 Culture

Culture has been conceptualised in many ways. Culture is viewed as everything that is human made (Gudykunst & Lee, 2003). Hofstede (1984, p.21) treats culture as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another”. Hall (1973, p.20), on the other hand, explains culture as the way of life of a people, for the sum of their learned behaviour patterns, attitudes and material things”. According to Taylor (2006), culture is a shared system of beliefs, attitudes, values, expectations and norms of behaviour. People of one culture often have similar beliefs and assumptions on how they should think, behave and communicate, and they act on these beliefs.

Culture shock

When people have to interact with another culture which is new to them they are faced with culture shock. The term “Culture shock” emphasizes the feelings of disorientation, confusion and stress felt as cultures collide or intersect. Cross cultural contact involves the shock of a different language, values, attitudes and different ways of thinking and negotiating, different customs, practices, and protocols. Culture shock, the feeling of confusion and concern as a psychological reaction to unfamiliar environments, is a difficulty for migrants, long-term business and academic sojourners, students, tourists and others moving across cultural boundaries, or coming into contact with people from different cultures (Irwin, 1996). “Beliefs and behaviors differ between cultures because each develops its own means for explaining and coping with life” (Hendon, Hendon et al., 1998, p.25). Values and beliefs regarding a broad array of everyday things differ very much across cultures. As values and beliefs are a basis upon which decisions, including decisions about communicating are made, it is helpful to analyze research evidence about value and belief differences in different cultures (Irwin, 1996).

As Irwin (1996) explains, when an individual has to interact with others from another culture, an extreme reaction to cultural difference or culture shock is fear, relational paralysis or avoidance. Individuals who are intimidated by the differences hence can become negative that they put cross-cultural view as too hard, and then they pay the

17 price that comes with avoidance. Others face cultural differences and culture shock as challenges and gateways to new knowledge and opportunity. They realize they do not have to alter their own behaviour, or seek to change the behaviour of others; rather there are benefits in raising their level of cultural sensitivity and learning to manage cultural differences. Studies show that the influence of culture on personal relationships diminishes as relationships develop (Irwin, 1996), and “those who pursue and accomplish integration appear to be better adapted” (Berry, 2005, p.709). The greatest influence of cultural dissimilarity occurs at the early stages of the relationship and development, where differences inhibit cultural penetration. When the relationship progresses to the stage of familiarity or friendship, the influence of cultural dissimilarities is minimized and the interaction then occurs on a personalized basis. This research shows that involving significant cultural dissimilarities at the early stages of a relationship may be difficult and require working at, but interaction and intercultural communication will be facilitated beyond a threshold point of familiarity. Persons involved then will be relating to one another as individuals rather than as members of different cultures (Irwin, 1996). As Berry (2005, p.710) suggests, “most people who have experienced acculturation actually do survive”.

Intercultural adaptation

Kim (2001) and Berry (2005) describe the acculturation and adaptation phase of individuals in a new culture. As Kim (2001) explains that when individuals encounter a new culture, they are confronted with situations (shocks) in which their mental and behavioural way of life are called into question, and they are forced to suspend or even abandon their identification and the cultural patterns that represent who they are and what they are. These inner conflicts in turn make them inclined to external influence and compel them to learn new cultural systems. “Acculturation” is the learning and acquiring of new cultural practices in a wide range of areas that is of direct relevance to the daily functioning of the new arrivals. These practices include attire, food habits, behaviour norms and cultural values. According to Berry (2005), there are group and individual differences in how people acculturate: how much stress they experience, and how well they adapt psychologically, and socioculturally. In ethnically diverse societies, the cultural patterns widely regarded

18 as standard are mainly those of the dominant culture; for example in the USA the cultural patterns of Anglo-Americans (Kim, 2001).

“Adaptation refers to the relatively stable changes that take place in an individual or group in response to external demands” (Berry, 2005, p.709). When adapting to the new environment, new cultural elements are added to previous internal conditions. When new learning takes place, deculturation of some of the old cultural elements happen. The act of acquiring something new is also the act of losing something old. New responses are adopted in situations which evoke old ones. The new comer goes through an internal transformation as the interchange of acculturation and deculturation continues. General adaptive changes in foreigners take place in more external spheres, such as overt role behaviour (Kim, 2001). “A change in basic values is extremely difficult, slow and rare. A person can be pressed to conform to requirements in social interactions, but cannot be forced to accept and appreciate the underlying values” (Kim, 2001, p.51).

When people have to interact in a new culture, the new culture exerts substantial influence on the psychological and social practice of newcomers, and foreigners adopt the cultural patterns of the new environment. The routine functions of the society demand that new comers conform ways of thinking and acting that are consistent or compatible with the existing cultural practices of the environment. The main language of the country is often imposed on the newcomers as well. With the differences between the demands of the new country and the foreigner’s internal ability to meet those demands, along with the pressures to conform, the foreigners are compelled to learn and make changes in their traditional habits (Kim, 2001, p.51). “People need ongoing affirmation of their ‘place’ in a given environment, and the inability to meet this basic human need can lead to symptoms of mental, emotional, and physical disturbance” (Kim, 2001, p.51). Long-term settlers have a greater need to conform than do temporary sojourners. No foreigner is completely immune to having to understand and manage the various communication patterns operating in the host culture (Kim, 2001).

As Kim (2001) describes, acculturative and deculturative changes in foreigners in the end direct them toward assimilation. Assimilation is the state of the highest degree

19 of acculturation into the new culture and the deculturation of the original cultural practice, which is possible theoretically. Assimilation is an ‘ideal’ state characterised by the maximum possible convergence of foreigners’ internal conditions to those of the natives. Assimilation can be found at the very end of the cross-cultural adaptation continuum, which prevents the authencity of many long-term settlers. Complete assimilation is rare since change in internalized core values and beliefs are slow and difficult. A significant level of assimilation can be observed over generations, most noticeably in interethnic marriages (p.52).

Understanding acculturation patterns in a multicultural society is important, as different communities may exhibit different interaction and communication styles to the dominant culture; this literature provides insights on why interaction styles are different when new or relatively recent to the dominant culture. The next section analyses different cultures, and how researchers have tried to distinct and grouped together the nations of the world.

Connection between culture and self

Anthropologists have also investigated the connection between culture and self, and how culture influences self. As Triandis (1989) explains, culture is society and memory is person. This specifies the design for living that has proven effective in the past. It explains ways of dealing with social situations, and ways to think about the self and social behaviour that has been reinforced in the past. Culture describes the systems of symbols that facilitate interaction, and rules of living, which has been in effect in the past. When a person is socialised in a given culture, this individual uses custom as a replacement for thought.

So how does culture affect self? As Triandis (1989) points out, culture is dynamic and ever changing. So is the self: the self is dynamic, and ever changing. It changes in different environments, for example, at school opposed to at home, or when group climates are different. As Triandis (1989) describes, all aspects of social motivation are linked to the self. The self consists of all statements made by a person that include I, me, mine, and myself. Attitudes, beliefs, intentions, norms, roles, and values are components of the self. Self has implications for the way people sample,

20 process, and assess information from the environment and thus leads to differences in social behaviour.

Variations in cultures

According to Triandis (1989), the cultural variations emerge because of different ecologies, such as ways of surviving. In cultures that survive through hunting for food gathering, people are more likely to survive if they work alone or in small groups, as activity is dispersed. Hence individualism emerges as a good design for living. In agricultural cultures, by contrast, cooperation in building irrigation systems, food storage and distribution facilities are reinforced. Therefore, collectivist design for living is another form that has emerged (Triandis, 1989).

Models of culture and communication

The following two sections analyse the models of culture and communication that are being widely used in understanding intercultural communication:

Hofstede’s dimensions of culture

In understanding differences in various nation’s beliefs, values and how they behave, Hofstede’s (1984) model of four culture dimensions is the most widely and currently used by intercultural researchers. Hofstede carried out the most comprehensive studies of the value orientations of cultures for work related situations at the IRIC (Institute for Research on Intercultural Cooperation) at the University of Limburg in the Netherlands in 1980s. Hofstede surveyed over 88,000 employees of IBM, a multinational firm operating in 66 countries to identify dominant values of different cultures (Hofstede, 1984; Irwin, 1996; Merkin, 2000). Hofestede formed four dimensions of culture that explain a nation’s differences in thinking and social actions which are individualism-collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity-femininity (Hofstede, 1984). Each of these dimensions is reviewed below.

21 Individualism-collectivism

The main important dimension that differentiates cultures is individualism- collectivism. Individualism-collectivism describes the relationship between the individual and the collectivity which exists in a certain society (Hofstede, 1984). People in individualist cultures look up to personal achievement, innovation, and independence, and individual achievement is highly valued. Being creative and progressive is appreciated in individualist cultures. People in collectivist cultures emphasize on group harmony, social order, people relationships, loyalty and group reputation. In a collectivist culture, being conservative and careful is necessary to keep harmony. Individual contributions are not valued if they are against group interests or goals (Chang, 2003). In individualist cultures, employees are expected to defend their own interests and policies and practices allow for individual initiative. In collectivist cultures, employees expect the organisation to defend their interests, and policies and practices are based on loyalty and sense of duty (Hofstede, 1984).

Nonetheless, as (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005) suggests, societies are composed of a large range of individuals, holding a variety of personal values. A person can score high on both individualist and collectivist values, or high on one and low on the other, or low on both values. “In societies where people on average hold more individualist values, they also on average hold less collectivist values”, and “in societies where people on average hold more collectivist values, they also on average hold less individualist values” (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005, p.82).

Power distance

The second important dimension that differentiates cultures is power distance. Power distance is defined as “the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally” (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005, p.46). This dimension emphasises hierarchy: seeing the people at the top of the hierarchy as very different from those at the bottom of the hierarchy (Triandis, 2004, p.35).

22 High power distance cultures are status conscious and respectful of age and seniority. In high-power distance cultures, apparent forms of status such as protocol, formality, and hierarchy are important. Decisions regarding rewards and remedy of grievances are usually based on personal judgements made by power holders. In low-power distance cultures, people strive for power equalization and justice. A low power distance culture values competence over seniority with a resulting consultative management style (Hendon, Hendon et al., 1998). In low power distance cultures, organisations have decentralised decision structures, and less application of authority. Subordinates expect to be consulted, and managers rely on subordinates and on personal experience. Grievance channels are institutionalised in the organisations (Hofstede, 2001).

Uncertainty avoidance

The next dimension that differentiates cultures is uncertainty avoidance. Uncertainty avoidance deals with the extent to which members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations and tries to avoid uncertainty (Gudykunst & Lee, 2003; Hofstede, 1984; Vinken, Soeters, & Ester, 2004). People of high uncertainty avoidance cultures have a lower tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity, and are less tolerant for people or groups with deviant ideas or behaviour (Gudykunst & Lee, 2003). In high uncertainty avoidance cultures, people have higher anxiety levels, and people of low uncertainty avoidance cultures have lower anxiety levels (Hofstede, 1984). People of low uncertainty avoidance cultures accept difference and taking risks more than members of high uncertainty avoidance cultures (Gudykunst & Lee, 2003). Conflict in organisations is natural in low uncertainty avoidance cultures, and conflict is undesirable in high uncertainty avoidance cultures (Hofstede, 1984).

Masculinity-femininity

The fourth dimension that differentiates cultures is masculinity-femininity. The concept of masculinity and femininity refer to the sex role pattern rather than the biological sex that of male assertiveness, and female nurturance (Hofstede, 1984). In masculine cultures, people value assertiveness, being aggressive, and competitive behaviours. In business dealings, they are more concerned about performance and

23 justice than trust and compassion (Chang, 2003). Feminine cultures, on the other hand, stress equality, unity, and quality of worklife. Managers are expected to use intuition, deal with feelings, and seek consensus (Hofstede, 2001, p.318).

The following table provides the meaning in Hofstede’s four-dimension framework as applied to cross-cultural negotiation:

Individualism / Collectivism Self-Determination (Personal Growth) / Collectivity (Group Harmony)

High Power Distance / Social Differential (Hierarchical Status) / Low Power Distance Social Integration (Equal Status)

High Uncertainty Avoidance / Low Formal Relationship (Structure, Rituals) / Uncertainty Avoidance Informal Relationship (Less Control)

Controlling Relationships (Competitive Masculinity / Femininity Behaviour) / Nurturing Relationships (Less Competitive)

Adapted from (Chang, 2003, p.569)

Long term-short term orientation

Hofestede later added another dimension. This fifth dimension is labelled Confucian dynamism or the Long-term orientation (LTO) versus short-term orientation. LTO stands for “fostering of virtues oriented toward future rewards, in particular perseverance and thrift” and short term orientation stands for, “fostering of virtues related to the past and present in particular respect for tradition, preservation of face, and fulfilling social obligations” (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005, p.210). Compared with the first four dimensions, since the inherent flaws in conceptualisation of the fifth dimension, its validity is questioned and relevance for cross cultural management research and practice has been found to be very limited (Fang, 2003). “Geert Hofstede holds that his work does not present a finished theory and

24 encourages us to continue our exploration to serve the understanding of cultural differences and the improvement of intercultural communication and cooperation, which the world will increasingly and forever needed” (Hofstede, 2001: 466, cited in Fang, 2003, p.364). This research thus seeks to add to this further understanding and explanation.

While many researchers commonly use Hofstede’s four dimensions to analyse cultures of the world, some researchers explain communication style differences of nations using Hall’s (1990) categorisation of context for communication.

Hall’s communication model

Anthropologist Edward Hall developed a theoretical model to explain different cultures based on time orientation, information processing, and the interaction patterns (Hall & Hall, 1990; Korac-Kakabadse, Kouzmin, Korac-Kakabadse, & Savery, 2001).

High and Low context countries:

High- Context Low- Context

China Australia Egypt Canada France Denmark Italy England Japan Finland Lebanon Germany Saudi Arabia Norway Spain Switzerland Syria United States

Source: (Francesco & Gold, 2005, p.34)

25 To understand communication style differences of different nations, numerous researchers (Gudykunst & Lee, 2003; Korac-Kakabadse, Kouzmin et al., 2001; Merkin, 2000; Rosenbloom & Larsen, 2003; Siira, Rogan et al., 2004; Ting-Toomey, 1988) use Hall’s two dimension communication model. Hall’s “low context” and “high context” dichotomy provides a simple two-category basis for grouping and understanding cultures and the hidden codes in communication (Rosenbloom & Larsen, 2003). “Context is the information that surrounds an event; it is inextricably bound up with the meaning of that event” (Hall & Hall, 1990, p.6). The context, which surrounds information, is important to meaning, so relevant information must exist in any interaction to specify meaning. Hall acknowledges that different cultures use a range of information processing systems to provide context (Korac-Kakabadse, Kouzmin et al., 2001). Elements that combine to produce a given meaning, ‘events’ and ‘context’ are in different proportions depending on the culture. Cultures of the world can be compared on a scale from high to low context, according to Hall & Hall (1990).

Edward Hall (1976, p.113) discusses context in communication, and distinguishes between high context and low context communication. Hall identifies “Low context” as where low levels of information are used to give context; hence, a large amount of explicit information must be given to specify meaning. “High context” is where a high amount of information is used to provide context; hence more time is required to programme and to abstract meaning from the given set of information. The concept of high and low context cultures describe the cultural rules around information exchange, and the degree to which information in a culture is explicit, and vested in words. In low context cultures, the information provided is precise and unambiguous, and in high context cultures the information provided is implicit, vested in shared experience and assumptions and is communicated through verbal and non-verbal codes (Korac-Kakabadse, Kouzmin et al., 2001). High context communication is where most of the information is in the physical context or internalised in the person, and very little is in the coded, explicit transmitted part of the message. In contrast, low context communication is where the mass of the information is vested in the explicit code (Gudykunst & Lee, 2003; Hall, 1976).

26 Communication style differences in collectivist and individualist cultures

Researchers have grouped communication style differences according to the main cultural groups. Individualist cultures are typically low context, and collectivist cultures are high context (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005; Merkin, 2000). The content of each culture’s expectancies vary along cultural dimensions. Collectivistic cultures expect greater verbal indirectness, politeness, and non immediacy than members of individualistic cultures (Gudykunst & Lee, 2003). In low context communication, the listener needs to be told everything, and in high context communication, the listener is “contextualised” and does not need to be given much information (Korac- Kakabadse, Kouzmin et al., 2001). Following Hofstede & Hall’s categorisations, various researchers have conducted research to determine the communication styles of different cultures. Less than one third of the world’s population resides in a culture which has a high individualistic value tendency, and a little more than two thirds of the population reside in a culture with high collectivistic value tendencies. Individualism is found in most northern and western regions of Europe and in North America. By contrast, collectivism is found in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Central and South America, and the Pacific Islands (Ting-Toomey, 2005).

In low context cultures, most of the information flowing between the sender and the receiver is contained in the message. Therefore, the message needs to be explicit and detailed because each party relies solely on the information contained in the message (Rosenbloom & Larsen, 2003). Thus, in high context cultures, less explicit and detailed information is carried in the message. The sender and receiver rely more on the context of the communication process to convey the message, and the human element and personal relationship have a larger role in communication (Rosenbloom & Larsen, 2003). In high context cultures, people do not need to be specific. They talk around the point, and expect others to pick up the point by placing all the indicators that is to be understood. Tone of voice is also important in high context cultures, and gestures are also significant in communication. High context communication requires more time because trust, friends, and family relationships, personal needs and situation is also considered (Korac-Kakabadse, Kouzmin et al., 2001). According to these authors, in low context cultures, external surrounding factors are screened out, and rarely take the time in business dealings to build

27 relationships and establish trust. Theodore and Andrew (2004) also report that communication in high-context cultures is generally more indirect and formal, and communication in low-context cultures is more direct and informal.

Independent – interdependent self schema

Independent – interdependent self schema explains the major attributes in communication and interaction that distinguish individualist and collectivist cultures. Brew and Cairns (2004) argue that when sending messages, people use various schemas, including the self-schema. “The interdependent self involves a cognitive style referred to as low differentiation (only slight distinctions between self and other), and the independent self involves high differentiation (strong distinctions between self and other)” (Brew & Cairns, 2004, p.33). These different self-concepts are also reflected in emotional responses. Those with an interdependent self tend to avoid negative emotions, and those with an independent self tend to express ego- focused emotions such as anger, or an overt act of self-promotion to assert autonomy or competence (Brew & Cairns, 2004). Brew and Cairns (2004) argue that, when communicating in a conflict situation, collectivists are likely to use high levels of indirect face negotiation tactics involving a non-confrontational style regardless of the type of face threat that is called attention to. Understanding these claims is central to the topic of research to this thesis. Compared to collectivists, individualists are more likely to use a direct face negotiation approach, involving assertive conflict management. Yet as Brew and Cairns assert the belief of relational interest is not absent in the West (Brew & Cairns, 2004).

Monochronic/polychronic time orientation

Cultures can also be categorized as either monochronic or polychronic through the way members of each culture perceive and organise time (Zandpour & Sadri, 1996). Monochronic time refers to paying attention to and doing only one thing at a time. Polychronic time refers to being involved with many things at the same time (Hall & Hall, 2002). Individualistic cultures such as those of Germany, the United States, and Northern Europe have a monochronic time orientation, while polychronic time orientation is common in collectivistic cultures (Francesco & Gold, 2005). Many

28 polychronic cultures are high context, including southern Europe, Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East (Neuliep, 2000). Also, South and Southeast Asia are considered polychronic (Polychronic, 2010). Accordingly, Australia has a monochronic time orientation whereas Sri Lanka has s a polychronic time orientation. These differences in organisation of time are important in understanding how the two cultures do their facework.

Communicating across cultures

Intercultural business communication model

Culture also impacts on the way people communicate and do business with each other (Varner & Palmer, 2005). Because the focus of this research is about a business context, it is useful to consider how intercultural communication differs from intercultural business communication? Varner (2000) argues that intercultural business communication occurs in a business context, and that communication must take into account the specific business context and requires knowledge about business. Intercultural business communication is a sum of culture, communication, and business as displayed by the diagram below. When two people from two different cultures interact in business, they bring their own backgrounds with them and create a new context in which they interact: that is, the intercultural business communication context (Varner, 2000).

(Source: Varner, 2000, p.42)

29 Implications for negotiating across borders

Brian (2007) similarly examines the importance of the influence of culture when negotiating in an international business context as Varner (2000) describes under the three strategies. All these factors, as Varner and Brian have illustrated, affect facework when communicating in an intercultural business context, and needs to take them into consideration. According to Brian (2007), negotiating across borders differs to negotiating locally, as a number of factors have to be considered: different languages, cultural sensitivities, legal systems, tax regimes, labour laws, and different business practices. Also the negotiating environment can be further complicated by government led bureaucracy, restrictive regulations, direct government interference, political and economic instability. A cultural review of the other cultures will improve the ability to understand the nuances in communication. Such a review should be considered from the viewpoint of one’s own culture and of the other culture in: cultural sensitivities (customs, history, etc.), communication style (direct or indirect), relationship building, decision making style, negotiating language, attitude to time (monochronic or polychronic), business etiquette and socialising, importance of face, non verbal signals, attitude to hierarchy, seniority, age and professional status (Brian, 2007).

Ethnocentrism

Various researchers also highlight the challenges of ethnocentrism in intercultural communication. As Taylor (2006) describes, ‘ethnocentrism’ is the belief that one’s own cultural background is superior to all others, and this creates a barrier to effective communication as the mind remains closed to new information. Ethnocentric people tend to form pre-conceived judgements of different cultures based on one experience, or on limited evidence. Possibly they tend to take stereotyping a little too far and don’t keep an open mind, so they cannot go beyond a certain stage. Despite the fact that a person from a different culture may have many unique personal qualities, the ethnocentric person cannot see beyond their fixed ideas, even when these ideas are wrong, and their mind remains closed (Taylor, 2006). Taylor (2006) advocates that, “if you are to communicate effectively across cultures, you must not judge other people by your own standards” (p.13), and it is

30 imperative to have an open mind, and to remember that your own culture is not superior to anyone else’s culture. Additionally, many countries have completely different customs when approaching business relationships or communication, and it is important to understand the culture before trying to engage in business with that nation according to Lawrence (2006).

How culture affects negotiation in coming to an agreement

Interests and Potential for Integrative Interests and Priorities Agreement Priorities

Culture A Type of Culture B Negotiator Agreement Negotiator

Strategies Pattern of Interaction Strategies

Source: (Brett, 2001, p.7)

The above table illustrates how culture affects negotiation. When two persons from different cultures negotiate, they bring their own interests, priorities and negotiation strategies. Cultural norms describe what behaviours are appropriate and inappropriate in negotiation, and influence the strategies that negotiators take. This shows that the culture affect the interests and priorities that underlie the negotiator’s position on issues. The fit between the negotiator’s priorities and interests generate the possible integrative agreement (Brett, 2001). It is vital to understand the negotiation process of the other party to achieve an agreement.

31 Negotiating across individualist and collectivist cultures

According to Wagner (1995), negotiation is the interaction of two or more parties to achieve mutual goals. Each party wants to have their goals in the best possible way. Neither party is able to reach its goals alone, since the goals are to some extent controlled by the other party. Thus both parties need to cooperate. In a negotiation, each party modifies its own goals and coordinates them with the modified goals of the other party. A negotiation is a well thought-out interaction. Both parties know that each party has goals to achieve. Therefore negotiations are exchange relations. Both parties exchange the possibility of understanding their own goals (Wagner, 1995).

Facework is greatly influenced by the types of negotiation style used by people of different cultures. Negotiating across borders is different to negotiating locally (Brian, 2007). Culture affects the sort of strategies that negotiators develop as well as the many ways they are consciously implemented (Hendon, Hendon et al., 1998). In individualistic cultures, people tend to put tasks before relationships and to value independence highly. In these cultures, people are expected to take care of themselves and to value the needs of the individual over those of the group, community, or society. Individualistic cultures prefer linear logic and tend to value open conflict. Members of individualistic societies expect the other side’s negotiators to have the ability to make decisions unilaterally. In collectivistic cultures, people stress harmony, loyalty, and strong interdependence among individuals. Relationships are based on mutual self-interest and are dependent on the success of the group. Collectivistic cultures identify themselves in terms of their membership within groups. Maintaining the integrity of groups is stressed so that cooperation, conflict avoidance, and compliance rule the culture. Collectivist societies stress abstract, general agreements over concrete specific issues (Hendon, Hendon et al., 1998).

As Villemoes (1995) states, information-focused approach to talk of the western- men has shaped their way of doing business. “Many Western businessmen think it’s best to ‘get down to brass tacks’ as soon as possible, and not ‘waste time’ in small talk (social talk) or ‘beating around the bush’. But this doesn’t work very

32 well in business dealings with Greek, Japanese, or Arab counterparts for whom “small talk” is necessary to establish the social relationship that must provide the foundation for conducting business” (p.292).

As Hendon, Hendon et al. (1998) point out, collectivist negotiators tend to assume that details can be worked out if the negotiators can agree on generalities. Collectivist societies show more concern for the needs of the other party and focus more on group goals than in individualistic societies. Members of collectivist societies bother when members from individualistic societies promote their own positions and ideas during negotiations. When people from the same country are negotiating, it is possible to speed up communication by making cultural assumptions. The situation is not the same when two different cultures are involved. Making assumptions about another culture without real knowledge can lead to misunderstandings and are counterproductive (Hendon, Hendon et al., 1998).

Communication and conflict

Siira, Rogan et al. (2004) explain conflict as a communicative process between parties who has incompatible goals, limited resources, and interference from each other in achieving individual goals. Communication is the medium that directs the conflict process and connects the conflict parties to each other, and each party brings their own characteristic ways of expressing individual concerns and for managing the interaction (Siira, Rogan et al., 2004). Culture shapes people’s perceptions, attitudes and beliefs of conflict and its management (Brew & Cairns, 2004). Members of individualistic cultures tend to prefer direct conflict communication and solution strategies. These styles emphasise the value of independence, competitiveness, and the need for control. Members of collectivistic cultures tend to prefer obliging and conflict-avoidance styles. These styles emphasise the value for interdependent compliance and for maintaining relational harmony in conflict (Siira, Rogan et al., 2004).

Conflict behaviour is learned within the socialization process of one’s own culture or ethnic group. Individuals learn the norms and characteristics for appropriate and effective conflict conduct in their immediate cultural environment. Still people do also carryout behaviours that vary from the main cultural framework of a society.

33 Basically, facework behaviours are mediated through individual level factors. Cultural values have both a direct and an indirect effect on facework behaviour. (Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2002).

Discovering issues in intercultural conflict

As Ting-Toomey (2005) explains, any kind of conflict is an emotionally laden, face- threatening experience. The apparent or actual conflict differences associated with individuals emotional frustrations often spin around three goal issues: content, relational, and identity. Content conflict goal refer to the substantive issues external to the individual involved. For example, international business partners arguing about whether they should hold a business meeting in Mexico or Los Angeles. Relational conflict goal refers to how an individual would define, or would like to define a particular relationship in a particular conflict experience. For example, a business partner from the United States might opt to scribble a note and fax it to another international business partner from Japan. The US American would perceive this informal note as signalling affiliation. The Japanese partner might view this as a discourteous gesture, and experience face threat and relationship threat. Identity based conflict goals revolve around issues of identity confirmation – rejection, respect-disrespect, and approval-disapproval of the individuals in the conflict situation (Ting-Toomey, 2005). One of the questions to be explored in this thesis is how Sri Lankans working in Australia would illustrate on these goal issues.

Identity issues in intercultural conflict

According to Ting-Toomey (2005), identity conflict goals are broadly linked to the culture and the individuals underlying beliefs and value patterns. The identity conflict goals are often at the heart of many unresolved intercultural conflicts. To reject someone’s proposal or idea in a conflict can mean rejecting that person’s deeply held beliefs and convictions. Identity conflict goals are linked directly to face-saving and face-honouring issues. When a person’s face is threatened in a conflict, that person is likely to feel stressed, humiliated, shamed, aggravated, or embarrassed. Identity goals are tied closely to culture based face-orientation factors. At the heart of many of the conflict problems often rest unresolved identity conflict

34 needs (Ting-Toomey, 2005). According to Ting-Toomey (2005), “the concept of face is about identity respect and other identity consideration issues within and beyond the actual encounter episode” (p.73). As Ting-Toomey (2005) suggests, “Intercultural facework competence refers to the optimal integration of knowledge, mindfulness, and communication skills in managing vulnerable identity-based conflict situations appropriately, effectively, and adaptively” (p.37).

Identity of individualist and collectivist cultures

The literature so far has suggested that, individualism and collectivism is connected with the concept of identity. How do we see our sense of self? Individualistic cultures emphasize the "I" identity and collectivistic cultures emphasize the "We" identity, which is a fundamental difference between western and eastern cultures (Ting -Toomey, 1992). After researching cross-cultural anthropologists and psychologists around the world, Hui and Triandis (1986) cited in (Ting-Toomey, 1988, p.224) conclude that the individualism-collectivism dimension is a powerful theoretical construct that can explain the degree of international differences and similarities between cultures. Also, empirical evidence of many cross-cultural studies shows that the theoretical dimension of individualism-collectivism is the primary dimension that differentiates groups of cultures from an international angle. In addition to the individualism collectivism dimension, Hall’s low-context culture and high-context culture dimension serves as a good theoretical foundation to explain communication style differences across different cultures. While the individualism- collectivism dimension refers to the underlying values of different cultures, the high context – low context dimension refers to communication style differences across cultures (Ting-Toomey, 1988).

Managing conflict in high context/low context cultures

Hall’s high context and low context communication framework is a useful classification for explaining cultural differences in conflict management (Siira, Rogan et al., 2004). While individualistic, low context cultures value direct personal interaction to resolve disputes, collectivist, high context cultures prefer more indirect and accommodating approaches. It is also common to have a third party

35 involvement for resolving conflict in collectivistic cultures. In high-context cultures, nonverbal communication and subtleness are appreciated, differing to the frankness and directness of low context cultures (Siira, Rogan et al., 2004).

In high context cultures, politeness, harmony, and indirect verbal expression are important to communication. People of high context cultures use hedges and qualifiers to minimise the directness of the verbal communication. By contrast, in low context cultures people emphasise explicit verbal sharing of information. People of these cultures are encouraged to say what they mean and avoid unclear expressions, ambiguity, wordiness and disorganisation (Siira, Rogan et al., 2004). In contrast, in low context cultures, the meaning of a communication message is stated clearly and explicitly, without depending on the context of the communication. The concern for clarity in low-context culture is highly valued. The concern for hurting someone else’s feelings or a concern for seeming negative by another person is not highly valued. In low context cultures, the messages contain more details than in high-context cultures and conversation goes to the point. Fear of hurting other people’s feelings does not limit the point as in high context cultures (Siira, Rogan et al., 2004).

As Oetzel, Ting-Toomey et al. (2001) point out, during conflict, facework focuses on relational, identity, and substantive issues. In many cultures, for example, China and Japan, face is a primary concern in social interaction and supersedes primary goals. Also, the nature of conflict intertwines substantive, relational, and identity issues, so that people simultaneously manage multiple goals (Oetzel, Ting-Toomey et al., 2001).

Communication style differences among Asians

A vast majority of cross-cultural communication research involves comparisons of Asian and Western cultures (Gudykunst, 2002). Though comparisons between Americans and Asians in cross-cultural differences extend the understanding of how culture or country influence conflict management styles, these studies pay little attention to cultural differences and the effect of these on conflict management styles among East Asian countries. These studies give the impression that East Asians

36 behave similarly, but there are grounds to believe that Asians are significantly different from one another in their attitudinal and behavioural patterns (Kim, Wang, Kondo, & Kim, 2007). For example, in resolving an interpersonal conflict with their supervisors, Koreans are more likely to use a compromise style compared with Chinese and Japanese. The Japanese are less likely to dominate and are more likely to oblige their supervisors compared with Chinese and Koreans (Kim, Wang et al., 2007). If international managers treat individuals from different East Asian countries in the same way, they are reducing the possibility of effectively communicating or doing business with them. Thus, it seems that non-Asians across the world cannot consider ‘all East Asians being alike’ in dealing with conflict. Comparisons of different Asian groups in conflict management broaden the understanding of the systematic variation between cultural values and conflict management styles. Yet, there have been relatively few studies that have focused on how East Asians differ in solving interpersonal conflict (Kim, Wang et al., 2007). This study about Sri Lankans in Australia and about their conflict management style will provide a significant contribution to the available literature on conflict management styles of the Asians, as there is no present literature available about the Sri Lankans and their conflict management style.

Conflict behaviour in gender differences

“What women and men are, what they can/should do and look alike, what is/is not feminine and masculine are beliefs crafted by social structures and practices that reflect and serve the interests of a particular society at a given time” (Wood & Dindia, 1998, p.31). There is general agreement amongst researchers that the overall differences between men and women in communication are small, and where differences between women and men exist, they are differences of degree not kind (Wood & Dindia, 1998). Research on gender differences does indicate, however, the tendency for women to score higher on compromising/solution orientation than men. According to Siira, Rogan et al. (2004), women tend to be more solution oriented in their conflict behaviour than men, but there is no difference in their use of avoidance / non confrontational approach. Prior research also suggests some gender based differences in face maintenance. Specifically, males have been reported to be more

37 instrumental, less emotional, and to have less consideration for other’s feelings than females (Siira, Rogan et al., 2004).

Understanding communication and conflict style differences between individualist and collectivist cultures provides basic knowledge to this investigation on comparing the communication style differences between the Sri Lankans and Australians. Also the differences between Asians and in male and female styles in dealing with conflict and communication further enhances this knowledge about collectivist and individualist culture comparison in their face and facework behaviours.

Understanding communication differences across cultures

Researchers have identified characteristics that explain why cultures have distinct behaviour patterns. These characteristics are discussed under the proceeding headings.

How ‘Taking Conflict Personally’ (TCP) differs among individuals

Avtgis & Rancer (2004) investigate how individuals differ in their behaviour in a conflict situation. The characteristic of TCP refers to “a general level of readiness to take conflict personally” (Avtgis & Rancer, 2004, p.111). Taking conflict personally is defined by Hample and Dallinger (1995, p.297) cited in Avtgis & Rancer (2004, p.110) as, “a negative emotional reaction to participating in a conflict”. “That is, individuals who take conflict personally feel that conflicts are antagonist, punishing reactions, in which the main goal of the communication is to hurt the other on purpose” (Avtgis & Rancer, 2004, p.110). As Avtgis & Rancer (2004) explain, TCP can be exhibited as either aggression or avoidance, and these feelings have an interactive effect on others with whom individuals communicate, bringing about similar reactions in others. TCP is a stable personality trait. Some people are more predisposed toward personalisation than others. That is, how an individual interprets a conflict can range from enjoyable to punishing. Therefore, individuals differ in their predisposition to be tolerant, trusting, self-interested, self confident, generous in their attributions, and more or less hurt in a conflict situation (Avtgis & Rancer, 2004).

38 According to Avtgis & Rancer (2004), individuals with high scores on the direct personalization, persecution feelings, and stress reaction indicate that they used more avoidance conflict styles, and verbal aggression is highest in those having the least stress. Also, personality trait is a joint function of individual predispositions and environmental factors in a given situation. The TCP is a function of both the person and the situation, which has both trait and state components. The TCP construct contains a trait dimension that is influenced by the conflict situation (state). As Avtgis & Rancer (2004, p.110), suggest, “The degree to which negative effect is experienced during conflict is a factor of the person (the trait component) and the triggering agent (situational factors in the conflict situation)”.

Avtgis & Rancer (2004) have investigated differences in personalization of conflict in three low context cultures; Australia, New Zealand and the United States. This study examines emotional reactions and predispositions toward conflict situations. The results show that Americans reported less feelings of persecution, less like/dislike valence, less direct personalisation and greater stress reaction than New Zealanders and Australians. Americans have greater ability to separate, or not take conflict behaviour as a personal attack, according to the study. There were no significant differences between Australians and New Zealanders on any of the dimensions of taking conflict personally. When communicating between individuals of different cultures, understanding each cultures level of ‘taking conflict personally’ is an important consideration; to be sensitive and to be able to respond accordingly to the expectations of the other party. This aspect of TCP is analysed between the Sri Lankans and the Australians in the interview investigation.

Aggressive communication predisposition

Aggressive communication predispositions have been studied in both high context and low context cultures (Avtgis & Rancer, 2004). As Avtgis & Rancer (2004) point out, individuals in low context cultures have been found to be higher in argumentativeness than individuals in high context cultures. For example, in studies of comparisons between Americans and the Japanese, and also between Americans and the Koreans, Americans have a greater motivational tendency to argue. On the other hand among low context cultures, Australians are found to be significantly

39 higher in both argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness than the New Zealanders or the Americans. The studies indicate that Americans reported significantly lower levels of verbal aggressiveness than Australians or the New Zealanders (Avtgis & Rancer, 2004). Again, the level of verbal aggressiveness is of interest in the study, when comparing Australians with Sri Lankans working in Australia.

Under the proceeding heading, the author analyses the communication style differences of individuals of varying cultures, as researchers have tried to group them together under different identities that describes these differences in communication. Analysing these identities is important in understanding the communication differences between the Sri Lankans and the Australians.

Culture-based, ‘Conversational Constraints Theory’

There are a number of constraints that make intercultural communication challenging. Kim (2005) has called these “conversational constraints”. Conversational constraints explain why what is appropriate in one culture is not appropriate in another culture. As Irwin (1996) point out, it is easy, but incorrect to think that people from different cultures think in the same or similar ways. In actual fact, difficulty in intercultural communication frequently results from this involvement in using different structures for reasoning. When other people from different cultures are using different structures of reasoning, but when one is unaware of this in communication, one may blame others thinking them as illogical, or insincere (Irwin, 1996).

Social appropriateness as a communication constraint

“The notion of ‘social appropriateness’ as a communication constraint presupposes some accepted standards of what constitutes appropriate communication behaviour” in a culturally homogeneous community (Kim, 1994, p.130). As people do not have same social conventions, their notions of appropriateness may be different. A particular strategy used by a person from one culture may be considered inappropriate by a person from another culture. In addition, in an interaction, appropriateness can be judged on the basis of relational sensitivity as well as task

40 orientation of an interaction, leaning to one or the other depending on cultural preference (Kim, 1994). Thus, the appropriateness is meaningless in an intercultural context. “An adequate intercultural model of conversational constraints should recognise the cultural basis of communication and the lack of shared social knowledge” (Kim, 1994, p.130). This aspect is important in investigating about Australia, as others who come to Australia need to understand these communication constraints when adapting to the Australian culture. These communication constraints are discussed below:

Conversational constraints

Conversational constraints are, “how what is said, is to be said”, not “what is said” (Kim, 2005, p.93). Kim (1994) investigates how cultural groups differ in their perceptions about preferred communication behaviour. His study focuses on “conversational constraints” in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. In this study, he investigates five conversational constraints: concern for clarity, concern for avoiding hurting the hearer’s feelings, concern for minimising imposition, concern for avoiding negative evaluation by the hearer, and effectiveness. The study, conducted with 892 participants from Korea, Hawaii and the United States where participants rated the perceived importance of each conversational constraint, indicated that the perceived importance of clarity was higher in the more individualistic cultures. The perceived importance of avoiding hurting the hearer’s feelings and minimizing imposition were higher in more collectivistic cultures. The perceived importance of effectiveness and of negative evaluation by the hearer did not significantly differ across the cultural groups.

Interactive constraints

Kim (2005) also investigates how language functions globally; “Why do people from different cultures say what they say”, “Why do members of different cultural groups choose one strategy over another?” (Kim, 2005, p.93). Norms are the basis of cultural analyses. The influence of norms, customs, and rules can only be applied to a given situation, and thus has a limited explanatory power. Interactive constraints refer to “the manner in which a message is constructed”. The interactive constraints

41 are conceived as general rules of interaction. Interactive constrains affect the individual’s conversational style, and in general, every conversation one engages in. These interactive constrains explain the structural differences that underlie cultural contrasts in expressive patterns (Kim, 2005, p.93).

As (Kim, 2005) describes, in everyday social interactions, people have various social goals such as, gaining compliance, seeking affinity, seeking favour, seeking information, revealing information, and so on. Goals are the end states that people desire to attain or maintain. To achieve these goals, people must have strategic capability – that is the procedural knowledge necessary to reach those goals. When speakers of different cultural backgrounds interact, the problems that develop in communication can be accounted for by the salience of each other’s global goals or constraints in conversation. The global goals or constraints in conversation can cause problems in communication when speakers of different cultural backgrounds interact. The concept of the different restraining forces of various conversational constraints can provide a useful framework for explaining intercultural communication and misunderstandings, given that global constraints contribute to consistent performances across different contexts. It is important to understand each other’s conversational styles and the motives behind them to overcome intercultural misunderstanding. According to conversational constraints theory, interaction style is individually goal driven, yet socially structured. Distinctive communication behaviours are reflections of an individual’s preference for certain conversational constraints (Kim, 2005).

Importance in ‘Distinctiveness’ in interaction

One important focus of research has been about the role of “distinctiveness” in interaction situations. Brewer and Pickett (1999) cited in (Gudykunst & Lee, 2003, p.11) argue that all individuals have a need for both inclusion in social groups and, distinctiveness from others as well. According to Brewer and Pickett (1999, p.85) cited in Gudykunst & Lee (2003, p.11), “inclusion and differentiation are ‘universal human motives’ not cultural values”. Vignoles, Chryssochoou, and Breakwell, (2000) cited in (Gudykunst & Lee, 2003, p.11) similarly state that, “distinctiveness

42 and similarity play important roles in the construction of identities across cultures”, and conclude that,

“the distinctiveness principle has a fundamental role in establishing meaning in identity, which does not appear to be specific to individualistic cultures … Distinctiveness can be achieved in terms of position, difference, or separateness. These constructs coexist within cultures and individuals, but they will be emphasised differently according to culture and context, and they have different implications for identity process and behaviour” (p.350).

These conclusions need to be tested in a variety of contexts and cultures according to Gudykunst & Lee (2003).

Horizontal versus vertical cultures

To further understand this interaction issue, Triandis (1995), cited in (Gudykunst & Lee, 2003, p.11) explains that, within individualistic cultures and collectivistic cultures, individuals’ relations can differ according to whether the culture is horizontal or vertical. In horizontal cultures, individuals are not expected to standout from other members of their group. In vertical cultures, individuals are expected to stand out from other members of their group. In vertical cultures, individuals tend to see themselves as different from others, and equality is not highly valued. In horizontal cultures, individuals tend to see themselves as the same as others and stress valuing equality.

Horizontal – collectivist cultures place high value on equality, little value is placed on freedom, and members are not expected to stand out from other in-group members. In vertical – collectivist cultures, individuals are expected to fit into their in-groups, but allow or expect to stand out from their in-groups, and do not value equality or freedom. In horizontal-individualistic cultures, individuals are expected to act as individuals, but at the same time, not stand out from others, and place high value on equality and freedom. In vertical – individualistic cultures, individuals are expected to act as individuals, and also try to stand out from others, and place low value on equality and high value on freedom (Gudykunst & Lee, 2003).

43 Considering these issues helps in understanding intercultural communication differences, and in this study, the differences and similarities between the Australians and the Sri Lankans working in Australia. The next section explores the literature focussed on the role face in intercultural interactions.

Part B

The metaphor of face

Face and facework

Central to this study is the concept of face and facework. Face is the public image that a person wants to present in a social setting (Kiyoko, 2004). “Facework is the never ending process of presenting self to others and acting toward others in the ongoing narrative of life”. The metaphor of face: the “human face” is so significant in personal expression that it has become a symbol of close personal interaction. People use expressions such as “face to face”, “face saving”, “in your face”. How we do this is very much part and parcel of the moral order. This is why different cultures have different facework. Parents teach their children how to do good facework from the time they can put a sentence together: “be polite, answer people when they talk to you, be respectful, present yourself well, be kind, - as fundamental as it is, facework remains one of the most challenging aspects of communication well into adulthood, especially in complex, systematic situations” (Domenici & Littlejohn, 2006, p.11).

Face represents an individual’s claimed sense of positive image in the context of social interaction, and facework refers to the communicative strategies one uses to enact self-face and to uphold, support, or challenge another person’s face. Face can be lost, saved, and protected. When people fail to present an image of self competently, they take counteractions (facework) to the face threat (Oetzel, Ting- Toomey et al., 2001). “Facework consists of actions taken to support desires to maintain or gain face” (Merkin, 2006a, p.141).

44 According to Goffman (1972), “every person lives in a world of social encounters, involving him either in face-to-face or mediated contact with other participants. In each of these contacts, he tends to act out what is sometimes called a line – that is, a pattern of verbal and non verbal acts by which he expresses his view of the situation and through this his evaluation of the participants, especially himself” (p.5). Goffman was one of the early Western writers who examined face, and his definition of face was influenced by the Chinese concept of face (Oetzel, Ting-Toomey et al., 2001). Erving Goffman (1972, p.5) defines face as “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact” (p.5). “Face work refers to those communications designed to create, support, or challenge a particular line” (Holtgraves, 1992, p.141). Face is the public appearance of one’s self that results from undertaking of facework (Holtgraves, 1992).

Intercultural communication in general involves face-to-face communication between people of different national cultures (Gudykunst & Lee, 2002). When a nation or a representative of a nation threatens the face of another nation or a representative, this starts the strengthening process of face-saving and face-giving behaviour. If the negotiators are busy defending their own rights and their own or national pride, then self-concern face-saving and face-restoration orientation will be the main style of diplomatic exchange (Korzenny & Ting-Toomey, 1990).

The origin of the notion of face

The concept of face has a Chinese origin, which has two features, “lien” and “mien- tzu” (Kiyoko, 2004; Oetzel, Ting-Toomey et al., 2001). Lien (or lian) refers to the moral character of an individual, and mientzu (or mianzi) refers to the social status/reputation achieved through success in life (Kiyoko, 2004; Oetzel, Ting- Toomey et al., 2001). Mien-tzu derives from social interaction, and it plays an important role in explaining Chinese communication styles and the rules for establishing interpersonal relationships. In Chinese culture, saving mient-zu is important for satisfying oneself, and for respecting others’ mient-zu in return. Saving mient-zu is essential for smooth interpersonal relationships. Mient-zu is also

45 important for the members of the group and family that one belongs to (Kiyoko, 2004).

The later Western notion of face derives from the work of Goffman (1915), and from the English folk term which ties face up with notions of being embarrassed or humiliated, or ‘losing face’(Brown & Levinson, 1987). Goffman’s work on the presentation of self is an important contribution to this thinking. Face is emotionally invested, and can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and have to be constantly attended to in interaction. Generally, people cooperate in maintaining face in interaction; such cooperation is based on mutual revealing of face. That is everyone’s face depends on everyone else’s being maintained (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Positive face is “the claim over self-image to be appreciated and approved by others” and negative face is “the claim over self-image for autonomy or to not be imposed on by others” (Kiyoko, 2004; Oetzel, Ting-Toomey et al., 2001, p.237).

Politeness and face

Strongly linked to the idea of face is the notion of politeness. In explaining politeness theory, Brown & Levinson (1987) claim that people need autonomy and acceptance and that politeness enables others to have these. Brown and Levinson suggest that if we destroy another person’s sense of autonomy or acceptance, we are engaging in a ‘face threatening act’ (FTA). Politeness is being careful about how we conduct ourselves so as to minimise the impact of the FTA (Domenici & Littlejohn, 2006). “The surest way for a person to prevent threats to his face is to avoid contacts in which these threats are likely to occur” (Goffman, 1972, p.15).

Human social interaction is a complex ritual run by a shared system of politeness which entirely recognizes the social identities or “faces” of participants. The faces of all participants are threatened when one party fails to observe conventions. Brown & Levinson suggest that interactions get disrupted, tensions arise, and participants experience lowered esteem if this happens. To restore stability, face damage must be repaired through corrective facework. Relationships may be damaged or end if sufficient facework is not done (Hodgins, Liebeskind, & Schwartz, 1996).

46 Brown and Levinson (1987) also identify different speech acts that cause threat to a face. These include apologies, confessions, promises, criticisms, recommendations, and requests. Brown and Levinson describe five levels of facework strategies that threaten either the negative or the positive face of parties in a politeness situation (e.g., in making a request from someone). These five strategies range from high to low in politeness. (a) do not perform the act (b) go off the record (c) negative politeness (d) positive politeness (e) bald on record. In addition, Brown and Levinson argue that three situational variables influence the degree of face threat in an act and the use of subsequent politeness strategies. These three variables are relational distance between the interactants, the relative power of interactants, and the degree of aggravation of the speech act. The politeness approach emphasises explaining threat to the other-face, and does not specifically examine conflict situations or the self-face. Also, most studies from the politeness perspective do not examine cross-cultural aspects of face-work (Oetzel, Ting-Toomey et al., 2001).

Importance of face

“Interpersonal rituals are not some poor residue of the ‘staged’ rituals of some prior age, they are rather the primordial origin, and the omnipresent model for rituals of all kinds” (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p.44).

Brown and Levinson (1987) argue that notions of face is connected to the fundamental cultural ideas about the social qualities, honour and virtue, shame and liberation and thus to religious concepts. Face is connected to our innermost identity and maintaining face in interpersonal relationships is of utmost importance (Merkin, 2006a). “Feelings are attached to one’s self, and one’s self is expressed through face” (Merkin, 2006a, p.141). “The human personality is a sacred thing; one dare not violate it nor infringe its bounds, while at the same time the greatest good is in communion with others” (Goffman 1915:73 cited in Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 44).

As Peristiany (1966, p.9) suggests, “all societies have rules of conduct, indeed the terms society and social regulations are coterminous. All societies sanction their rules of conduct … Honour and shame are social evaluations and thus participate of

47 the nature of social sanctions. Honour and shame are two poles of an evaluation. They are the reflection of the social personality in the mirror of social ideals” cited in, (Korzenny & Ting-Toomey, 1990, p.82).

Significance of face in negotiation

As Villemoes (1995) emphasises, when people negotiate, what they really negotiate is face. As he suggests, “face is an identity that is conjointly defined by the participants in a setting. The need to negotiate face increases in conflictive interaction situations”. This is why negotiation situations highlight facework (Villemoes, 1995, p.302).

The concept of face, as explained by Goffman (1967) and later developed by Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) offers a theoretical framework that explains the differences in interaction between people from different cultures: “The factor that controls all interaction is face in two different aspects. They are the ‘positive face’: be thought of as a normal contributing member of the group (feel involvement on equal terms with others), and ‘negative face’: the need not to be intruded on ones privacy (be able to defend for one’s self and feel independence)” (Villemoes, 1995, p.302).

Face concerns in Asia-Australia communication

Consideration of interaction consciousness in Asia-Australia communication contexts must pay attention to differences in ways of understanding ‘face’, and differences in ways of coping with loss of face and with gaining face. Face refers to social and professional position, reputation and self-image. In many Asian cultures face is of critical importance, and loss of face can have such disastrous personal consequences it is to be avoided at all costs. Threats and possible damage to face are to be actively avoided or eliminated (Irwin, 1996). The concern of face is crucial since if a person’s face is lost, communication can break down stopping all future contact (Merkin, 2000). This study investigates the facework of Australians, and the Sri Lankans as the Sri Lankans try to negotiate with the Australians.

48 Face concerns of individualist/collectivist cultures

People from individualist and low context cultures are mainly concerned with self- face maintenance and to claim and defend ‘I’ identity. Members of collectivist and high context cultures are concerned with both self-face and other face maintenance for the purpose of maintaining relational harmony and to disperse shame and embarrassment (Siira, Rogan et al., 2004). Facework in collectivist cultures focus on “how to lend role-support to another’s face and at the same time not bring shame to one’s own self-face” (Siira, Rogan et al., 2004, p. 93).

Conflict style and cross cultural face concerns

Conflict is an emotionally stressed experience in conjunction with perceived incompatibility of values, expectations, face concerns, conflict styles, goals, scarce resources, and/or outcomes between two or more interdependent parties (Ting- Toomey & Oetzel, 2002). Intercultural conflict involves emotional frustrations or mismatched expectations that stem in part from cultural differences. To understand the intercultural conflict negotiation process, one has to first understand the diverse approaches that people bring with them from different cultures in expressing their different values, and norms, their face-saving orientations, goal emphasis, and conflict styles in handling a conflict episode. The first step in developing an inclusive multicultural community is to understand cross-cultural differences in face concerns and conflict behaviour (Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2002). This thesis will extend understanding of how this occurs for Sri Lankans working in Australia.

Understanding culture, face, and conflict

Culture includes language, religious and aesthetic patterns, social structures, economic, political, and educational systems, technology, and so on (Triandis, 1989). Culture affects a person’s face concern and consequent facework behaviours (Siira, Rogan et al., 2004). “A closely related concept to facework is conflict style” (Oetzel, Garcia, & Ting-Toomey, 2008). Face and conflict style are framed by culture, and “face work” and “conflict style” are two culturally grounded concepts. The negotiators predispositions toward the concept of face, their face-need and face-

49 concern style in managing conflict are mostly influenced by their culture and the values and norms. The cultural values and norms influence and shape how members in a culture manage facework and how they handle a conflict situation (Ting- Toomey, 1988).

Face consists of two specific kinds of desires, attributed in interacting with others: the desire to be unimpeded in one’s actions that is “negative face”, and the desire to be approved of which is “positive face”. This is the frame of the notion of face which is universal, yet we would expect much cultural elaborations within societies (Brown & Levinson, 1987). The core concept of face is subject to many types of cultural specifications (Ting-Toomey, 2005). For example the kinds of acts that threaten face, who has special rights to face-protection, what kinds of personal styles are especially appreciated (politeness)? Also, people have different face wants or face needs in a diverse range of communicative situations. Ting-Toomey (2005) also suggests that the face content premise includes autonomy face, inclusion face, status face, reliability face, competence face, and moral face.

Thus, cross cultural variation in politeness behaviours, that is different culture specific norms for treatment of face, is an important aspect in intercultural interactions (Morand, 2003). While the content of face differs in different cultures, that is, the exact limits to personal territories, and what the publicly relevant content of personality consists of, the mutual knowledge of members’ public self image or face, and the social necessity to orient oneself to it in interaction are universal, according to Brown and Levinson (1987). Maintenance of face is a condition of interaction (Goffman, 1972). Concern for face is deemed as a worldwide aspect of human interaction that is central to conflict management. As conflict is merely threatening to the basic face needs of conflict parties, people can be expected to defend their faces if threatened. According to Brown and Levinson (1987), in defending their own to threaten other’s face, it is generally in every participant’s best interest to maintain each other’s face, and act in ways that assure the other’s face. Thus, to act in ways that assure the other participants, in paying attention to assumptions relating to face: ‘positive face’ and ‘negative face’ (Brown & Levinson, 1987).

50 Face negotiation theory

Following on the work of Goffman (1955) and Brown and Levinson (1987) on the importance of face, and politeness, face negotiation theory was developed to further explain the differences in face of individualist and collectivist cultures. “A theory is a coherent set of explanations concerning the interconnected relationships between or among concepts” (Ting-Toomey, 2005). Face negotiation theory was developed in 1988 by Ting–Toomey and her colleagues with the influence of the work by Goffman and Brown and Levinson. This theory provides a sound explanatory construct to explain differences and similarities in face and facework during conflict (Brew & Cairns, 2004; Oetzel, Ting-Toomey et al., 2001). The face-negotiation theory explains conflict style differences and similarities across individualistic and collectivistic cultures (Korzenny & Ting-Toomey, 1990; Oetzel, Garcia et al., 2008). The face negotiation theory states that:

a) People in all cultures try to maintain and negotiate face in all communication situations; b) The concept of face is problematic in uncertain situations such as in embarrassment and conflict situations when the situated identities of the communicators are called into question; c) Cultural variability, individual level variables, and situational variables influence cultural members’ selection of face concerns over others, such as self oriented face saving vs. other oriented face saving; d) Cultural variability, individual level variables, and situational variables influence the use of various facework and conflict strategies in intergroup and interpersonal encounters (Oetzel, Ting-Toomey et al., 2001; Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003).

As Oetzel & Ting-Toomey (2003) explain, conflict style is an overall picture of a person’s communication approach to conflict. Individuals have a main conflict style, and it is possible to alter conflict style in regards to a specific situation. Thus, conflict style is a combination of traits (e.g. cultural background and personality) and states (e.g. situation).

51 According to Oetzel, Ting-Toomey et al. (2001), “face negotiation theory emphasises three face concerns. Self face is the concern for one’s own image, other face is the concern for another’s image, and mutual face is concern for both parties’ images and/or the ‘image’ of the relationship” (p.238). “Self” is different from “other” in individualist cultures, but in collectivist cultures, “self” is interdependent with other. Dissimilarities in locus of “self’ between cultures lead to differences in face- negotiation strategies in conflict management. Interdependent self involves a cognitive style referred to as low differentiation, meaning only slight distinctions between self and other. Independent self involves high differentiation, meaning strong distinctions between self and other. These differing self-concepts are reflected in emotional responses. Those with an interdependent self tend to avoid negative emotions, and those with an independent self are likely to express ego- focused emotions such as anger or overt act of self-promotion to assert autonomy or competence (Brew & Cairns, 2004).

Face saving strategies

As explained by Ting-Toomey (2005), international face saving strategies can span the range of dominating, avoiding, and integrating behaviours:

• Dominating facework strategies focus on presenting a forceful image and want to win the conflict through competitive one-up/one-down strategies to the using of defensive and aggressive interaction strategies. Dominating face-work strategies include defending and aggressive behaviours. • Avoiding facework emphasises the preservation of relational harmony by not directly dealing with the conflict upfront. Avoiding facework strategies include obliging the other person’s needs, pretending to gloss over the conflict, passive- aggressive types of avoidance moves, and seeking third-party help. • Integrating facework emphasises both the content resolution of the conflict and the importance of relationship preservation. Integrative mutual –face protective strategies include mindful listening, intentional reframing, joint conversation, and mutual interest problem solving (p.78).

Ting-Toomey’s (1992) research has focused on communication between Eastern and Western cultures, particularly between Asia Pacific and US Canadian cultures in

52 terms of Individualism and Collectivism, and uses the low versus high context framework in face-negotiation research. The data has been collected from US, Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan, Australia, Thailand, and India. The research consists of open-ended questionnaires and interview data of nearly 1500 students and colleagues.

Face-negotiation model

Source: (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003, p.606)

The face-negotiation theory provides an explanatory framework for explaining differences and similarities in face and face-work during conflict (Oetzel & Ting- Toomey, 2003).

The Face-Negotiation Model (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003) identifies that:

• Individualism-collectivism is one of the key cultural variables integrated into the face-negotiation theory. The relationship between cultural-level variables

53 and conflict styles is mediated by individual-level factors.

• Self-construal is one’s self-image and is composed of independent and interdependent self. In the independent self, the individual is a unique entity with an individuated collection of feelings, cognitions, and motivations. The interdependent self stress on the importance of relational connectedness.

• Three face concerns are emphasized in face negotiation theory. Self –face as concern for one’s own image, other –face as concern for another’s image, and mutual-face as concern for both parties’ images and/or the image of the relationship.

• Members of individualistic cultures have a greater concern for self-face and lesser concern for other-face than members of collectivistic cultures. Also, members of individualistic cultures tend to use more dominating conflict strategies than members of collectivistic cultures.

Facework strategies

As Ting-Toomey (2005) argues, facework is not the same as conflict styles. In the context of U.S. conflict style research literature, conflict styles have continually been studied from a content problem solving angle to the neglect of considering interaction identity or face-saving issues. Conflict styles are referred to as specific behaviours used to engage in or disengage from a conflict situation. Within the model, “face-saving” behaviours as face-saving strategies, can be used before (preventative facework), during, or after (restorative facework) a conflict occurrence. Face saving strategies, can also be used within a conflict relationship or beyond a conflict relationship through different face-saving stories to different interested third parties. As a result, while conflict styles can include specific facework tactics, facework tactics or strategies can be used in a variety of identity-threatening and identity-protection situations. These situations can include requesting, embarrassment, performance feedback, and complimenting situations.

54 Preventative and restorative facework strategies

Since face concerns and face strategies are concerned more with relational and face- identity issues above and beyond conflict content goal issues (respect-disrespect, poise, shame, pride, composure, apology, and forgiveness), two separate measurements of face concern dimensions and particular face-strategy types have been developed. Along a developmental timeframe, when one’s face is threatened or think likely it is being threatened, the typical facework strategies are preventative facework strategies and restorative facework strategies. Preventative facework strategies (hedges and disclaimers) refer to communicative behaviours designed to soften or ward off the occurrence of face loss events that one anticipates will foster an appearance of weakness or vulnerability. It is also believed that such events will potentially damage one’s image or the other image of those whom one represents. Restorative facework strategies (excuses and justifications) refer to behaviours designed to repair damaged or lost face and occur in response to events that have already happened (Ting-Toomey, 2005).

Conditions of face-threatening process (FTP)

According to Ting-Toomey’s (2005) research, individualistic, low context negotiators tend to separate the content goal issues from the conflict relationship while collectivistic high-context individuals see the person, the content goal, and the relationship content goal as all tied together. Individualistic persons tend to engage in low context, direct styles (from verbal explicit styles to verbal upfront styles) of facework management, and collectivistic persons tend to engage in high-context indirect styles (from verbal understated style to verbal effusive style) of facework negotiation (Ting-Toomey, 2005). In determining whether individuals engage in face confrontational or get away from the confront scene altogether, researchers have identified conditions under which a face-threatening process (FTP) is perceived to be severe by the involved parties and shape the use of different facework strategies. As Ting-Toomey (2005) explains:

1. The perceived FTP is more severe when the violated culturally appropriate facework rule is more important

55 2. When the cultural distance between the conflict parties are larger, more mistrust or misunderstanding cumulates in the FTP 3. The perceived FTP is more severe when the conflict topic or obligation of the conflict demand interpreted from individual cultural angles are more important 4. The perceived FTP is more severe by the recipient when the conflict initiator has more power over the conflict recipient 5. When the FTP produces more harm or hurt, more time and effort is needed to repair the FTP 6. More the actor is perceived as directly responsible for initiating the conflict cycle, more that person is held accountable for the FTP 7. The perceived FTP is more severe, the more the actor is viewed as an outgroup member (p.77)

Face concern becomes increasingly more important if several of these conditions are present in a face-threatening communication process.

FTP and communication in individualist/collectivist cultures

In Individualistic cultures, the more severe the evident FTP is in a conflict, the more likely the conflict communicators would engage in upfront, aggressive, facework strategies to counter the direct face attacks. In collectivistic cultures, the communicators could choose to use high-context, avoidance strategies to wait for the conflict to simmer down and to acquire time to recover their hurt feelings. They may also turn to a third party intermediary to mediate the conflict to avoid further head-on face-embarrassing collisions. A mix of the FTP conditions, and the situational face needs of the conflict negotiators, would determine the emotional tone, types, and particular strategies of facework management process in a conflict episode (Ting- Toomey, 2005).

Cross cultural theories of communication

Cross cultural studies predominantly use only one dimension of cultural variability to explain communication across cultures. One dimension is not adequate to explain specific communication behaviour. It is important for cross cultural theories of communication to incorporate more than one dimension of cultural variability.

56 Individualism-collectivism is the most widely used dimension in cross cultural research. Many characteristics of communication are influenced by more than one dimension of cultural variability. To explain communication with members of other cultures, for example, at least individualism-collectivism and uncertainty avoidance are needed. Communication linked to the ingroup-outgroup distinction, may also be related to other dimensions of cultural variability. If individuals are of unequal status, cultural power distance should affect communication, and if the individual’s genders differ, cultural masculinity-femininity should influence communication. Communication behaviour is also linked to individual level factors (e.g. self construals) that mediate the dimensions of cultural variability. The individual level factors explain variability in communication within cultures, communication styles are not guided by cultural norms and rules, they are a function of individual level factors (Gudykunst, 2002; Gudykunst & Lee, 2002).

As Gudykunst & Lee (2002) point out, there is a need for more theories linking specific communication processes to the dimensions of cultural variability and individual level factors. The factors of cultural variability, personality, situational factors, interaction event constraint factors, and the perceived actual communication exchanges between the intergroup negotiators all work simultaneously to influence the face-negotiation process (Korzenny & Ting-Toomey, 1990).

Lack of multicultural vision for communication

Though existing studies have produced an important foundation for culture and communication learning, we still lack the capacity to provide meaningful insight into how individuals experience intercultural encounters. Cultural values such as individualism/collectivism and self-construal are limited as it fails to capture the complex essence of intercultural communication experience. Conflict is experienced differently by racial/ethnic group members based on other cultural factors such as class, gender, age, and spirituality, and no single aspect should be considered as universally more important than others. Culture is more than simply one’s race, ethnicity, or nationality. An inclusive approach to culture should examine how age, gender, spirituality, socio-economic status, sexual orientation, and disability among others also make up cultural influences (Orbe, 2007). This gives a more composite

57 understanding of the relationship between culture and communication. Culture could also include ideology (conservative / liberal / radical / sexist / racist / homophobic /classic etc), political party affiliations, professional training / affiliations (e.g. science vs. humanities / arts etc). Any representation of intercultural communication is incomplete if it only contains views from limited perspectives. Multiple variables intersect with one another as the most effective means are explored to human communication (Orbe, 2007). So far, there has been no research done on how individual’s facework differs around the dimensions of spirituality, age, gender, educational level, social and economic status and disability. Future research should investigate the effect of these dimensions in intercultural facework behaviour.

Influence of power in communication

Existing research has also failed to adequately address issues of power in international communication. While it is not always noticeable how power influences communication, power is pervasive in all communication interactions in any society, and also when people from different cultures interact. Some people have greater access to power than others. This power can take the form of political power, financial standing, control over decision making, interpersonal/cultural influence, or physical power (Orbe, 2007). Future research on intercultural communication should investigate how dynamics of power, dominance and control exist at the social level and at the same time how it influence the intercultural communication context (Orbe, 2007).

Power distance and facework

“Human groups organize, direct, and pattern their behaviour through culture, and varying cultural dimensions influence human behaviour” (Merkin, 2006a, p. 142). Individualism-Collectivism is not the only cross-cultural dimension that explains behaviour. Cultures vary in diverse ways, and relying only on cultural individualism-collectivism to explain communication behaviour is limited, and could lead to imperfect conclusions (Merkin, 2006a). Beyond Individualism-collectivism, another important value dimension that explains face-negotiation is the dimension of power distance. Power distance brings about a complex interplay between the

58 conflict parties. Power distance, from a cultural point of view, explains the way a culture deals with status differences and social hierarchies such as family background, age, birth order, gender, caste, occupation, education, wealth, and personal achievements (Ting-Toomey, 2005). As Irwin (1996) proposes, “high power distance cultures are comfortable with considerable inequality while low power distance cultures favour minimum inequality” (p.32). In small power distance work situations, power is evenly distributed and subordinates expect to be consulted. In large power distance work situations, the power is centralized in the upper management level of the organisation, and subordinates expect to be told what to do; while the manager plays an autocratic role (Ting-Toomey, 2005).

Power distance and individualist/collectivist cultures

Individualism-Collectivism (IC) and Power Distance (PD) are two main cultural dimensions that affect psychological processes (Merkin, 2006a). IC and PD explain different aspects of culture. Though they are separate cultural dimensions, IC and PD are also correlated. People from large power distance cultures tend to be more collective and, people from small power distance cultures tend to be more individualistic (Merkin, 2006a). Individualism is negatively correlated with power distance (Hofstede, 2001). IC dimension explains how individuals identify with their group, and PD dimension explains the extent to which individuals accept inequality in power in society. Studying PD’s effects on facework will increase the understanding of how people do facework cross-culturally (Merkin, 2006a).

Cross cultural facework and aspects of power distance

Merkin (2006a) also suggests that aspects of power distance such as, obedience, verbal expression, and injustice influence cross-cultural facework. Obedience is not common among people of small power distance cultures, the reason being that they value participation in decision making. Also, those from small power distance cultures question authority and challenge the status quo for the sake of being fair. They also do not mind creating face-threatening conflicts while expressing themselves for clarity. These independent attitudes can be face threatening to people from large power distance cultures as they believe that interventions that challenge authority or that threatens with the need to open up and confront conflict is not

59 appropriate. Merkin’s (2006a) research supports the idea that people from large power distance cultures see power as a social fact, and stress coercive or referent power, and they accept coercive autocratic power, obediently following orders more than people from small power distance cultures. Legitimacy is inappropriate in large power distance cultures, and defiance of autocratic power is face threatening (Merkin, 2006a).

How power distance influence facework strategies

In a study of power distance and facework strategies between individualist and collectivist cultures, Merkin (2006a) claims that acquiescence (compliance) and power distance are positively correlated. This explains why large power distance cultures are afraid to deviate from what is expected of them and fear approaching, disagreeing, and communicating with their superiors. Also individuals from large power distance cultures are reluctant to trust each other. Cultures high in power distance tend to be authoritarian societies, and tend to stress conformity and submissiveness. When it is necessary for people to interact with each other in high power distance cultures, they engage in obedient, peaceful, and cooperative communicative strategies that compromise or collaborate with others (Merkin, 2006a). “Cooperative strategies are soothing, extra considerate communications employed to show deference, reverence, and respect in an effort to smooth over potentially face-threatening events” (Merkin, 2006a, p.144). One manner in which obedience can be expressed is through deferential (respectful) or acquiescent cooperative communication strategies. Obedience, conformity, and cooperative communication strategies are also related to collectivism. People from large power distance cultures would prefer using cooperative facework strategies to smooth over difficult face threatening situations (Merkin, 2006a).

Power distance in Australia and Asia

As Irwin (1996) states, generally, Australians and Asians think about the hierarchies and status in quite different ways, which presents no problem if each is aware of the way the other may be thinking. In Asia, which generally involves high power distance cultures, the people of some cultures believe that hierarchy and inequality

60 are appropriate and beneficial, and authorities and seniors should not be challenged or questioned. In Australia, which has a low power distance culture, people believe in minimising class and social inequality, and believe in questioning and challenging authority and limiting hierarchical structures in families and organizations (Irwin, 1996). It is important to investigate how differences in power distance between the Australians and the Sri Lankans influence their facework strategies in this study.

Research context in facework

Facework behaviours have been researched in different social contexts. For example, Oetzel, Ting-Toomey, Yokochi, Masumoto, & Takai (2000) examined facework behaviors in interpersonal conflicts with best friends and relative strangers. Oetzel, Ting-Toomey, Chew-Sanchez, Harris, Wilcox, & Stumpf (2003) examined the effects of national culture, self-construals, and power distance on face concerns and facework behaviors during conflicts with parents and siblings. Spiers (1998) analysed facework of nurses to understand nurse-client interaction. The aim of this research is to investigate intercultural facework in a business context.

Research in intercultural facework

This section describes the research on facework in intercultural conflict negotiation identified in the literature.

Face and facework in conflict: a cross-cultural comparison of China, Germany, Japan, and the United States

Oetzel, Ting-Toomey et al. (2001) investigated face and facework during interpersonal conflicts across four national cultures: China, Germany Japan and the United States. The study examined the influence of National Culture, self- construals, power distance, and situational features (relational closeness and status) on face concerns and facework. The survey responses were gathered from 768 respondents to measure three face concerns, and facework behaviours (Oetzel, Ting- Toomey et al., 2001).

61 The findings of the study are framed by the face-negotiation theory. This research makes three contributions to the literature on face and facework. The face- negotiation theory emphasizes the locus of face (i.e., self, other, mutual) as a key factor for face and facework, and the importance of cultural-level and individual level variables for influencing face and facework. The study conceptualizes that face is a combination of substantive, relational, and identity issues that coexist rather than face only as a secondary goal. This study provides a culturally sensitive model of facework, as well as recognizing that conflict behaviours have multiple, and often simultaneous, impacts on communication goals (Oetzel, Ting-Toomey et al., 2001).

• The implications of this research are that the findings support the relationship between self-construals, national culture, face, and facework poisted by this theory. The findings indicate that self-construals are the best predictors of face and facework behaviors. National culture has important effects on face and facework, but power distance and situational features had small effects (Oetzel, Ting-Toomey et al., 2001).

• The findings are consistent with previous research that shows self-construal is a better explanatory variable than culture for individual communication behaviour. The research also shows that culture has a direct effect on behaviour and an indirect effect mediated by self-construal. This suggests that culture and individual factors both account for differences and similarities in communication behaviour (Oetzel, Ting-Toomey et al., 2001).

• The study demonstrates that there are differences in face behaviour for individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Also, the study illustrates that there are differences in facework bahaviours in countries within individualistic and collectivistic cultures (Oetzel, Ting-Toomey et al., 2001).

• The measure of face concerns represents a variety of concepts associated with face, such as credibility, embarrassment, shame, poise, dignity, and relational harmony (Oetzel, Ting-Toomey et al., 2001).

62 A study with Anglos and Chinese (in Australia): styles of managing interpersonal workplace conflict in relation to status

Power distance (status) has an important and complex effect on face negotiation. Power distance refers to the level of acceptance of unequal power distribution in a society and is a strong determinant of behaviour in hierarchical structures such as that is in a workplace. This study by Brew & Cairns (2004) examined conflict management preferences between people from an individualistic culture and those from a collectivist culture in an Australian setting. East Asian societies are classified as collectivist, and western societies including Australia are classified as individualistic, according to Brew & Cairns (2004).

This study by Brew & Cairns examined the type of communication (direct or cautious), in relation to the type of face threat (self or other) and work status (subordinate, co-worker, or superior) with preference for three conflict management styles (control, solution-oriented, non-confrontational) of Anglos and Chinese. The results show that Anglo responses rated higher on assertive conflict style and the non-confrontation style in the Chinese counterparts. Both Anglos and Chinese preferred direct communication strategies when self face was threatened. In both Anglos and Chinese, status moderated responses were given to self face and other face. Chinese showed passive and solution oriented style, and Anglos showed assertive and diplomatic conflict style for face threat (Brew & Cairns, 2004).

This study also distinguishes between concern for one’s own face (self-face), and the other party’s face (other-face) in understanding conflict negotiation. Individualist cultures focus more on individual goals, needs, and rights than on social concerns. Collectivist cultures value in-group goals and concerns, giving the priority to obligations and responsibilities to the group. According to Brew & Cairns (2004), Westerners are individualists who focus on own-needs, and are more assertive in their approach to conflict. Collectivist societies in East Asia tend to avoid conflict. Conflict avoidance leads to passivity and lack of skills in persuasion and communication, or to communication behaviour that promotes inter-relations rather than conveying opposing opinion or information (Brew & Cairns, 2004). In this study, Brew & Cairns (2004) explain Australians as individualists who care about

63 honesty, truth and transparency. Also they point out that these value orientations are more likely to lead to direct, argumentative or confrontational behaviour if the situation demands it and overtly competitive strategies in negotiation. This research shows that immigrant subordinates from collectivist high power distance countries are less open and more cautious with superiors than their Australian counterparts. My study will explore some of these issues, as it compares Sri Lankans and Australians.

Investigation of facework and Hofstede’s culture dimensions

This study by Merkin (2000) investigates how facework strategies differ in cultural groups in their responses to face threatening situations. Though previous studies have tested the relationship between individualism and facework strategies, this study is unique in that it explores the relationship of both individualism and masculinity on facework choices. This study also examines the effect of power distance and uncertainty avoidance on people’s responses to others’ self presentations. The study includes six cultures: Japan, Sweden, Israel, Hong Kong, Chile and the US. The respondents completed questionnaires indicating their most probable face-saving strategies in an embarrassing situation. The results showed that all Hofstede’s cultural dimensions influenced the face work strategies respondents choose to use in response to a face threatening situation. The study found that masculinity is as much a predictor of facework strategies as is individualism/collectivism (Merkin, 2000).

This research shows that masculine cultures use more competitive strategies than feminine cultures, and feminine cultures use more indirect harmonious and cooperative levelling strategies than masculine cultures. The study shows that members of high power distance cultures used indirect communication strategies, while low power distance was related to aggression. This study shows that low uncertainty avoidance cultural members used significantly more aggressive facework strategies than high uncertainty avoidance cultural members. Also, cultures high in long term orientation use more Confucian oriented (i.e. harmonious and cooperative) facework than short term oriented cultures (Merkin, 2000).

64 A study of power distance and facework strategies

Merkin (2006a) also investigated Hofstede’s power distance (PD) dimension which is an important predictor for understanding cross-cultural facework. The study investigated how cultural groups, differ in their level of PD, negotiate strategic responses (i.e. cooperative, indirect, or direct) on an individual level to a face threatening situation. The study included respondents from Japan, Hong Kong, Israel, Chile, Sweden, and the United States. This study shows that individuals of large power distance cultures are more likely to use cooperative, indirect and direct communication strategies to manage face threats than their small power distance counterparts (Merkin, 2006a).

A study of uncertainty avoidance and facework

Uncertainty avoidance deals with the extent to which members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations and tries to avoid uncertainty (Gudykunst & Lee, 2003; Vinken, Soeters et al., 2004).

Merkin (2006b) examined the role of Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance dimension in facework; the action taken to maintain or gain face. The survey data was gathered from six countries: Chile, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Sweden and the United States. The study confirms that uncertainty avoidance exerts a significant influence on facework communication strategies. The results show that, while controlling for social desirability effects, uncertainty avoidance influences ritualistic, harmonious, and aggressive facework strategies in an embarrassing situation. For example, Americans do not mask or get embarrassed by a whole range of social customs, but for members of strong uncertainty avoidance cultures, exposure to ceremonies or rituals can be extremely face threatening. This study shows that cultural members of high uncertainty avoidance cultures are more ritualistic than low uncertainty avoidance cultures. People from high uncertainty avoidance cultures are less likely to use harmonious facework strategies than people from low uncertainty avoidance cultures. The more likely response of high uncertainty avoidance culture members to uncertain situations is hostility, that is, aggression over harmonious communication (Merkin, 2006b).

65 Conflict management and face maintenance of Americans and Finns

Siira, Rogan et al. (2004) explore conflict approaches and face concerns of Finns and Americans. The results show that Finns and Americans do not differ in their use of non-confrontation. Finns do use solution orientation more than Americans however. Americans also use more controlling behaviours than Finns, and in relation to concerns of face maintenance, Finns are more concerned with other-face than self- face (Siira, Rogan et al., 2004).

The literature review in Part A and Part B helped to understand how face work strategies differ among individuals and between cultures. Sri Lankans living and working in Australia are not a homogeneous group; they will have individual and other factors differentiating them from each other. Research has identified that facework differ between individualist and collectivist cultures (Oetzel & Ting- Toomey, 2003). Conflict situation, conversational constraints and other culture dimensions such as power distance, masculinity, femininity, and uncertainty avoidance also influence how individuals of different cultures do facework (Kim, 1994; Merkin, 2000; Oetzel, Garcia et al., 2008). The literature discussed how these factors reflect in the sort of facework strategies that individuals represent internationally. Factors such as age, gender, spirituality, educational level, social and economic status also influence individuals’ facework strategies globally (Orbe, 2007). Encompassing the factors that contribute to variations in intercultural facework, the following section, Part C discusses the theoretical framework for this investigation.

Part C

Theoretical framework

Having overviewed the broad and diverse literature about intercultural communication, it is clear that research in this field could move in many directions. Based on the research problem, the study will use the face negotiation model by

66 Oetzel & Ting-Toomey (2003), leading through a theoretical framework that captures the key concerns raised in the literature.

Hofstede’s 1980 study of 66 countries that investigates the dominant values of different cultures (Hofstede, 1984) does not include Sri Lanka. A small scale research study in Sri Lanka indicates that Sri Lanka has a collectivist, high power distant, feminine and a medium-low uncertainty avoidance culture (Waisfisz, 1992). The face-negotiation model, 2003 (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey) explains face and facework in a conflict situation of individualist and collectivist cultures, but this research (Oetzel, Ting-Toomey et al., 2001) does not include Sri Lanka. There are investigations of different cultures and communication styles but these studies also do not include Sri Lanka. Since there is no previous research that investigates facework strategies of the Sri Lankans; it is significant to understand the facework strategies of Sri Lankans.

Face negotiation theory has been applied to USA, China, Germany, and Japan (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). To extend understanding of cultural knowledge and communication strategies, this research adopts the face negotiation model by Oetzel & Ting-Toomey (2003) to understand facework strategies of the Sri Lankans, a much under-studied group. In addition, this study analyses how values influence their facework strategies through a small qualitative study. These values are what is learnt through religion and education, and also include the values described by Hofstede’s (1984) culture dimensions, Halls’s (1990) communication dichotomy, and other factors described by Orbe (2007). Also, the study investigates how Sri Lankans have adopted to the Australian culture.

The research problem of investigation:

1. What are the facework strategies of Sri Lankans working in Australia, in comparison to the Australians of European origin working in Australia? 2. What are the values that influence the facework of Sri Lankans working in Australia? 3. How have Sri Lankans adopted their facework strategies to the Australian culture?

67 Australia versus Sri Lanka – an insight to the two nations

Australia:-

Australia’s population is predominantly Anglo-Celtic. In 1947, the Anglo-Celtic population represented 90% of Australia’s population. This share of the Anglo- Celtic population fell to 70% in 1999 as a consequence of migration from other countries. Australia’s non Anglo-Celtic population represents European, Asian, African, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, and the people of the Pacific (Price, 2002).

Australia’s culture is a low context culture such as Anglo-European, and North American cultures. Low context cultures are informal, allow more equality in interaction, and place less emphasis on hierarchies. They tend to focus on the present and future. People of low context cultures characteristically use precise, direct, logical verbal communication (Irwin, 1996). In Australia, being forthright and honest is valued rather than being a smooth-talker (Brew & Cairns, 2004).

On Hofstede’s four dimensions, the following scores represent Australia (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005):

Culture Dimension Score Power Distance 36 Individualism 90 Masculinity 61 Uncertainty Avoidance 51

These scores explain that Australia represents a low power distance, individualist, masculine and medium uncertainty avoidance culture. These scores represent an Anglo-Celtic culture, although Australia scores higher than other Anglo Celtic cultures on the uncertainty avoidance dimension. Other Anglo-Celtic cultures show lower uncertainty avoidance on Hofstede’s investigation (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005).

68 Similarly, it is important to understand the cultural background of the Sri Lankans who are working in Australia.

Sri Lankans working in Australia:-

Sri Lanka has a multi ethnic and multi religious population. Buddhism constitutes the religion of 76.7% of the population of the island, who follow Theravada Buddhism. The Sinhalese are the main ethnic group of Sri Lanka, constituting 82% of the population (Ethnicity and Religion, 2011). Sri Lanka represents a high literacy rate of 93 per cent. Australia’s Sri Lankan community is estimated at over 100,000 people (Sri Lanka Country Brief, 2011). Generally, the Sri Lankans have settled easily into Australia, because of their capability in English and prominence in professional life. The rate of assimilation among Sri Lankan Australians is fairly high. Yet, among second-generation immigrants, the 'in-marriage' rate is extremely low; - 5.6% for brides and 3.0% for grooms (Sri Lankan Australian, 2010).

Ethnic groups of Sri Lanka:

Ethnicity Percentage % Sinhalese 74 Tamil 18 Muslim (Moors) 7 Burgher 0.3 Other 0.7

(Sri Lanka - Ethnic Groups, 1988)

Religions of Sri Lanka:

Religion Percentage % Buddhism 70 Hinduism 15 Christianity 8 Islam 7

(Sri Lanka, 2006)

In order to understand the imperatives that drive behaviour, it is useful to understand the role of Buddhism in Sri Lankan lives.

69 Buddhism teaches non-harm, developing mindfulness and compassion, the positive qualities that avoid harmful intentions and actions. To attain nirvana is the ultimate goal of the buddhists. Buddhism teaches the noble eight-fold path to enlightment, nirvana. Through practice of the eight principles; the noble eightfold path, one can attain a higher level of existence. The eight principles are: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. These eight aspects of the path are interelated and have to be practised together. Undertaking five precepts is part of the Buddhist’s initiation and regular devotional practices. These five precepts prohibit taking the life of any living being, taking what is not given, sexual misconduct, false speech, and consumption of intoxicants (Ariyabuddhiphongs 2007, Luévano 2009).

The taking of the precepts are as below:

1. I undertake to abstain from causing harm and taking life (both human and non- human). 2. I undertake to abstain from taking what is not given (stealing). 3. I undertake to abstain from sexual misconduct. 4. I undertake to abstain from wrong speech: telling lies, deceiving others, manipulating others, using hurtful words. 5. I undertake to abstain from using intoxicating drinks and drugs, which lead to carelessness.

The Buddhist’s daily conduct is restrained by these five precepts. The Sri Lankans ways of interaction and communication have been influenced by the virtues taught in Buddhism, and are reflected in their facework. Buddhism has shaped the lives of the many Sri Lankans.

According to Knoll (2004), Sri Lanka is a collectivist society with feminine values; such as caring for one another rather than accomplishing individual goals. Subordinates accept power and hierarchy and superiors are seen as ‘good fathers’ (Knoll, 2004). Hofstede’s 1980 study about cultures does not include Sri Lanka. A smaller scale research that has been done in the early nineteen nineties by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH - German

70 Agency for Technical Cooperation provide the following estimates for Sri Lanka (Waisfisz, 1992):

Culture Dimension Score Power Distance 80 Individualism 35 Masculinity 10 Uncertainty Avoidance 45

These scores indicate that Sri Lanaka is a collectivist, high power distant, feminine and a medium-low uncertainty avoidance culture, in comparison with Australia’s culture dimensions by Hofstede & Hofstede (2005). These culture dimensions provide a platform to understand negotiation of Sri Lankans with the Australians. There is no research that analyses facework of Sri Lankans. The purpose of this research is to explore facework strategies of Sri Lankans in Australia.

The face-negotiation model describes conflict communication strategies of individualist and collectivist cultures. Australia represents an individualist culture, and previous research has tentatively claimed that Sri Lanka represents a collectivist culture. According to the face negotiation model, individualistic cultures have an independent self schema, and collectivistic cultures have an interdependent self schema. Also, individualistic cultures have a greater concern for self-face and lesser concern for other-face, and collectivistic cultures have a greater concern for other- face and lesser concern for self-face. Individualistic cultures tend to use more dominating conflict strategies than collectivistic cultures, and collectivistic cultures use more integrating and avoiding conflict strategies (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). This contrast suggests some of the challenges that Sri Lankans living in Australia may face, and has led to the following research question.

Research Question:

The research question to investigate is, “what are the facework strategies of Sri Lankans working in Australia, in comparison to the facework strategies of Australians of European origin working in Australia”.

71 In finding answers to this research question, the investigator adopts the face negotiation model as a basis to find the answers to this research question. The face negotiation model describes the self schema, face concern, and the conflict strategies that a particular nation represents. Using the face negotiation model, the researcher will find answers to these three facets of the conflict negotiation process of the Sri Lankans that work in Australia, in comparison to the other Australians (Australian / European origin) working in Australia.

i. Self Construal: Independent or Interdependent ii. Face Concern: Self Face or Other Face iii. Conflict Strategy: Dominating or Integrating or Avoiding

Therefore, the following propositions are formed about the Sri Lankans working in Australia, using the face negotiation model:

1: Sri Lankans show a greater “interdependent self” and lesser “independent self” schema than Australians 2: Sri Lankans show a greater concern for “other face” and lesser concern for “self” face than Australians 3: Sri Lankans use more “integrating” and “avoidance” and less “dominating” conflict strategies than Australians

In this investigation, hypothesis testing is done to see if the above propositions are true. To test hypothesises a quantitative investigation using a survey questionnaire was conducted, and interviews were conducted to investigate the values and behaviours of the Sri Lankans, the adjustments Sri Lankans make to Australian culture, and the values and behaviour that have not changed during the cultural adaptation phase.

Summary

Researchers have used Hofstede’s (1984) four dimensions: individualism- collectivism, power distance, masculinity-femininity, uncertainty avoidance and a fifth dimension; long term short term orientation in understanding value systems of

72 different cultures (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Also researchers explain intercultural communication style differences using Hall’s (1990) high context - low context dichotomy. Individualism-collectivism is the primary dimension that differentiates groups of cultures of the world (Ting-Toomey, 1988). Individualist cultures are low context, and collectivist cultures are high context (Merkin, 2000). Face negotiation is described using individualist-collectivist culture dimension, and Hall’s high context-low context communication style dichotomy (Ting-Toomey, 1992).

The world can be categorised on a continuum from individualist culture – low context communication style to collectivist culture – high context communication style distinction. Researchers use this framework in analysing different nation’s culture and communication styles (Korac-Kakabadse, Kouzmin et al., 2001; Ting- Toomey, 1992). The face-negotiation theory explain conflict style differences and similarities across individualistic and collectivistic cultures (Korzenny & Ting- Toomey, 1990; Oetzel, Garcia et al., 2008). The face negotiation model uses individualism-collectivism dimension to describe the conflict communication strategies of nations (Ting-Toomey, 1988). Using the face negotiation model of Oetzel and Ting-Toomey’s (2003) is a basic conceptualisation that helps to understand people of different cultures in their interaction and communication behaviour in conflict.

The face negotiation model (2003) also explains how this links to their conflict management style. From the available research, it is suggested that Sri Lanka is a collectivist culture and the nation’s style of communication is high context, and Australia represents an individualist culture with a low context communication style. This study aims to understand the style of communication of the Sri Lankans working in Australia, and the underlying values of the nation, drawing on the face negotiation model and to expand this by considering other variables. Thus, the research problem to investigate is the facework strategies of Sri Lankans working in Australia, in comparison with other Australians of European origin using the face- negotiation model.

73 However, using individualism and collectivism as the only dimension that explains differences of cultures leads to incomplete conclusions (Merkin, 2006a). Cultures vary in diverse ways (Merkin, 2006b). As the literature described earlier in the chapter suggests, many characteristics of communication are influenced by more than one dimension of cultural variability (Gudykunst, 2002; Gudykunst & Lee, 2002). This investigation will use the face negotiation model as the basis to understand the facework strategies of Sri Lankans that work in Australia. As Orbe (2007) suggests, an inclusive approach to culture should examine how age, gender, spirituality, social and economic status among others also makeup cultural influences. This gives a more composite understanding of the relationship between culture and communication (Orbe, 2007). Building on the face negotiation theory, the investigator will use dimensions described by Hofstede, Hall and Orbe to explain communication style differences of the participants of this investigation.

When individuals encounter a new culture, they learn and acquire new cultural practices in a wide range of areas that are of direct relevance to their daily functioning; including attire, behaviour norms and cultural values (acculturation). In ethnically diverse societies, the cultural patterns widely regarded as standard are mainly those of the dominant culture. When adapting to the new environment new cultural elements are added to previous internal conditions. When new learning takes place, deculturation of some of the old cultural elements happen (Kim, 2001). The research will explore how the Sri Lankans facework is influenced by Australian culture. It will also explore the values and behaviour, and adjustments they make to Australian culture and the values and behaviour that have not changed. These will be explored by a qualitative investigation using depth interviews. To find answers to the research question, this research will include a quantitative and a qualitative investigation. These research methods are discussed in the research methodology chapter 3 in detail.

74

Chapter 3

Research methodology

75 Exploring methods to gain insight to the research questions

Introduction

This chapter discuss the research methods that were employed to find the data for the investigation. This chapter consists of Part A and Part B. Firstly, Part A describes the significance of this research, and the type of research that is being used. As this study uses a mixed method of quantitative and qualitative (as an exploratory research method), it explains the implications of an exploratory research, the rigor in a mixed method study, and the justification of research design. The second half (Part B) of this chapter describes the procedures/methods that are being used to collect the research data, ethical concerns in data collection and reporting, and the limitations of the study. Finally, the chapter provides a description of the tools that are being used in this investigation to collect the research data, the validity and reliability of the data, and the data analysis methods used to find the answers to the research questions.

Part A

Significance of research

Studying face-negotiation in cross-cultural conflict is important in an increasingly globalized world and in the diversified workforce, where conflict often takes place. Learning to understand different face concerns and face-negotiation styles in conflict is a major step toward building a harmonious multicultural community (Oetzel, Ting- Toomey et al., 2001). Yet there is limited research that provides knowledge about different nations and how they interact with each other. There have been numerous research investigations of the ways culturally diverse individuals handle conflict (Oetzel, Ting-Toomey et al., 2001), but these studies do not represent all nations.

There is limited research that investigates the culture and interaction styles of the Sri Lankans (Freeman, 2001; Knoll, 2004; McGilvray, 1993; Munck, Dudley, & Cardinale, 2002; Niles, 1999; Waisfisz, 1992). Specifically, there is very limited

76 research that investigates Sri Lankans and their culture in the Australian context (Gamage, 1998, 2001, 2002; Niles, 1994; Niles, 1996). Even these studies do not analyse the facework strategies used and how Sri Lankans interact in a conflict communication situation, and certainly not in the context of Australia. The purpose of this study is to explore facework of Sri Lankans working in Australia and the adjustments they make to work in this environment.

Unit of analysis

In this study, the unit of analysis is the individual. This study analyses facework of Sri Lankan individuals, as members of Sri Lankan culture, and as Sri Lankans adjust their attitudes and behaviours to negotiate with Australians. In this research, the investigator analyses the cultural patterns (facework) of Sri Lankans who are working in Australia, and compares it with the cultural patterns (facework) of the individuals of Australian culture.

Type of investigation

As there are few studies that investigate intercultural communication with Sri Lankans, this research will employ an exploratory research method, even though it uses a well-established theoretical model to examine facework of Sri Lankans who live in Australia as the basis for further investigation. In this research, the type of investigation is clarification (Cavana, Sekaran, & Delahaye, 2001). The researcher tries to gain a clearer understanding of the concepts involved in the research problem. An exploratory study follows this path (Cavana, Sekaran et al., 2001).

As for the method of an exploratory investigation, this study uses a mixed method (quantitative and qualitative) investigation. The study will use a survey questionnaire as stage 1 (quantitative method) and depth interviews {semi- structured} as stage 2 (qualitative method) to collect research data. The researcher administers a survey questionnaire to Sri Lankans and Australians working in Australia, as a quantitative method. “Surveys are well suited to studying stable patterns of interaction” (Fielding & Fielding, 1986, p.69). Also, this allows the researcher to obtain definitive answers and to identify the relationship between

77 concepts (Cavana, Sekaran et al., 2001). To complement this approach with a qualitative method, the researcher also gathered data from participants using in-depth interviews (Punch, 2005). The purpose of the interviewing is to make cultural inferences, broad explanations of a given social world analysed for cultural patterns and themes (Warren, 2002). As “consistency and complexity are crucial to an adequate analysis of social action” (Fielding & Fielding, 1986, p.69), this investigation is adopting both quantitative and qualitative measures.

Implications of an exploratory research

Exploratory studies that are relevant to organisations are currently undertaken to examine differences in ethnic and country origins so that theories about managing a diverse work force can be developed for the future (Cavana, Sekaran et al., 2001). Yet current research in differences in national origin does not include many of the cultures that represent the global workforce. “Exploratory studies are undertaken to better comprehend the nature of the problem that has been the subject of very few studies” (Cavana, Sekaran et al., 2001, p.108). This study has an exploratory element in how it seeks to discover the facework strategies of the Sri Lankans working in Australia. These exploratory studies are essential because people need to understand the differences in communication styles, interpretation schemas, superior- subordinate relationships and the like among different nations. To reduce conflict and stress between people, and to maintain and increase productivity in the future, such understanding is crucial. Demographics of the workplace are constantly changing, and it is important to value differences and adapt to new styles of management for organisational success (Cavana, Sekaran et al., 2001). As such, this study explores these organisation relevant interaction styles of the people of Sri Lanka who work in Australia, and this will provide significant knowledge in managing interactions with this nation.

The rigor in a mix method study

As this study uses a mixed method (qualitative and quantitative) investigation, “in combining methods, researchers can reveal aspects of the problem that their strongest method would overlook” (Fielding & Fielding, 1986, p.69). In this section, the

78 researcher analyses how each method contributes towards exploring the research question, the differences between the two methods and their rigor. Typically, quantitative researchers rely on a positivist approach to social science (Neuman, 2004). Quantitative researchers follow a linear research path, measuring variables and testing hypothesis that are linked to causal explanations (Neuman, 2004). Quantitative research also assumes that reality is to be discovered and that universal laws of nature operate according to rational, logical reasoning (Cavana, Sekaran et al., 2001). Quantitative researchers thus aim for a large number of context-shred cases and seek statistical significance (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

In comparison, qualitative researchers rely on interpretive or critical social science. They emphasise detailed examination of cases and contexts that arise in the natural flow of social life (Neuman, 2004). According to a qualitative research approach, “the only valid and reliable (or hard, scientific) evidence concerning socially meaningful phenomena we can possibly have is that based ultimately on systematic observations and analyses of everyday life” (Douglas 1970:12 cited in, Fielding & Fielding, 1986, p.83). Qualitative data often involves observing specific behaviours, documenting real events, and recording what people say with words, gestures, and tone (Neuman, 1997). Qualitative researchers work with small samples of people nested in their context and study them in-depth (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The importance of qualitative data is that it focuses on naturally occurring, ordinary events in natural settings, so that the researcher has a strong handle about what real life is like. Qualitative data which emphasise people’s “lived experience” provide the meanings people place on the events, processes, and structures of their lives, and their perceptions, assumptions, and prejudgements, and connects these meanings to the social world around them (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

According to Neuman (2004, p.42), “the interpretive approach is also scientific, but it sees the idea of scientific differently from positivism”. As Cavana, Sekaran et al. also suggest, “qualitative research is open to criticism for being subjective and biased” (2001, p.135). Qualitative research is more nonlinear and cyclical. The researcher has a non-direct, spiral move upwards while collecting new data and gaining new insights (Neuman, 2004). This cyclical approach “can be highly effective for creating a feeling for the whole, for grasping subtle shades of meaning,

79 for pulling together divergent information, and for switching perspectives ... it has its own discipline and rigor: e.g. metaphor, analogy, theme, motif, and irony” (Neuman, 2004, p.83).

Qualitative social science is not a substitute for quantitative, but they are both needed cross-validating studies (Fielding & Fielding, 1986). The importance of having a qualitative method in this study is that the researcher is able to explore and gain in- depth knowledge that cannot be gained through the quantitative method. Working from the base line of cultural patterns established in the quantitative data collection, the researcher is able to explore the process of adaptation in the Australian cultural setting.

The interviews help the researcher to gain data that can be added to enhance the quantitative data, which leads to a better analysis and interpretation of the research question. With the quantitative method of using the survey questionnaire and from the data collected, the researcher is able to measure variables of the face-negotiation model, and test hypothesises. Thus, the approach of using the two methods together will establish a more complete study of the research question.

Justification of research design

Matching research questions and purpose:

Purpose of the Study General Research Questions

To investigate little understood What is happening in this cultural group? phenomena

To identify or discover important What are the salient themes, patterns, or categories of meaning categories of meaning for participants?

Adopted from: (Marshall & Rossman, 2006, p.34)

As explained by the above table, this research is designed to investigate events of a cultural group. An exploratory study is undertaken as little is known about the

80 situation at hand and to gain familiarity with phenomena in the situation (Cavana, Sekaran et al., 2001). As currently there is limited available research on Sri Lankans in Australia about their culture and communication strategies, this investigation uses both a well validated survey instrument and depth interviews to understand the patterns and the meaning for participants of this cultural group. According to a constructionist view, “the formation of knowledge of the world is not to be understood as the simple portrayal of given facts, but that the contents are constructed in a process of active production” (Flick, 2006, p.79). Constructionists examine the relationship to reality by dealing with constructive processes (Flick, 2006). Through interviews, the researcher is able to discover the actions, meaning and relationships in this cultural group. The interviews will provide explanations to implicit clues about the interactions of Sri Lankan participants and extend understanding of the findings from the survey instrument. Collecting data in these two stages will assist the researcher to improve the precision of the collected research data in the analysis.

Part B

Procedures/methods

As suggested in the previous section, the method of collecting research data includes a survey questionnaire (quantitative) and in-depth interviews (qualitative).

Stage 1: Survey

“Surveys are appropriate for research questions about self-reported beliefs or behaviour”, and “when the answers people give to questions measuring variables” (Neuman, 2004, p.162). As quantitative measurement involves taking a concept or idea then developing a measure (instrument) to observe it empirically (Neuman, 1997), the survey asks people about their beliefs, opinions, characteristics and past and present behaviour. Through a survey, the researcher is able to ask many things at one time and measure many variables (Neuman, 2004). When developing measures, the main concern is to create measures that will yield precise, accurate

81 findings (Neuman, 1997). This investigation will measure the 7 variables in a well established face negotiation model, developed by Oetzel & Ting-Toomey (2003) and test hypothesises by collecting data through the survey questionnaire instrument (Singelis, 1994; Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001; Wilson & Waltman, 1988). Hypothetical scenarios are used in the questionnaire, and the respondents are requested to answer according to how they would usually act in certain situations. The survey questionnaire is used as the first stage of data collection.

Stage 2: Interviews

The stage two of data collection uses depth interviews (semi-structured) of participants. Interviews are a very good way of assessing people’s perceptions, meanings, definitions of situations, and constructions of reality. It is also a most powerful way of understanding others (Punch, 2005). In social contexts, people display their culture (what they think or believe) through behaviour (speech and actions). Cultural knowledge includes both explicit and implicit knowledge (Neuman, 2004). Through depth interviewing, the researcher is able to investigate both explicit and implicit knowledge of the interaction style of people: in this study of the Sri Lankans working in Australia. Participants for individual depth interviews are chosen because their experiences and attitudes would reflect the full scope of the issue under study. The participants also need to be verbally articulate, in order to provide the interviewer with the richness of desired detail (Cooper & Schindler, 2006). These factors are taken to consideration in selecting interviewees for this investigation.

Interviews can be highly structured or highly unstructured, which are the poles of a continuum (Cavana, Sekaran et al., 2001). This research uses semi structured interviews in the data collection. “Interviews measure a person’s ability to pickup implicit clues ... more than measuring objective facts” (Neuman, 2004, p.269). From the interviews, the researcher aims to gather implicit knowledge of the respondent’s culture: their values and norms, as well as explicit descriptions of behavioural patterns. The face-to-face interaction between the interviewer and the respondent also helps the researcher obtain complete and precise information (Zikmund, 2003). Through this interview approach, the researcher is able to gain both definitive and in-

82 depth knowledge from the participants. Thus, the interviews for the study are done to clarify and enrich knowledge gained through the surveys about face negotiation strategies.

The researcher in this investigation is an insider to the investigation, as a Sri Lankan who has been living and worked in Australia for many years, and is an outsider to this investigation as the researcher. The researcher’s position as both insider and outsider provides the prospect of better formulating research problems, questions and answers (Evered & Louis, 1981; Evered & Louis, 2005).

Ethical concerns in data collection and reporting

This research is low risk as the only foreseeable risk is one of discomfort to participants in this research. A low risk application was forwarded for ethical clearance to the Research Ethics Committee at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT Low Risk Human Ethics Application Form was used). The prospective participants were provided with general information on the study, which they could use in considering whether to participate. Participants were informed that participation in this project is voluntary, and all comments and responses are anonymous and are treated with confidentiality. By doing so, the participant’s right to privacy has been respected. The participants were given true information about why the study is being undertaken, the purpose and how the collected data will be used. The researcher maintained the objectivity of the study during data collection, analysis and reporting stages. The assurance that was provided to the participants about confidentiality of data has been respected. The assurance that was given to participants about their anonymity is being respected. The collective interest of the participants of the data they provided has been considered in how the researcher has used the data (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2003b).

Limitations of the study

This research is limited to the Australian context. The participants in this study are all from Australia. The Sri Lankans who live in Australia would adjust to the

83 Australian culture. Sri Lankans who live in other countries would adapt to the cultures they live in. This study is only generalisable to Australia. By saying so, the patterns of how much and what changes of their native culture, and what does not change, may show some similarities of the Sri Lankans who live in other countries, although this study cannot be fully generalisable to the rest of the world. Also, this is not a study of the Sri Lankans who live in Sri Lanka. To investigate the facework of Sri Lankans, a study has to be done in Sri Lanka of the people who live in Sri Lanka. This study is limited to the Sri Lankans who live in Australia.

Theoretical framework

At the end of chapter 2, on the literature review, the researcher described the theoretical framework for this investigation. Following on from the theoretical framework, as described in chapter 2, this study is adopting the face negotiation model to explore the self construal, face concern, and the conflict style of the Sri Lankans. Self construal is an individual factor that explains variation between cultures. The two self construals of investigation are independent self and interdependent self. The independent self involves the view that an individual is a unique entity with an individuated collection of feelings, cognitions and motivations. The interdependent self involves an emphasis on the importance of relational connectedness. “The independent self involves high differentiation (strong distinctions between self and other), and the interdependent self involves a cognitive style referred to as low differentiation (only slight distinctions between self and other)” (Brew & Cairns, 2004, p.33). According to face negotiation model (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003), individualistic cultures have an independent self schema, and collectivistic cultures have an interdependent self schema. The two main face concerns of investigation are ‘self face’ and ‘other face’. Self-face is the concern for one’s own image, and other-face is the concern for another’s image. The three main conflict styles of investigation adopted within the model are avoiding, integrating, and dominating (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003).

84 The face negotiation model:

Source: (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003, p.606)

Research using the face negotiation model shows that members of individualistic cultures have a greater concern for self-face and lesser concern for other-face than members of collectivistic cultures. Also members of individualistic cultures tend to use more dominating conflict strategies than members of collectivistic cultures, and collectivistic cultures use more integrating and avoiding conflict strategies (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). Limited available research suggests that Sri Lanka is a collectivistic culture (Waisfisz, 1992), and Australia represents an individualistic culture (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). According to the face negotiation model, and Sri Lanka being categorised as a collectivistic culture, the following three propositions are formed:

1: Sri Lankans show a greater “interdependent self” and lesser “independent self” schema than Australians 2: Sri Lankans show a greater concern for “other face” and lesser concern for “self”

85 face than Australians 3: Sri Lankans use more “integrating” and “avoidance” and less “dominating” conflict strategies than Australians

Research questions

This investigation consists of three research questions that are described below:

1. What are the facework strategies of Sri Lankans working in Australia in comparison to the Australians of European origin working in Australia?

i. Self Construal: Independent or Interdependent ii. Face Concern: Self Face or Other Face iii. Conflict Strategy: Dominating or Integrating or Avoiding

In finding answers to this research question, the above prepositions were made. Based on the above prepositions, the 7 hypothesis to be tested to see if these statements are true or not, are provided below. This investigation will test these 7 hypotheses for the Sri Lankans working in Australia.

Independent Self – Interdependent Self

Independent Self:

H1.10: There is no significant difference in the independent self schema of Sri Lankans and Australians

H1.1a: There is a significant difference in the independent self schema of Sri Lankans and Australians

Interdependent Self:

H1.20: There is no significant difference in the interdependent self schema of Sri Lankans and Australians

H1.2a: There is a significant difference in the interdependent self schema of

86 Sri Lankans and Australians

Self Face – Other Face

Self Face:

H2.10: There is no significant difference in the concern for self face of Sri Lankans and Australians

H2.1a: There is a significant difference in the concern for self face of Sri Lankans and Australians

Other Face:

H2.20: There is no significant difference in the concern for other face of Sri Lankans and Australians

H2.2a: There is a significant difference in the concern for other face of Sri Lankans and Australians

Dominating – Integrating – Avoiding

Dominating:

H3.10: There is no significant difference in the use of dominating conflict strategies of Sri Lankans and Australians

H3.1a: There is a significant difference in the use of dominating conflict strategies of Sri Lankans and Australians

Integrating:

H3.20: There is no significant difference in the use of integrating conflict strategies of Sri Lankans and Australians

H3.2a: There is a significant difference in the use of integrating conflict strategies of Sri Lankans and Australians

87 Avoiding:

H3.30: There is no significant difference in the use of avoiding conflict strategies of Sri Lankans and Australians

H3.3a: There is a significant difference in the use of avoiding conflict strategies of Sri Lankans and Australians

The survey questionnaire will measure the above 7 concepts (variables) of the face negotiation model, and test the 7 hypotheses. While trying to investigate the above research question, the investigator also poses the following question to understand and provide meaning to the concepts of the above research problem:

2. What are the values that influence the facework of Sri Lankans working in Australia?

Also, the researcher aims to investigate the adjustments (values and behaviour) Sri Lankans make to Australian culture and values and behaviour that have not changed. Thus, the next research question to be investigated is:

3. How have Sri Lankans adapted their facework strategies to the Australian culture?

These questions (2 & 3) will be explored using depth interviews (semi-structured). To compare differences between the two cultures in their facework strategies, the investigator needs to understand facework strategies of both the Sri Lankans and the Australians. Thus, the survey questionnaire is used for both Australians and the Sri Lankans working in Australia. The Sri Lankan participants in this study are Sri Lankan migrants (permanent residents, and citizens of Australia) and other Sri Lankans (temporary residents, students, etc.) who are living and working in Australia, and the Australian participants are non migrant Australians of European background, who were born in Australia.

88 Research methods

Sampling

The researcher used a convenience purposive sample in collecting data for this study. The investigator administered the questionnaire, and also interviewed Sri Lankans who live and work in the state of Queensland in Australia. The geographic location of the sample would not have an impact on the research data. The sample is defined to be representative of the population (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Purposive or judgemental sampling enables the researchers to use their judgement to select cases that will best enable to answer the research questions and to meet their objectives (Saunders, Lewis et al., 2003b).

Also, qualitative samples are likely to be purposive rather than random, in part because social processes have logic and coherence that cannot be interpreted by random sampling (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This study has chosen 5 interviewees for the qualitative investigation, as they would best provide answers to the research questions. The sample of this study is further described below:

Survey questionnaire participants

The participants in this study were approached through the Sri Lanka Society of Queensland Inc., which is an organisation of Sri Lankans who live in the state of Queensland, formed to promote harmonious cooperation, and encourage social activities etc., and places where Sri Lankans gather e.g. Buddhist temples, a Christmas party, a cricket match, a film show, and Sri Lankan students at Queensland University of Technology. The questionnaire was handed to Sri Lankan participants at the gatherings of the Sri Lanka Society of Queensland and other gatherings of Sri Lankans in Brisbane. The respondents were provided with self- addressed stamped envelopes to return the questionnaire to the investigator.

The Australian respondents to the survey questionnaire were approached through Queensland University of Technology, where the researcher is undertaking this investigation. These questionnaires were handed in to staff and students at the

89 university in various faculties and departments at Gardens Point campus. Also extra surveys were handed in to them to forward to their family members. Some responses from the Australians were sent internally, and the others were posted to the investigator to the university (the respondents were provided with self-addressed stamped envelopes to return the questionnaire to the investigator).

Interview participants

Stage two consisted of interviews of participants. The participants for the interviews were arranged by a snowballing technique: the interviewees were acquired through peer consultation in Queensland University of Technology; individuals who were willing to take part in an interview of Sri Lankans who are living and working in Australia. Individual consent was gained to participate in the interview after providing information about the research, interview process and the interview questions. The time and place of the interview was organised ahead of time so that the researcher and the interviewee were prepared to do the interview. The interviews were done at a place convenient to the interviewees.

Time horizon

The data collection was done in two stages. Stage one: administering the survey questionnaire to Sri Lankans and Australians working in Queensland. Stage two: interviews of Sri Lankans working in Queensland. The data collection was completed within a twelve month time period in order to meet the research objective. This is a cross-sectional study (Cavana, Sekaran et al., 2001). The data collection process is discussed in detail below under the data collection heading.

90 Data collection

Stages of data collection:

Stage Data Collection Type No. of Participants

One Administering - 126 Questionnaire

Two Interviews 5

Stage 1:

Stage one consisted of administering the questionnaire. A total of 327 surveys were distributed among Australians and Sri Lankans. One hundred and thirty five (135) responses were received, and out of these surveys received, 9 surveys were incomplete / or did not meet survey requirements and were unable to be used. One hundred and twenty six (126) survey responses are used in this study. These responses are from 63 Sri Lankans and 63 Australians (demographics of these participants are described below under the survey sample section).

Survey sample

Demographics of the sample

This section describes the demographic information of the sample. Demographics of the 63 Australian respondents and the 63 Sri Lankan respondents are analysed in this section. Comparable analyses are provided of the Australian respondents and the Sri Lankan respondents about their gender, age, education, occupation, religion, culture/ethnic background, and how long they have lived in Australia.

91 Gender

Australian There were 32 male respondents and 31 female respondents.

Gender No. of Respondents Percentage % Male 32 50.8 Female 31 49.2

Sri Lankan There were 39 male respondents and 24 female respondents.

Gender No. of Respondents Percentage % Male 39 61.9 Female 24 38.1

Age

Australian The age of the Australian respondents ranged from 19 years to 65 years (one person did not answer this question). The average age of the respondents was 38.5 years. The table presents the number of respondents in different age groups and the percentage of the total that this represents. The respondents represented the following age groups:

Age Group No. of Respondents Percentage % 18-29 12 19.0 30-39 22 34.9 40-49 18 28.6 50-59 9 14.3 60-69 1 1.6

Sri Lankan The age of the Sri Lankan respondents ranged from 17 years to 72 years (one person did not answer this question). The average age of the respondents was 41years. The table presents the number of respondents in different age groups and the percentage

92 of the total that this represents. The respondents represented the following age groups:

Age Group No. of Respondents Percentage % 16-17 2 3.2 18-29 17 27.0 30-39 13 20.6 40-49 9 14.3 50-59 15 23.8 60-69 5 7.9 70-79 1 1.6

Education

Australian The level of education of the Australian respondents ranged from having completed year 12 completed to one having a Doctorate. On average, respondents in the sample have completed an undergraduate degree. The following table represents the number of respondents and the percentages of respondents in their highest level of education obtained.

Level of Education No. of Respondents Percentage % Year 12 completed 2 3.2 Completed technical college course 2 3.2 Undergraduate degree 23 36.5 Honours/Diploma 12 19.0 Masters degree 21 33.3 Doctorate 3 4.8

Sri Lankan The level of education of the Sri Lankan respondents ranged from year 12 not yet completed to the level of Doctorate. On average, respondents have completed an undergraduate degree. The following table represents the number of respondents and the percentages of respondents in their highest level of education obtained.

93 Level of Education No. of Respondents Percentage % Less than year 12 1 1.6 Year 12 completed 7 11.1 Completed technical college course 3 4.8 Undergraduate degree 14 22.2 Honours/Diploma 18 28.6 Masters degree 16 25.4 Doctorate 4 6.3

Occupation

Australian The following table describes the different self-nominated occupations that Australian respondents represent, the total number of respondents in each occupation, and the percentages of respondents in each occupation.

Occupation No. of Respondents Percentage % Academic 1 1.6 Accountant 2 3.2 Administration / Clerical / Personal Assistant 8 12.7 Army Officer 1 1.6 Banker 1 1.6 Business / Policy Analyst 1 1.6 Consultant 3 4.8 Customer Service 1 1.6 Educationist / Learning Designer 1 1.6 Engineer 5 7.9 Finance 1 1.6 Human Resources 1 1.6 Librarian 3 4.8 Manager / Director / President 11 17.5 Marketing / Sales 4 6.3 Public Servant 2 3.2 Research - Assistant 2 3.2 Student 13 20.6 Teacher 2 3.2

94 Sri Lankan The following table describes the different self-nominated occupations that Sri Lankan respondents represent in Australia, the total number of respondent in each occupation, and the percentages of respondents in each occupation (3 persons did not answer this question).

Occupation No. of Respondents Percentage % Academic 1 1.6 Accountant 6 9.5 Administration / Clerical / Personal Assistant 3 4.8 Assessor 1 1.6 Business / Policy Analyst 2 3.2 Child Care 2 3.2 Consultant 1 1.6 Contractor 1 1.6 Economist 1 1.6 Educationist / Learning Designer 1 1.6 Engineer 14 22.2 Home Duties 2 3.2 IT (Information Technologist) 1 1.6 Laboratory Worker / Supervisor 1 1.6 Manager / Director/ President 1 1.6 Marketing / Sales 2 3.2 Medical Practitioner 3 4.8 Public Servant 1 1.6 Radiographer 1 1.6 Social / Community Worker 1 1.6 Student 12 19.0 Veterinary Surgeon 1 1.6 Surveyor 1 1.6

Religion

Australian The Australian respondents represented the following self-nominated religions as described in the table below. The table provides the number of respondents that represents each religion, and the percentages of respondents that represent each

95 religion (23 persons did not respond to this question). The majority, 58.8% of the Australian respondents, represent Catholic/Christian religions.

Religion No. of Respondents Percentage % Anglican 5 7.9 Atheist 2 3.2 Baptist 1 1.6 Catholic 18 28.6 Christian 7 11.1 Church of England 2 3.2 Islam (Muslim) 1 1.6 Orthodox 1 1.6 Pagan 1 1.6 Presbyterian 1 1.6 Uniting Church 1 1.6

Sri Lankan The Sri Lankan respondents represented the following self-nominated religions as in the table below. The table provides the number of respondents that represents each religion, and the percentages of respondents that represent each religion (3 persons did not respond to this question). The majority are Buddhists, representing 77.8% of the respondents.

Religion No. of Respondents Percentage % Agnostic 1 1.6 Buddhist 49 77.8 Catholic 5 7.9 Christian 2 3.2 Holism 1 1.6 Islam (Muslim) 2 3.2

Culture/ethnic background

Australian The Australian respondents represent the following nominated cultural/ethnic backgrounds. The table provides the number of respondents representing these different cultural/ethnic backgrounds, and their percentages (12 persons did not

96 respond to this question). 81% of the Australian respondents are of Australian and European origin (31.7% are Australian, and 48.5% are of Australian and European origin).

Culture/Ethnic Background No. of Respondents Percentage % Anglo Celtic 2 3.2 Anglo Saxon 6 9.5 Australian 20 31.7 Australian & Chinese 1 1.6 Australian & European 1 1.6 Australian & Irish 1 1.6 Australian & Scottish 1 1.6 Caucasian 2 3.2 Caucasian & European 1 1.6 Dutch 1 1.6 English 1 1.6 English & Anglo Saxon 1 1.6 English & Australian 1 1.6 English & Australian & Bosnian 1 1.6 English & Caucasian 1 1.6 English & German 1 1.6 German & European 1 1.6 Greek 1 1.6 Irish & Australian 1 1.6 Italian 1 1.6 Italian & German 1 1.6 Scottish 2 3.2 Western 1 1.6 Western European 1 1.6

Sri Lankan The Sri Lankan respondents represent the following cultural/ethnic backgrounds. The table provides the number of respondents representing these different cultural/ethnic backgrounds, and their percentages (8 persons did not respond to this question). Majority are Singhalese representing 73% of the Sri Lankan respondents. 11.1% of the Sri Lankan respondents have not indicated their culture/ethnic background.

97 Culture/Ethnic Background No. of Respondents Percentage % Muslim 1 1.6 Sinhalese 46 73.0 Sinhalese/Burgher 1 1.6 Sri Lankan 7 11.1

Duration lived in Australia

Australian The following table presents how long the Australian respondents have been living in Australia. The respondents have been living in Australia from 3 years to 65 years (all their lives). On average, the respondents have lived in Australia for 37.5 years (5 persons did not answer this question). Majority of the respondents have lived in Australia for more than 25 years to 45 years. This represents 63.4% of the Australian respondents. Of the Australian respondents, all except 1 person has lived in Australia for more than 15 years. This one person has lived overseas for 20 years.

How Long No. of Respondents Percentage % > 2 - 3 Years 1 1.6 > 15 - 25 Years 5 7.9 > 25 - 35 Years 20 31.7 > 35 - 45 Years 20 31.7 > 45 - 55 Years 7 11.1 > 55 - 65 Years 5 7.9

Sri Lankan The following table presents how long the Sri Lankan respondents have been living in Australia, and their percentages. The Sri Lankan respondents have been living in Australia from 1 week to 36 years. On average, the Sri Lankan respondents have lived in Australia for 9 years. 30.2 % of the respondents have lived in Australia for more than 15 to 25 years. 35% of the Sri Lankan respondents have lived in Australia for more than 15 years.

How Long No. of Respondents Percentage % < 1 Month 4 6.3 1 - 3 Months 1 1.6

98 > 3 - 6 Months 4 6.3 > 6 - 12 Months 6 9.5 > 1 - 2 Years 6 9.5 > 2 - 3 Years 7 11.1 > 3 - 5 Years 5 7.9 > 5 - 10 Years 6 9.5 > 10 - 15 Years 2 3.2 > 15 - 25 Years 19 30.2 > 25 - 35 Years 2 3.2 > 35 - 45 Years 1 1.6

Comparison of demographics of the Australians and the Sri Lankans

In summary, the Australian sample represented 50.8% male and 49.2% female. The Sri Lankan sample represented 61.9% male and 38.1% female. The average age of the Australian respondents was 38.5 years. The average age of the Sri Lankan respondents was 41years. On average, Australian respondents have completed an undergraduate degree. On average, Sri Lankan respondents have completed an undergraduate degree. A majority 58.8% of the Australian respondents are of Catholic/Christian religions. A majority 77.8% of the Sri Lankan respondents are Buddhists. 80.1% of the Australian respondents are of European/Australian origin. 73% of the Sri Lankan respondents are Singhalese. On average the Australian respondents have lived in Australia for 37.5 years. On average, the Sri Lankan respondents have lived in Australia for 9 years.

Thus, this study is comparing Australians and Sri Lankans who on average, have gained a similar level of education and on average, are of a very similar age. Thus, this study is investigating Australians who are of Australian/European origin observing mainly Christian religion with the Sri Lankans of mainly Sinhalese origin and observing Buddhist religion. (The European/Australians have lived in Australia on average three times longer than the time on average the Sri Lankans have lived in Australia.)

99 Stage 2:

Stage two consisted of interviewing of participants. 5 Sri Lankans were interviewed for this research to reflect the demographics of the sample survey group. These 5 interviewees were chosen as they are Singhalese-Buddhists which represent majority of the survey sample, they are of both gender, in different age groups, having a range of experiences, and have lived in Australia for varying years. Demographic information about these interviewees is provided in the table below:

Interviewee profile

How Highest Age Country Culture / long - Interviewee Sex Level of Occupation Religion Range -Born Ethnicity lived in Education Australia

Interviewee1 Business / Sri Female 20-30 Masters Buddhist Singhalese 2.5 Years (Int1) Student Lanka

Buddhist Interviewee2 Business Sri Male 31-40 Masters / Singhalese 6 Years (Int2) Analyst Lanka Christian

Interviewee3 Tutor / PhD Sri Female 31-40 Masters Buddhist Singhalese 6 Months (Int3) Student Lanka

Lecturer / Interviewee4 Sri Female 31-40 Doctorate Research Buddhist 4.5 Years (Int4) Lanka Singhalese Assistant

Lecturer / Interviewee5 Sri Male 41-50 Masters PhD Buddhist Singhalese 2 Years (Int5) Lanka Student

The respondents in this research are Sri Lankans who are currently living and working in Australia. They have been living in Australia for 6months – 6 years. All of them have at least a Masters degree, and have worked in Sri Lanka. They are Singhalese, which is the main cultural group of Sri Lanka, and is of Buddhist origin, which is the main religion of Sri Lanka. Responses provided by these five

100 interviewees to the interview questions are analysed in the qualitative data analysis Chapter 5.

The respondents to the interviews in this investigation have an above average level of education compared to the survey respondents who have an on average an undergraduate degree. The interview respondents were able to reflect on the issues within the questions and were able to articulate responses at the interviews possibly as an outcome of their high level of education.

Procedures

The survey approach:

For this investigation, a survey questionnaire was constructed containing a total of 78 items from 3 instruments to measure the 7 concepts of the face-negotiation model (independent self, interdependent self, self face, other face, dominating, integrating, avoiding) of the two cultural groups, and test hypothesises. The three instruments that are used in this survey are: Singelis (1994) self construal instrument, Ting- Toomey & Oetzel (2001) face concerns instrument, and Putnam and Wilson (1988) organizational communication conflict instrument. Singelis (1994) self construal instrument is used to measure the independent and interdependent self construal. On the survey, 15 items measure independent self and 15 items measure interdependent self. The face concern was measured using Ting-Toomey & Oetzel (2001) face concerns instrument. On this instrument, 11 items measure ‘other face’ and 7 items measure ‘self face’. Putnam and Wilson (1988) organizational communication conflict instrument is used to measure the conflict solution strategies. On the survey instrument, 12 items measure non confrontation (avoiding) strategies, 11 items measure solution-oriented (integrating) strategies, and 7 items measure control (dominating) strategies.

Part A on the survey instrument contained the items on the self construal (Questions 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29 measure independent self, and Questions 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 26, 28, 30 measure interdependent self). Part B contained items on face concern (Questions 4, 12, 18, 22, 29, 32, 34

101 measure self face, and Questions 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33 measure other face), and Part C contained items on the conflict solution strategies (Questions 3, 10, 17, 18, 22, 26, 30 measure dominating strategies, Questions 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 19, 20, 21 measure integrating strategies, and Questions 2, 5, 7, 12, 14, 15, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29 measure avoiding strategies). (See Appendix A)

The investigator chose to use these instruments as they have been previously used in cross-cultural communication research, and have been validated and reliability tested by the authors (Singelis, 1994; Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001; Wilson & Waltman, 1988). The respondents were given hypothetical conflict situations to respond to measure the face concern and conflict style. The self schema items measured a variety of feelings and behaviours in various situations (Singelis, 2008). All items on the questionnaire were measured on a like art type scale. Questions on demographic data were included at the end of the questionnaire.

Materials:

Survey questionnaire instrument

This investigation used previously validated and reliable instruments to measure the variables of the face negotiation model. The three instruments that were used are the Putnam and Wilson’s (1988) Organisational Communication Conflict Instrument (OCCI), Singelis’s (1994) self construal instrument and, Ting-Toomey & Oetzel (2001) face concern instrument. The instrument that is used in this study consists of items of these three instruments as discussed below:

Validity and reliability of survey data

The internal validity of a research instrument is the ability to measure what it is supposed to measure (Cooper & Schindler, 2008), and “a measure is reliable to the degree that it supplies consistent results” (Cooper & Schindler, 2008, p.292). All three instruments that this study is using have been assessed for validity and reliability and found as valid and reliable measures. However, the questions posed can bias the data collection.

102 Self construal instrument

Singelis (1994) developed and used a 24 item scale to measure the independent and interdependent self construal. Singelis later added 6 items to improve internal reliabilities of this original scale. This research adopts the new Singelis’s self- construal scale (2008), which has 30 items to measure the self construal of the participants. On this instrument, 15 items measure independent self and 15 items measure interdependent self.

On the Singelis’ self construal instrument, the Cronbach’s Alpha reliabilities with the 15 items ranges from the high .60’s to the middle .70’s. These reliabilities are adequate considering the broadness of the construct and the wide range of thoughts, feelings, and behaviours assessed by the scale, and do not threaten the validity of the measure (Singelis, 2008).

Face concern instrument

The face concern was measured using Ting-Toomey & Oetzel (2001) face concerns instrument which has high internal consistency and strong face and content validity (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). In this instrument, 11 items measure other face and 7 items measure self face. The face concern was measured with these 18 items in this investigation.

The validity of the face concern measure has been established by submitting data to factor analysis to understand the structure and confirm the validity of the measure. The results showed that the measure could consistently measure face concerns pan- culturally. The measure also has shown good reliabilities for different cultures. The Cronbach’s Alpha reliabilities for face concerns were: other face .87 and self face .80 (Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001).

Organisational communication conflict instrument

There are several methods to explain conflict styles. The main methods are the five- style and three-style models (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). Putnam and Wilson’s

103 (1988) Organisational Communication Conflict Instrument (OCCI) measures five types of conflict strategies: non confrontation, solution orientation, collaboration, compromise and control. This study uses the five style model (OCCI) as these five styles represent the concern for both self and others’ outcomes in an interpersonal conflict (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). There are 30 items that assess these 5 styles on the OCCI. Putnam and Wilson interpret these five styles under three factors. These three factors are non confrontation strategies, solution-oriented (collaboration and compromise) strategies and control strategies. On the Putnam and Wilson OCCI (1988), 12 items measure non confrontation strategies, 11 items measure solution- oriented strategies, and 7 items measure control strategies. This study used the OCCI to measure the three conflict strategies: avoiding, integrating, and dominating of the participants with 30 items which have higher internal consistencies compared to other conflict instruments, and also are high in test-retest reliabilities according to Wilson and Waltman (1988).

Content validity has been assessed for the OCCI. The items on the OCCI focus on verbal and nonverbal tactics similar to other conflict instruments. Construct validity is evaluated by examining convergence between the OCCI and other conflict measures, and it showed expected pattern of correlation with other conflict instruments (Wilson & Waltman, 1988). Reliability has been previously established with the OCCI with several studies (Wilson & Waltman, 1988). The OCCI has higher internal consistencies compared to other conflict instruments, and is also high in test-retest reliabilities (Wilson & Waltman, 1988).

The interview approach:

An interview protocol was developed by the researcher (see Appendix B). The purpose of the interview was to learn about the verbal and non-verbal communication of the participants as they would engage in interaction with a peer, employee or manager in different situations. The interview questions were based around normal work situations, and included conflict in work situations including discussions of work conditions, making requests, asking for/or giving advice, coming to agreements/or disagreements and the like.

104 Some specific questions were asked from all participants followed with probes. Other questions are open ended. These have an informal-in-depth interview approach. Through the interviews, the researcher aimed to gain background knowledge to the negotiation, and clarify both implicit and explicit knowledge of the communication, the interaction style, and knowledge about their culture from respondents. The interviews aim to clarify survey data with the participants, and gain an in depth knowledge of their interaction behaviour. In the case of Sri Lankan respondents, the researcher explored the reported changes to facework by adapting to the Australian culture, and the facework that has not changed through living in Australia. The demographics of the participants were collected at the end of the interviews.

Interview transcripts:

The researcher audiotaped interviews. These records were transcribed for the purpose of analysing the research data.

Validity and reliability of interview data

A number of issues make use of interview data a challenging issue. In qualitative research, the issue of validity is based on the appropriate use of data and the interpretation of data such that it accurately represents the social world as understood by the researcher (Neuman, 2004). This investigation also uses observations made by the interview participants. In this study, the researcher is able to overcome some observer bias as the researcher in this study is a Sri Lankan Australian, who is of Sri Lankan origin and presently living in Australia. The researcher has lived in and has experienced both cultures, and is an insider into this investigation. These circumstances thus make it easier for the investigator to interpret and clarify issues and observations of the respondents of this investigation in an informed way. However, researcher bias can happen in the study. During the interview, asking leading questions, non-verbal cues of the researcher etc. can influence the interviewees/responses. The data through the interviews also mainly comes from the one sector, Australian academia, which may be different to other sectors. The interviewees also may have been reluctant to discuss their negative experiences with

105 the researcher who is a fellow Sri Lankan or even with any other person, or place a positive spin on their experiences in an exercise of saving face.

In semi-structured interviews, the interviewer can ask additional questions to obtain responses to certain topic areas of interest that arise during the interview. By doing the interviews, the researcher was able to investigate relevant in-depth topics and with the magnitude of information as required by the research questions by using semi structured questions and thorough probing. “The greatest value lies in the depth and detail of information that can be secured” (Emory & Cooper, 1991, p.320). Yet the researcher faced limitations by doing the interviews. “There are real advantages as well as clear limitations to personal interviewing” (Cooper & Schindler, 2003, p.325). The researcher was faced with difficulties in finding the persons who were required for this investigation. “Availability is an important source of error for personal interviews. This error occurs when you are not able to locate whom you are supposed to study” (Emory & Cooper, 1991, p.327). It was hard to reach the persons who were most suited for the investigation, because of the factors such as limited contacts, networking and other resources. “Personal interviewing is costly in terms of money and time” (Cooper & Schindler, 2003, p.326). Also, the researcher was unable to fully discover what was intended to find through the proposed research questions. “A difficult task in interviewing is to make certain the answers adequately satisfy the question’s objectives” (Cooper & Schindler, 2003, p.330). Many people are reluctant to talk. Also, the responses gained through the interviewees are limited. “Participant initiated error occurs when the participant fails to answer fully and accurately – either by choice or because of inaccurate or incomplete knowledge” (Cooper & Schindler, 2003, p.333), and also because of limited experience. The researcher was unable to discover fully the intended responses to the questions, because of these reasons and because of the limited number of respondents that was constrained by availability of resources. However, important insights about the facework strategies and the acculturation process used by Sri Lankans working in Australia were achieved.

106 Data analysis methods

There are two methods of data analysis that were completed separately: the quantitative data analysis and the qualitative data analysis.

Quantitative data analysis:

The quantitative data was analysed using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) statistical software version 16. Quantitative research use statistical relationships between variables to discuss causal relations (Neuman, 1997). Quantitative research assumes that “social life can be measured by using numbers”, and when the numbers are manipulated according to statistics, “the numbers reveal features of social life” (Neuman, 1997, p.420). The data collected through the questionnaire was recorded using numerical codes on SPSS. This analysis investigated each variable and its components directed by the research questions and the objective. The analysis included specific values (frequency distribution), highest and lowest values, trends, proportions, and distributions (distribution of values). Once these were explored, then the analysis compared and looked for relationships between variables (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2003a).

A correlation analysis was done between the continuous variables of the self schema, face concern and the conflict style to see the strength and the direction of these variables. In testing hypotheses, an independent-sample t-test was used to compare mean scores on the 7 variables for the Sri Lankans and the Australians (Pallant, 2007). “An independent-samples t-test will tell you whether there is a statistically significant difference in the mean scores for the two groups” (Pallant, 2007, p.233).

Qualitative data analysis:

The aim of the interview data analysis is to ‘transform and interpret research data in a rigorous and scholarly way in order to obtain complexities of the social world that the researcher seeks to explain’ (Punch, 1998). The qualitative data analysis is directed at tracing out lawful and stable relationships among social phenomena based on the regularities and sequences that link these phenomena (Punch, 1998).

107 Analysing the interview data helped with the theory building. These research findings will be discussed later in the analysis of the research data. The analysis consists of three main components that happened concurrently (Punch, 1998):

1. Data reduction

Data reduction occurred continually throughout the analysis. The objective was to reduce data without significant loss of information, and not to strip data from the context.

The early stages of the data analysis included editing, segmenting, and summarising the interview responses. The next stage was associated with finding themes, clusters and patterns of these collected data (the process would identify prominent/common themes reflecting opinions; concepts expressed by the five interviewees as a collective). In the later stage, the researcher developed abstract concepts and sought to explain the relationships between these concepts. Examples of the concepts that were identified through the interviews are: ‘interaction in a conflict situation’ and the ‘communication style difference’ between peers, and between the employees and the managers, in the Sri Lankan and in Australian context.

2. Data display

Data displaying was done by organizing, compressing and assembling information. As the themes emerged, key quotes were identified which exemplified the themes within the interviews. For example, under the theme ‘communication style difference’ the following quotes were identified:

“Sometimes Sri Lankans use more non-verbal language: gestures” (Int4). “I can’t see a big difference between Australians and Sri Lankans in the eye contact” (Int3). “The Australians are very assertive and they are very direct in how they communicate” (Int2). “Most of us at least are not assertive, or loud … they are more soft spoken” (Int2).

108 3. Drawing and verifying conclusions

Reducing and displaying of data is done to assist in drawing conclusions.

The data analysis method used was the grounded theory method (Punch, 2005) and the data analysis was carried out manually as it was only five interviews. However with a large number of interviews, NVivo qualitative data analysis (research) computer software could have been used (Edhlund, 2008; Gibbs, 2002).

Answers to research questions:

The answers to the research questions were investigated both separately and together by the analyses of the quantitative and qualitative data. The themes in this study are concepts of the face negotiation model, and other behaviour styles that were discovered by the qualitative data analysis. The final analysis of the research data and their link to the research questions was done through analysing the results of both the quantitative and qualitative data when confirming conclusions as findings of this research.

Conclusion

This chapter has provided a description about the data of the investigation. This research employs, to a great extent, an exploratory method, as it tries to investigate the facework of the Sri Lankans with the use of a survey questionnaire, and semi- structured interviews. Drawing on 3 previously validated and tested important instruments: stage one of the data collection involved the gathering of responses of the survey questionnaire, and stage two consists of interviewing of the Sri Lankan participants. The survey questionnaire measures the seven concepts of the face negotiation model. The interviews further investigate the findings of the seven concepts of the face negotiation model. Also, the interviews aim at finding values that the respondents hold, and adjustments they make in their behaviours by living in Australia. By using a combined research method of both quantitative and qualitative, the researcher is better able to investigate the answers to the research question that one method would overlook.

109

Chapter 4

Quantitative (survey) data analysis

110 Exploring the strategies in face negotiation: learning from quantitative research

Introduction

This chapter analyses the survey data to explore the research questions. Responses from a total of 126 respondents that comprises 63 Australians and 63 Sri Lankans are used in this investigation. Through this survey data, the researcher is doing a comparative analysis between the facework strategies of the Australians and the Sri Lankans living in Australia. The facework strategies that the researcher is investigating are the seven concepts (independent self, interdependent self, self face, other face, dominating, integrating, avoiding) of the face negotiation model (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). To measure these seven concepts of the face negotiation, the investigator constructed a survey instrument that contains items from three previously validated and reliable instruments. (See Appendix A)

A description of the demographics of the respondents who provided data to this investigation was provided in chapter 3 under the survey sample section. This chapter analyses the responses to the research questions. Data analyses of the responses to the survey questionnaire using statistical analysis software (SPSS) are described in this section. Findings of the analysis of the respondents’ answerers to the research questions by hypothesis testing are further explained in the later half of this chapter. Finally, the findings of the survey to the research questions are summarized.

Data analysis

Data of 126 respondents (63 Australian, and 63 Sri Lankan) to the survey questionnaire are used in this analysis. The survey questionnaire aimed to investigate responses to the questions about the self schema (independent or interdependent), face concern (self face or other face), and the conflict solution strategies (dominating or integrating or avoiding) of the Australians and the Sri Lankans. In this section, the researcher is analysing these responses to the survey questionnaire about the seven concepts of the face negotiation model of Oetzel &

111 Ting-Toomey (2003), provided by the Australians and the Sri Lankans. Also, a correlation analysis is done to examine the relationships amongst these 7 variables. Data was entered on SPSS 16 statistical analysis software to analyse these responses.

Research questions

This quantitative investigation aimed to find answers to these research questions:

A. What are the facework strategies of Sri Lankans working in Australia, in comparison to the other Australians (Australian/European origin) working in Australia?

i. Self Construal: Independent or Interdependent ii. Face Concern: Self Face or Other Face iii. Conflict Strategy: Dominating or Integrating or Avoiding

B. The study aims to see if the following propositions are true for those Sri Lankans working in Australia:

1: Sri Lankans show a greater “interdependent self” and lesser “independent self” schema than Australians 2: Sri Lankans show a greater concern for “other face” and lesser concern for “self” face than Australians 3: Sri Lankans use more “integrating” and “avoidance” and less “dominating” conflict strategies than Australians

Hypothesis testing was done to see if the above propositions are true for the Sri Lankans (described below).

SPSS data analysis

To find answers about the seven concepts and to test the hypotheses, an independent- sample t-test was done to compare mean scores on the 7 variables for the Sri Lankans and the Australians.

112 The two types of variables (dependent and independent) in this study are:

• Independent variable (categorical) – Australian/Sri Lankan • Dependant variable (continuous) – 7 concepts (variables) of the face negotiation model

The statistical analyses below provided the following results for the 7 variables (Independent Self – Interdependent Self, Self Face – Other Face, and Dominating – Integrating – Avoiding) on the face negotiation model for the Sri Lankans and the Australians:

Hypothesis testing

Self Schema

Independent Self – Interdependent Self

An independent samples t-test showed that:

Australian or p N Mean Std. Deviation t Sri Lankan

Independent self Australian 63 74.90 7.890 .998 .320

Sri Lankan 63 73.24 10.651

Interdependent self Australian 63 66.51 8.124 -4.825 .000

Sri Lankan 63 74.17 9.646

Analysis of self schema of Australians and Sri Lankans tested the following hypothesis: -

Independent Self:

H1.10: There is no significant difference in the independent self schema of Sri Lankans and Australians

H1.1a: There is a significant difference in the independent self schema of Sri

113 Lankans and Australians

To test for the difference in the independent self schema of Sri Lankans and Australians, an independent samples t-test was performed.

Results show that the mean value for Australians was not statistically different from the mean value for Sri Lankans for independent self (t (1,124) = .998, p > .05). The mean for Australians was 74.90 (sd = 7.890). The mean for Sri Lankans was 73.24 (sd = 10.651).

Thus, Australians and Sri Lankans living in Australia show similar concern for independent self. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. There is no significant difference in the independent self schema of Sri Lankans and other Australians living in Australia.

Interdependent Self:

H1.20: There is no significant difference in the interdependent self schema of Sri Lankans and Australians

H1.2a: There is a significant difference in the interdependent self schema of Sri Lankans and Australians

To test for the difference in the interdependent self schema of Sri Lankans and Australians, an independent samples t-test was performed.

Results show that the mean value for Sri Lankans was statistically different from the mean value for Australians for interdependent self (t (1,124) = -4.825, p < .05). The mean for Sri Lankans was 74.17 (sd = 9.646). The mean for Australians was 66.51 (sd = 8.124).

Thus, Sri Lankans living in Australia show more concern for interdependent self than the Australians in the study. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis is accepted. There is a significant difference in the interdependent self schema of Sri Lankans and Australians.

114 Face Concern

Self Face – Other Face

An independent samples t-test showed that:

Australian or p N Mean Std. Deviation t Sri Lankan

Self face Australian 63 23.40 4.283 -2.562 .012

Sri Lankan 63 25.17 3.462

Other face Australian 63 32.59 6.841 -4.510 .000

Sri Lankan 63 38.08 6.828

Analysis of face concern of Australians and Sri Lankans: -

Self Face:

H2.10: There is no significant difference in the concern for self face of Sri Lankans and Australians

H2.1a: There is a significant difference in the concern for self face of Sri Lankans and Australians

To test for the difference in the concern for self face of Sri Lankans and Australians living in Australia, an independent samples t-test was performed.

Results show that the mean value for Sri Lankans was statistically different from the mean value for Australians for self face (t (1,124) = -2.562, p < .05). The mean for Sri Lankans was 25.17 (sd = 3.462). The mean for Australians was 23.40 (sd = 4.283).

Thus, Sri Lankans show more concern for self face than other Australians. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis is accepted. There is a significant difference in the concern for self face of Sri Lankans and Australians.

115 Other Face:

H2.20: There is no significant difference in the concern for other face of Sri Lankans and Australians

H2.2a: There is a significant difference in the concern for other face of Sri Lankans and Australians

To test for the difference in the concern for other face of Sri Lankans and Australians, an independent samples t-test was performed.

Results show that, the mean value for Sri Lankans was statistically different from the mean value for Australians for other face (t (1,124) = -4.510, p < .05). The mean for Sri Lankans was 38.08 (sd = 6.828). The mean for Australians was 32.59 (sd = 6.841).

Thus, Sri Lankans show more concern for ‘other face’ than the Australians. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis is accepted. There is a significant difference in the concern for other face of Sri Lankans and Australians.

Conflict Solution Strategy

Dominating – Integrating – Avoiding

An independent samples t-test showed that:

Australian or p N Mean Std. Deviation t Sri Lankan

Dominating Australian 63 22.87 5.763 -1.813 .072

Sri Lankan 63 24.94 6.956

Integrating Australian 63 51.17 8.069 1.103 .272

Sri Lankan 63 49.59 8.078

Avoiding Australian 63 40.48 11.076 -1.753 .082

Sri Lankan 63 43.57 8.587

116 Analysis of conflict solution strategy of Australians and Sri Lankans: -

Dominating:

H3.10: There is no significant difference in the use of dominating conflict strategies of Sri Lankans and Australians

H3.1a: There is a significant difference in the use of dominating conflict strategies of Sri Lankans and Australians

To test for the difference in dominating conflict strategies of Sri Lankans and Australians, an independent samples t-test was performed.

Results show that the mean value for Sri Lankans was not statistically different from the mean value for Australians for the use of dominating strategies (t (1,124) = -1.813, p > .05). The mean for Sri Lankans was 24.94 (sd = 6.956). The mean for Australians was 22.87 (sd = 5.763).

Thus, Australians and Sri Lankans are similar in the use of dominating conflict strategies. Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. There is no significant difference in the use of dominating conflict strategies of Sri Lankans and Australians.

Integrating:

H3.20: There is no significant difference in the use of integrating conflict strategies of Sri Lankans and Australians

H3.2a: There is a significant difference in the use of integrating conflict strategies of Sri Lankans and Australians

To test for the difference in integrating conflict strategies of Sri Lankans and Australians, an independent samples t-test was performed.

Results show that the mean value for Australians was not statistically different from the mean value for Sri Lankans for the use of integrating strategies (t (1,124) = 1.103, p

117 > .05). The mean for Australians was 51.17 (sd = 8.069). The mean for Sri Lankans was 49.59 (sd = 8.078).

Thus, Australians and Sri Lankans are similar in the use of integrating conflict strategies. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. There is no significant difference in the use of integrating conflict strategies of Sri Lankans and Australians.

Avoiding:

H3.30: There is no significant difference in the use of avoiding conflict strategies of Sri Lankans and Australians

H3.3a: There is a significant difference in the use of avoiding conflict strategies of Sri Lankans and Australians

To test for the difference in avoiding conflict strategies of Sri Lankans and Australians, an independent samples t-test was performed.

Results show that the mean value for Sri Lankans was not statistically different from the mean value for Australians for the use of avoiding strategies (t (1,124) = -1.753, p > .05). The mean for Sri Lankans was 43.57 (sd = 8.587). The mean for Australians was 40.48 (sd = 11.076).

Thus, Australians and Sri Lankans are similar in the use of avoiding conflict strategies. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. There is no significant difference in the use of avoiding conflict strategies of Sri Lankans and Australians.

118 Findings of data analysis

Answers to the research questions

In this investigation, the researcher aimed to find answers about the seven concepts of the face negotiation model, a comparative analysis of the Sri Lankans and the Australians working in Australia. Thus, the research question was:

A. What are the facework strategies of Sri Lankans working in Australia, in comparison to the other Australians (Australian/European origin) working in Australia?

i. Self Construal: Independent or Interdependent ii. Face Concern: Self Face or Other Face iii. Conflict Strategy: Dominating or Integrating or Avoiding

Analysis of survey data found the following results for Australians and the Sri Lankans working in Australia, about their self schema, face concern, and the conflict solution strategies:

™ Self Schema Independent Self – Interdependent Self

ƒ Australians and Sri Lankans show similar concern for independent self. ƒ Sri Lankans show more concern for interdependent self than Australians.

™ Face Concern Self Face – Other Face

ƒ Sri Lankans show more concern for self face than Australians. ƒ Sri Lankans show more concern for other face than Australians.

119 ™ Conflict Solution Strategy Dominating – Integrating – Avoiding

ƒ Australians and Sri Lankans are similar in the use of dominating conflict strategies. ƒ Australians and Sri Lankans are similar in the use of integrating conflict strategies. ƒ Australians and Sri Lankans are similar in the use of avoiding conflict strategies.

Relationship between variables

A correlation analysis was done between the continuous variables of the self schema, face concern and the conflict style to see the strength and the direction of these variables.

Correlations

Independent Interdependent Self Other Dominating Integrating Avoiding self self face face Independent Pearson ** ** 1.000 .103 .159 -.011 .275 .246 -.123 self Correlation Interdependent Pearson ** ** ** 1.000 .246 .453 .025 .043 .299 self Correlation Self face Pearson ** * ** 1.000 .326 -.056 .180 .275 Correlation Other face Pearson 1.000 .067 .066 .089 Correlation Dominating Pearson 1.000 .173 -.175 Correlation Integrating Pearson 1.000 -.062 Correlation Avoiding Pearson 1.000 Correlation

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). p < .01 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). p < .05

Pearson Correlation = r Sig. (2-tailed) = p

The correlation analysis showed a number of relationships between the variables of the face negotiation for Australians and the Sri Lankans in this investigation:

120 Independent self: Independent self has a weak positive relationship to Dominating (r = .275, p < .01). Also, Independent self has a weak positive relationship to Integrating (r = .246, p < .01).

Interdependent self: Interdependent self has a weak positive relationship to Self face (r = .246, p < .01), and Interdependent self has a moderate positive relationship to Other face (r = .453, p < .01). Also, Interdependent self has a weak positive relationship to Avoiding (r = .299, p < .01).

Self face: Self face has a moderate positive relationship to Other face (r = .326, p < .01). Self face also has a weak positive relationship to Avoiding (r = .275, p < .01).

Analysis of the relationship between variables

These results show that individuals high in independent self would take dominating and integrating strategies and individuals high in interdependent self would take avoiding conflict strategies. The results also demonstrate that individuals who show an interdependent self construal have concern for both self face and for other face, but show more concern for other face than for self face. The results also show that individuals who have concern for self face would take avoiding conflict strategies. Most importantly, the results show that individuals who show concern for self face also would show concern for other face.

Discussion

The face-negotiation model (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003) explains that self- construal is one’s self-image and is composed of independent and interdependent self. In the independent self, the individual is a unique entity with an individuated collection of feelings, cognitions, and motivations. The interdependent self stresses the importance of relational connectedness. Also, Brew & Cairns (2004) describe that independent self involves high differentiation. This points to strong distinctions

121 between self and other, and interdependent self involves a cognitive style referred to as low differentiation meaning only slight distinctions between self and other.

The results of this investigation show that Australians and Sri Lankans show similar concern for independent self, but Sri Lankans show more concern for interdependent self than Australians. These results indicate that Sri Lankans have individuated collection of feelings, cognitions, and motivations, yet a cognitive style referred to as low differentiation, meaning only slight distinctions between self and other and stress on the importance of relational connectedness. According to the face negotiation model, individualistic cultures have an independent self schema, and collectivistic cultures have an interdependent self schema (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). Individualism and collectivism is connected with the concept of identity. How do we see our sense of self? Individualistic cultures emphasize the "I" identity and collectivistic cultures emphasize the "We" identity, which is a fundamental difference between western and eastern cultures (Ting -Toomey, 1992). According to the results of this study, the Sri Lankans emphasise the “I” identity similarly to the other Australians, yet they emphasise the “we” identity more than the Australians. These results indicate that Sri Lankans show both individualist “I” identity and the collective “we” identity values with regards to the concept of identity. Nonetheless, they emphasise collective values or “we” identity more than the Australians.

Face negotiation theory also emphasises that Self face is the concern for one’s own image, and other face is the concern for another’s image (Oetzel, Ting-Toomey et al., 2001). As further described by Brew & Cairns (2004), in individualist cultures, “self” is different from “other”, but in collectivist cultures, “self” is interdependent with other. The face-negotiation model (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003) explains that members of individualistic cultures have a greater concern for self-face and lesser concern for other-face than members of collectivistic cultures, and collectivistic cultures have a greater concern for other-face and lesser concern for self-face. The results in this investigation show that Sri Lankans show more concern for self face than Australians. Also, Sri Lankans show more concern for other face than Australians. These results signify that Sri Lankans living in Australia have more concern for both self face and other face, which is representative of both individualist

122 and collective values. In regards to concern for self and other, Sri Lankans are high on both individualist and collectivist values than the Australians.

In contrast to Oetzel & Ting-Toomey’s (2003) explanation about face concerns, Siira, Rogan et al. (2004) state that people from individualist and low context cultures are mainly concerned with self-face maintenance and to claim and defend ‘I’ identity and on the other hand, members of collectivist and high context cultures are concerned with both self-face and other face maintenance for the purpose of maintaining relational harmony and to disperse shame and embarrassment. Facework in collectivist cultures thus focus on “how to lend role-support to another’s face and at the same time not bring shame to one’s own self-face” (Siira, Rogan et al., 2004, p.93). The data from this study supports this statement about the Sri Lankans by showing higher concern for both self face and other face than the Australians.

As explained by Ting-Toomey (2005), international face saving strategies (conflict solution strategies) can span the range of dominating, avoiding, and integrating behaviours: Dominating facework strategies focus on presenting a forceful image and ‘want to win’ approach to conflict through competitive one-up/one-down strategies and the use of defensive and aggressive interaction strategies. Avoiding facework emphasises the preservation of relational harmony by not directly dealing with the conflict upfront. Integrating facework emphasises both the content resolution of the conflict and the importance of relationship preservation.

From the Face-Negotiation Model (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003), it can be inferred that members of individualistic cultures tend to use more dominating conflict strategies than members of collectivistic cultures, and collectivistic cultures use more integrating and avoiding conflict strategies. The results of this study show that Sri Lankans use dominating, integrating, and avoiding conflict strategies similarly to the Australians in a conflict situation. The results in this study indicate that Sri Lankans use dominating strategies, want to win the conflict through competitive one-up/one- down strategies similarly to the Australians, and also use avoiding strategies: preservation of relational harmony and integrating strategies; content resolution of the conflict; and the importance of relationship preservation similarly to the Australians. The results of this study show that Sri Lankans use dominating conflict

123 solution strategies similarly as members of individualist cultures. This indicates that Sri Lankans living in Australia hold individualist values that they explicate in a conflict solution situation. It may also be due to blending in with the Australian culture and as an adaptation strategy that they have integrated over time.

The Sri Lankans in this study have shown that they are similar to the Australians in the independent self schema, self face, and the use of dominant conflict solution strategies. This clearly shows that Sri Lankans have a tendency to illustrate individualist values in the use of face and face negotiation in a conflict situation, though they have shown higher in interdependent self and other face, which are values indicative of collectivist cultures; stressing the importance on relational connectedness, and showing more concern for other face than in individualist cultures.

Ting-Toomey (2005) argues that independent self construal is predominantly associated with people of individualistic cultures, while interdependent self construal is predominantly associated with people of collectivistic cultures. However, as Ting- Toomey points out, both dimensions of self exist within each individual, regardless of cultural identity. There may be more communication situations that evoke the need for independent based decisions and behaviours in individualistic cultural communities and, there may be more situations that demand the sensitivity for interdependent based decisions and actions in collectivist communities (p.85). As Ting-Toomey (2005) suggests and this study has shown, Sri Lankans hold both individualist and collective values, still showing higher interdependence and concern for other face (which is indicative of a collectivist culture). In contrast, the study also shows that Sri Lankans are higher in self face concern than the Australians which is regarded as an individualist value. The need to execute this approach may be the outcome of living in Australia.

Conclusion

The survey questionnaire aimed at finding answers to a comparative analysis of the facework strategies of the Sri Lankans and other Australians working in Australia. This study adopted the face negotiation model (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003) in

124 finding the facework strategies of the two cultural groups. The study investigated the seven concepts (independent self, interdependent self, self face, other face, dominating, integrating and avoiding) on the face negotiation model to investigate the facework strategies of the Australians and the Sri Lankans.

Data analysis of responses to the survey questions on a comparison of these seven concepts of the Australians and the Sri Lankans found the following results:

ƒ Australians and Sri Lankans show similar concern for independent self. ƒ Sri Lankans show more concern for interdependent self than Australians. ƒ Sri Lankans show more concern for self face than Australians. ƒ Sri Lankans show more concern for other face than Australians. ƒ Australians and Sri Lankans are similar in the use of dominating conflict strategies. ƒ Australians and Sri Lankans are similar in the use of integrating conflict strategies. ƒ Australians and Sri Lankans are similar in the use of avoiding conflict strategies.

Also, three prepositions were made for the Australians and the Sri Lankans drawing on the conceptualisation of the face negotiation model. The prepositions made were: Sri Lankans show a greater “interdependent self” schema than Australians. Sri Lankans show a greater concern for “other face” than Australians, and Sri Lankans use more “integrating” and “avoidance” conflict strategies than Australians. These three prepositions were tested through hypotheses testing. An independent-sample t- test was done to test these hypotheses. Hypotheses testing provided the following result: Sri Lankans show a greater “interdependent self” schema than Australians, Sri Lankans show a greater concern for “other face” than Australians, and Sri Lankans are similar to Australians in the use of “integrating” and “avoidance” conflict strategies.

A correlation analysis was conducted to understand the relationship between the variables on the face negotiation model for the Australians and the Sri Lankans. The correlation analysis showed a number of relationships between the variables of the face negotiation model for Australians and Sri Lankans. These results show that

125 independent self has a weak positive relationship to dominating and also, independent self has a weak positive relationship to integrating. Interdependent self has a weak positive relationship to self face and, also interdependent self has a moderate positive relationship to other face. Interdependent self has a weak positive relationship to avoiding. The results also show that self face has a moderate positive relationship to other face and also, self face has a weak positive relationship to avoiding. Yet, independent self was not significantly related to either self face or other face.

According to the face negotiation model (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003), individualistic cultures have an independent self schema, a greater concern for self- face and lesser concern for other-face, and tend to use more dominating conflict strategies than collectivistic cultures. In contrast, collectivistic cultures have an interdependent self schema, have a greater concern for other-face and lesser concern for self-face, and use more integrating and avoiding conflict strategies. This investigation revealed somewhat different findings about facework strategies of the Sri Lankans who work in Australia.

The findings of the survey also indicate that the Sri Lankans show well developed individualist as well as collectivist values, which are reflected in their use of facework strategies that are representative of both individualist and collectivist cultures. These findings align with Ting-Toomey’s (2005) argument, where it is claimed, “both dimensions of self exist within each individual, regardless of cultural identity, yet independence is higher in individualist cultures, and interdependence is higher in collectivist cultures” (p.85). This statement supports the findings in this investigation about the facework strategies of the Sri Lankans, where it has been shown that the interdependent self is higher in Sri Lankans than the Australians. Also according to Siira, Rogan et al. (2004) members of collectivist and high context cultures are concerned with both self-face and other face maintenance for the purpose of maintaining relational harmony and to disperse shame and embarrassment. Similarly, Sri Lankans have shown to be higher in both self face concern and other face concern.

126 Along with the values they hold, and as a result of living in Australia, the Sri Lankans may get the space to execute individualist values, subsequently them showing independendent self construal, and dominating conflict solution strategies similarly to the Australians, and showing concern for self face more than the Australians.

127

Chapter 5

Qualitative (interview) data analysis

128 Understanding the hidden roles of face negotiation

Introduction

This chapter analyses the interview responses to the interview questions (see Appendix B). However, in the first section of Chapter 5, the differences that the interviewees experienced living firstly in Sri Lanka and then in Australia are outlined. Through the interviews, the researcher aimed to further clarify answers that were found through the survey to this main research question: “what are the facework strategies of the Sri Lankans working in Australia”. The researcher aimed at exploring data about the self schema, face concern, and conflict solution strategies of the Sri Lankan respondents as it was identified in the survey outcome, and investigate the values they hold that influence these facework strategies of the Sri Lankans working in Australia and how have Sri Lankans adjusted their facework strategies to the Australian culture. Thus, the interviews aimed to explore the values and behaviours of the Sri Lankans, the adjustments Sri Lankans make to Australian culture, and the values and behaviour that have not changed.

The researcher tape-recorded the 5 interviews with the Sri Lankans. These interview responses were transcribed according to the interview questions, and then these responses were categorised under eight key themes. Accordingly, the responses provided by all interviewees (Int1, Int2, Int3, Int4, and Int5) were then analysed under each of these key themes.

There are eight key themes that emerge from the interview data:

ƒ Communication style difference ƒ Interaction with the manager ƒ Interaction with peers ƒ Interaction in a conflict situation ƒ Concern for self face and other face ƒ Dependence – independence ƒ Change ƒ Values

129 The interviewees have lived in Australia for a limited time period, and have up to only six years experience in Australia. Also, the interviewees have only been exposed to only one or two employment sectors, mostly in academia and with few corporate experiences, in Australia as well as in Sri Lanka. The government, corporate and other sectors are very much different to academia in their organisational culture and practices in both countries. As a result of these limited experience, the responses provided by the interviewees are mostly in relation to the academic environment. If they have had exposure to a variety of employment sectors and practices, they would likely have discussed different experiences in these organisations in their interview responses. Therefore, the interview responses do not relate to an array of organisational cultures and practices.

During the interviews, the interviewees made comparisons between their experience in Sri Lanka and their Australian experience. These interview findings are analysed in this chapter. The themes in this analysis are drawn from the face negotiation model, and also those discovered from the interview responses. Answers to the research questions are further discussed at the end of this chapter.

Communication style difference

This section analyses the general communication style differences between Sri Lankans and Australians as described by the Sri Lankan interviewees from their experiences and observations. These are the differences in the languages and the nonverbal communication the two nations use, and also the differences in the styles of communication they use: for example, assertive and loud versus soft spoken, and the respect for seniority that is practised in Sri Lanka.

Language difference

As a young student in Australia, one interviewee (Int1) described her experiences of interacting with others in Australia:

130 When I first came here I found that it is really different from my country. Sometimes I could not understand what they were speaking, because they were speaking fast and I could not understand what they were telling. Their accent is very different. In Sri Lanka, it is very clear the way they speak. They speak very slowly and we can hear each word (Int1).

Interviewee 1 further described how she adjusted herself, and how her behaviour has changed sometime after living in Australia:

But after few months, I can talk to anybody here now, and I am used to their words and their accent. I think it is more I have changed. I am now used to them; their culture, their accent, and I am not afraid to ask questions and do my work alone (Int1).

Also, two respondents (students) who came to study here had language barriers, as explained by one respondent:

As Sri Lankans, we studied in our mother tongue in Sri Lanka. But here it is quite different; we have the difficulty in explaining everything that comes to our mind in English (Int4).

Gestures

As interviewee 4 states, “the main communication difference is the two languages they use” (Int4). The interviewees described the differences in non verbal communication between the Sri Lankans and the Australians in their expressions and eye contact:

Expression Sometimes Sri Lankans use more non-verbal language: gestures. In the Sri Lankan culture, the people use lot of expressions: with the words they use body language such as using hands to explain something, and for example, using their hands to say goodbye. Here in Australia, they use more words (Int4).

131 Eye contact I can’t see a big difference between Australians and Sri Lankans in the eye contact (Int3) … In our country sometimes we don’t keep eye contact much (Int1).

Interviewee 5 described another observation about the Sri Lankans where they use gestures instead of verbal communication:

I have noticed some Sri Lankans in Sri Lanka, when I want to do some work and if you want to reject my request; they turn away. They do not directly see your face or eyes. That is a main observation I obtained in Sri Lanka. But I didn’t see it here. The people talk to you directly: if you can’t do my work. They do not use that type of gestures (Int5).

Differences in verbal communication style - direct/assertive/loud vs. soft spoken

Int2 described the communication style difference between Australians and Sri Lankans as:

The Australians are very assertive and they are very direct in how they communicate. They are objective, and they are loud. Another thing I should add is that maybe Australians are a little more culturally insensitive. You can’t be direct to an Asian or South Asian the same way or you come out as being rude; especially when someone is new here. So when I am communicating with a Sri Lankan or someone from that part of the world, then I need to tone down the vocabulary I use and, I am assertive and of course even being assertive can be a problem. Most of us at least are not assertive, or loud … they are more soft spoken, and here they are a little bit louder (Int2).

Respect for seniority

Interviewee 2 explained the difference in treating seniority in Australia and in Sri Lanka:

132 On the non-verbal side, it is the level of respect that we show to seniors in Sri Lanka. I don’t think it exists to the same extent here. Getting up from your seat when someone walks in, that sort of thing doesn’t exist here. And sometimes in Sri Lanka you wouldn’t look someone in the eye if that person were a senior, which basically doesn’t exist here. I am not saying that we don’t respect our superiors here it is just that calling your boss by your first name is non-existent in Sri Lanka, whereas here you can basically call anyone by their first name. I thought it was a bit of a shock (Int2).

As Interviewee 2 described:

Generally in Sri Lanka, you have to respect your elders and seniors or superiors or visitors, people are very hospitable in Sri Lanka. So even if you know the other person is wrong you would keep quiet so that you don’t offend the other person (Int2).

This is done out of respect and suggests a culture which has respect for age and seniority.

Summary

This section analysed the general communication style differences between Australia and Sri Lanka. Some key differences were identified. When the interviewees first arrived in Australia, they had difficulty in understanding the Australian accent. But after few months they could easily understand the accent, and were able to go about and do their work without any difficulty. Also, keeping eye contact is done more in Australia than in Sri Lanka. In Sri Lanka, they do not address their seniors by the first name as they do here, and also in Sri Lanka, they show more respect when interacting with the seniors to a greater extent compared to in Australia.

Sri Lanka is a collectivist society (Knoll, 2004), and Australia represents an individualist society (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Research also shows that, individualist cultures are low context, and collectivist cultures are high context (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005; Merkin, 2000). Members of collectivistic cultures

133 expect greater verbal indirectness, politeness, and non immediacy than members of individualistic cultures (Gudykunst & Lee, 2003).

As the interviewees explained, the Sri Lankans use more expression such as gestures when they communicate with others. But in Australia, it is more the words that they use when they communicate with others. Australians are assertive and loud when they communicate with others compared to the Sri Lankans. The Sri Lankans are soft spoken and they are not assertive or loud. The Australians are direct in communicating, whereas the Sri Lankans generally are not so direct in communicating as a way of being polite.

As Kim (2005) describes, the perceived importance of avoiding hurting the hearer’s feelings and minimizing imposition is higher in more collectivistic cultures. In high- context cultures, nonverbal communication and subtleness are appreciated, differing to frankness and directness (Siira, Rogan et al., 2004). As Korac-Kakabadse, Kouzmin et al. (2001) also point out, tone is important in high context cultures, and gestures are also significant in communication. Also, those with an interdependent self tend to avoid negative emotions, and those with an independent self tend to express ego-focused emotions such as anger, or an overt act of self-promotion to assert autonomy or competence (Brew & Cairns, 2004).

Interaction with the manager

This section describes the interaction style differences between the employees and the supervisors in Australia and in Sri Lanka as the Sri Lankan interviewees explain. It explores the difference in how a junior employee interacts with a manager in Sri Lanka, compared to in Australia. The section describes the kind of relationship the employees have with the supervisors: whether it is task oriented or relationship oriented; and how formal and informal is the relationship between the employees and the supervisors in Australia compared to in Sri Lanka. Also, this section looks into how the authoritative and the hierarchical system in Sri Lanka works, and the power influence the style of communication between the manager and the employees, and about the style of reprimand some mangers take towards subordinates in Sri Lanka.

134 Interaction between a junior employee and the manager

A young employee with little work experience, Interviewee 1, explained her interaction with the boss in Sri Lanka as a polite obedient approach, and other interviewees as taking a more direct approach when communicating with their bosses. Interviewee 1, with limited experience and of younger age, explained the interaction style difference with the manager in Australia and in Sri Lanka. As Int1 describes:

In Sri Lanka, initially we go in to ask whether you have time to talk, because they are elder than us, we have to be polite when we talk to them … may be they are good. There the managers don’t come and talk and we feel that we need to obey them. The good thing here, we can talk about anything to the manager but in Sri Lanka when we talk to the manager, we can tell our ideas but it is a bit different. The way you approach, you have to go through a process. We have to be more polite and obedient, and when an elder person or manager is talking to me I do not answer back to them. To my friends it is different: I talk back. Yet for the manager, if I feel I did the correct thing, I will explain why I did it, why I did that way and answer back, but not in an aggressive way (Int1).

Relationship vs. task oriented

Interviewees describe the differences at work between managers and employees in Australia and Sri Lanka:

The knowledge or the skills, so the attitude or being able to do something better are more important here. In Sri Lanka, if someone is related to the manager or it is whom you know and how you are connected to and things like that (Int2). Basically, when you go to your boss or supervisor in Sri Lanka you just talk about your job, and only about your work; like what research you are going to do, or what you expect from the supervisor. So you will be concentrating only on duty type, nothing-friendly kind. But here we can talk about anything even if it is personal (Int4).

135 Formal vs. informal

As Interviewee 1 states, the interaction with the boss is more informal in Australia and more formal in Sri Lanka. Other interviewees also explained the relationship between the manager and the supervisor as formal in Sri Lanka and informal in Australia. As Int3 and Int4 describe:

Here most people are really friendly. Sometime the supervisor comes to me, actually to my desk if he needs to say something to me. I can see this difference here, because normally in Sri Lanka, the supervisor never comes to us. We have to go to meet him (Int3). The relationship with the supervisor is formal in Sri Lanka, and it is more informal in Australia (Int4).

Authority – hierarchy

Interviewees described how authority and the hierarchy influence the communication between the manager and the employee in Sri Lanka. As Int4 and Int5 describe:

In Sri Lanka, you can see some authoritative system, but I didn’t see it here (Int5). In Sri Lanka, it is always the hierarchy of the positions. Always there is a kind of authority and the top person, and you always have to say ‘madam’ or ‘sir’. So when you learn the word sir or madam, in Sri Lankan context always come up with the idea that you are always below and sir or madam is always top; though that is not the real meaning of the word. Here we call everyone by their name. That difference is there (Int4).

In Australia, the people are work-oriented. In Sri Lanka, the people are bit power oriented. They want to secure and show their power to the subordinate and if something is done against them, they try to punish and take disciplinary action. That’s the thing that supervisor or manager always tries to do. But here people are bit work-oriented. I didn’t see such things done here (Int5).

136 Power relationship

Interviewee 4 explains how the power of the authorities influences the communication between the employee and the supervisor:

In a work situation, if someone is going to say sir or madam, person whom you are talking to is having the power of controlling you or your ideas, and your verbal outcomes. Here when you go to your supervisor, you talk to your supervisor by their name. And of course we have respect and loyalty towards the supervisor, and still you can explain everything to your supervisor in Australia. In Sri Lanka it is quite different; you won’t say everything you want to (Int4).

Particularly in Sri Lanka, before going to your supervisor, or to your boss you pre-plan the things you are going to talk about to your supervisor, or to your boss, and you are more specific on the words you are going to use. You think beforehand what you are going to talk in Sri Lanka. But here I think I only have the idea in my mind, I’m not preparing the words and how to speak out and things like that. One thing is there is the language difference here. I am not saying that I can explain everything, but sometimes if I cannot explain it the listener or the supervisor who is there they will be able to understand that I am going to express this idea (Int4).

In Sri Lanka, there is this hierarchal difference, which you have to obey. So before you go to your boss, because of this hierarchical order or respect, because of that reason, you have to prepare. But here you do not have to prepare because it is a friendly approach (Int4).

Dealing with difficult situations

Interviewees describe that it is easy to communicate with the managers in Australia (Int3 and Int4), and difficult to communicate with the managers in Sri Lanka (Int4 and Int5), and also interviewee 5 described the kind of reprimand taken by some of the managers in Sri Lanka:

137 It is difficult in Sri Lanka to communicate with your senior bosses. But it is not that difficult here (Int4). I can easily communicate with my supervisor here (Int3). Sri Lankan officers, supervisors, and managers are generally aggressive. But I did not see in Australia (Int5). When I did something wrong in Sri Lanka, normally our supervisor or manager would charge you, blame publicly among other peers. I think that is not suitable practice. I don’t mean that is been done by all managers or supervisors in Sri Lanka. But in Australia I work in one place, and the managers; they don’t publicly blame if I did something wrong with my work. They privately talk about the mistake; they don’t blame in front of other peers (Int5).

Interviewee 5 further described a difficult situation with the boss in Sri Lanka:

In Sri Lanka as I wanted to secure my job, I do not talk much even the boss or manager is incorrect. I am not going to argue with them because I have to secure the job. If not, I could point out to them the right and wrong: I was not the person who did wrong; it is your fault or something. On some occasions, I kept quiet but when it was going to extreme, I did not. On one occasion, I argued with my boss. He got angry with me so he punished me; not directly but indirectly he punished me as an academic there. Later on, I met him and he regretted what he did (Int5).

This suggests that, Sri Lankan employees take a confrontational approach with their supervisors, yet the managers are not willing to take a consultative approach with their employees in Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankans are more comfortable with the system in Australia, as the managers take a consultative approach in dealing with their employees in Australia.

Summary

This section analysed the interaction style differences between the employees and the supervisors in Australia and in Sri Lanka. People from large power distance cultures tend to be more collective and, people from small power distance cultures tend to be more individualistic (Merkin, 2006a). Sri Lanka has a high power distant culture

138 (Waisfisz, 1992), and Australia has a low power distant culture (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). In high context cultures, the human element and personal relationship have a larger role in communication (Rosenbloom & Larsen, 2003). People engage in obedient, peaceful, and cooperative communicative strategies that compromise or collaborate with others. In contrast, small power distance cultures do not mind creating face-threatening conflicts while expressing themselves for clarity (Merkin, 2006a). Yet, the Sri Lankans in the study do not show obedience in dealing with their managers, but express themselves for clarity, and confront their superiors in a conflict situation. However, in general, Sri Lankans would engage in peaceful, cooperative strategies in communicating with others. Sri Lankan culture may consider being ‘confronting’ as ‘rude’ or ‘impolite’ / ‘badly brought up’ more than in Australia.

According to Hendon, Hendon et al., (1998), high power distance cultures are status conscious and respectful of age and seniority (Hendon, Hendon et al., 1998). Junior employees show a more polite obedient approach when interacting with their supervisor than the more senior employees in Sri Lanka, and a junior employee wouldn’t generally answer back to a senior person. Obedience is not common among people of small power distance cultures. The reason being, that they value participation in decision making (Merkin, 2006a).

Communication in high-context cultures is generally more indirect and formal, and communication in low-context cultures is more direct and informal (Theodore & Andrew, 2004). The Sri Lankan employees comment on the relationship between the Australian managers and employees as a friendly and informal style, but the relationship between the Sri Lankan managers and the employees have a formal style. In Australia, it is important to be able to do the task, more than the relationship to the other person in a relationship between the employee and the manager, but in Sri Lanka it is more the relationship that is important.

Cultures high in power distance tend to be authoritarian societies (Merkin, 2006a). Low context cultures are informal, allow more equality in interaction, and place less emphasis on hierarchies (Irwin, 1996). As the interviewees confirmed, in Australia, you can talk any thing with the supervisor, and it is a more a friendly style. But in

139 Sri Lanka, it is only about the duty you talk with your supervisor, which is a more formal style. In Sri Lanka, there is the hierarchy and the authorities, because of this reason there is a division of power between the supervisor and the subordinate. This authoritarian style has a large effect on the communication style between employees and managers compared to the style in Australia.

Conflict is also influenced by individual organisational culture and climate, which play a role in boss/employee interactions. The employees in Australia address the manager by the first name. But in Sri Lanka, they have to call sir or madam. In Sri Lanka, employees have to be specific and prepare what they want to say to their boss, but in Australia employees do not have to do that because it is a friendly approach. Equally, some managers in Sri Lanka would charge the employees or blame publicly, which does not occur in Australia. In Sri Lanka, the employee would not talk to the manager much even if the manager was incorrect. Nonetheless, in a conflict situation, the employees do approach their manager to explain their views to come to a solution. Interaction between the employee and the supervisor is formal in Sri Lanka, and it is informal in Australia. Never the less, those who had lived in Australia for a significant length time and worked in different sectors and organisations may also know that bosses in Australia have more power over their subordinates within the organisation than in Sri Lanka in spite of not being called Sir / Madam etc.

Interaction with peers

This section analyses the interaction style differences between peers in Sri Lanka and in Australia.

Objective vs. relationship oriented

As one interviewee (Int2) explains, the interaction with peers is more relationship oriented in Sri Lanka and it is more democratic in Australia:

140 In Australia I find when we are working with peers it is easier that you can approach them directly, and talk to them. I think they are more objective here than in Sri Lanka. Basically unless someone is really a good friend, in Sri Lanka, we need to think more about the relationships, how old the other person is, what kind of relationship is to the other person … I think it is more about politics in the work environment. If someone is close to the boss or then they have their favourites and what not; you don’t want to say much in Sri Lanka. Here, you don’t have to worry about certain things, and if you have to address a situation you can address the situation without having to worry about the relationship and politics (Int2).

Although Interviewee 2 asserts it above, bosses having favourites is not limited to Sri Lanka. In fact, a boss in Australia can officially do a lot more favours for a favourite and more harm to an employee when offended than in Sri Lanka. While who you know outside the organisation may matter more in Sri Lanka than in Australia, the old boy network / old school ties may matter more in Australia than in Sri Lanka.

Interviewees (Int5, Int4, and Int1) further described the interaction between peers at work as:

In Sri Lanka, we have the freedom to talk with peers. But I have noticed one thing, that while you are working in Australia we do not talk much with the peers. In Sri Lanka, while we are working we talk lot of things with peers; family things, personal things, and other things; that is inefficiency. But here I did not see that environment. Here they also talk after finishing their work (Int5). The relationship with colleagues is informal both in Sri Lanka and in Australia (Int4). Here as they are from different countries they always try to collaborate a bit more (Int1). The relationship with friends is more formal in Australia, and it is more informal in Sri Lanka (Int4).

It should be noted in regards to the above description that, the concept of ‘friendship’ can also vary between groups, contexts, and individuals – just as between collectivist versus individualist cultures.

141 Summary

This section analysed the interaction style differences between peers in the study of 5 Sri Lankans and their peers in Australia. According to Hendon, Hendon et al. (1998), in individualistic cultures, people tend to put tasks before relationships. Interaction at work with peers is more objective in Australia, and you can address the situation without having to think about their relationships. In Sri Lanka, one needs to think about the relationship of their peers. In Sri Lanka, while at work, peers talk more about other things and in Australia it does not happen to that extent at work, and in Australia employees collaborate more at work. The relationship with colleagues is informal both in Sri Lanka and in Australia.

Interaction in a conflict situation

This section analyses the interaction stye differences in a conflict situation between peers and between the supervisor and the employee in Sri Lanka and in Australia. Also, this section looks into how employees come to a solution when they are in a conflict with a peer or the manager in both cultures, and the situations where the employees would try to win or avoid when they are in a conflict situation with a peer or the manager in the two cultures.

As an employee with peers and supervisors

The interviewees explained their approaches in a conflict situation with a peer and the supervisor, both here and in Sri Lanka.

As Int5 describes:

In a conflict situation, if I am wrong I keep silent or I beg pardon … I try to negotiate with them, especially with peers and also with the supervisor. If I am not wrong then I explain to them this is the thing this is what happened or I try to explain that I’m not wrong in that sense (Int5).

142 Difference in Australia and in Sri Lanka

Interviewee 2 further described the difference in a conflict situation between the two countries. As one interviewee (Int2) described:

Here it is not about going to win or it is not about going to lose. I am being more objective in terms of a conflict situation. You go in with an open mind just to find the best solution. What is different is the approach. In Australia, we go with clear objectives in mind what we have to achieve out of this and we talk about issues. If someone was to show that I am doing something in the wrong way, I don’t take it personally any more. Basically, if that person has a point and I am at fault and I have an issue, I am accepting that; which is somewhat different to how I would behave a few years ago when I was in Sri Lanka (Int2).

Politics does play a big part. If it is with a peer you have to be right in both countries. You have to show that you are right otherwise you will lose their respect. But on the other hand even if you are having a bit of a debate, you wouldn’t be having a debate with your superior … you would give in even if your boss is wrong in order to maintain the relationship in Sri Lanka, which I don’t have to do here (Int2).

Cultural as well as individual factors come into play in all behaviours. All members of any culture do not behave the same way / at all times / contexts.

Coming to a solution

Interviewees (Int4, Int2 and Int3) described how they would come to a solution when they are in a conflict situation with the supervisor and with a peer in Australia and in Sri Lanka:

In solving just mild differences with a supervisor, I just say this is my point of view. If he or she neglects it; I will try to explain to him or her; this is my idea and this will be the outcome that is going to be if this is happening. I try

143 to explain. If the supervisor doesn’t want to take it I have to just keep my mouth shut. Here also the same. If I have a problem I try to explain it to my supervisor or boss. Sometimes I try to explain it several times when my explanation is not that powerful, so then my point of view does get understood. If I explain my point of view most of the time there is more chance to get it implemented, because I can explain it nicely, clearly and precisely. So that means I can get a favourable solution if I explain it both here and in Sri Lanka (Int4).

In Sri Lanka, coming to a solution when there was conflict with the manager or supervisor; you have to do a lot of planning. You have to pick a time, and I would initiate to solve it. I had a few managers; it was useless talking to them because when they’ve made up their mind they were not objective. I basically ignored them. In Sri Lanka, it is basically if one has an opinion, especially if the supervisor has an opinion, they don’t want to be proven wrong. If you were then to prove them wrong, they would take it personal and they would feel insulted in that way. They think that being older is being wiser so especially when you are very young they wouldn’t accept that. But here the age doesn’t mean anything as long as you have substance behind what you are saying they will accept it. That is definitely a difference (Int2).

So to solve a problem with supervisor or colleague, I use different approaches. With a colleague in Sri Lanka, I would have kind of a friendly discussion. If it is a difficult issue I will ask someone who can handle the situation, or I will ask a friend who is a friend of both of us to help with the situation. But that is not possible here. So if you are not a friend of my other friend, you might get offended; get angry and not want to talk to that person. So finally, I will talk straight away with the person in conflict. In Sri Lanka or here I am not going to have arguments. I will put it in a very mild way (Int4).

In my Department in Sri Lanka, when we are going to make some decision regarding some of the public matter, then various people have various ideas. To come to a conclusion for the people is a problem sometime. So they make

144 a vote and they take the decision of the majority, and sometime through negotiation they solve the problem (Int3).

Win – avoid

Three interviewees (Int5, Int4, Int2) described the situations where they want to win or avoid when they are in a conflict. Interviewee 5 and Interviewee 4 explained when they would try to win in a conflict:

My nature is, always try to win; winning is if I did not do wrong thing. It does not mean in a situation where I did something wrong, then I do not try to win. In a situation where I was correct, I try to win. Sometimes I argue with my supervisors and bosses to win. In Australia also I take the same approach. Even though I’m living in Australia my general behaviour has not changed. If something done wrong I explain to them (Int5).

Interviewee 5 would take the same approach with peers in a conflict situation. As he described: “I always try to win when I deal with peers, when I am not wrong. With peers if I am wrong, then I accept that I’m wrong” (Int5).

Interviewee 4 explained when / why she would want to win, and how it is important to explain the facts in a conflict situation:

Usually I want to win a situation if it is with my values. If it is really what has happened and is the truth, then I try to win. In the work situation it is different because you are working with your boss. The Sri Lankan culture has trained us to be loyal to your boss. So in that case most of the time the boss will easily win if I am having a conflict situation with him or her. Most of the time I will be quiet if it is in the work situation and it is a conflict. But the thing is I try to explain the situation and the facts. Anyway I will convince him or her that this is my point of view. If he or she is good enough to consider, that’s up to them (Int4).

145 However, Interviewee 2 had a different approach when faced with the same situation. As he describes:

In Australia, it is being objective and it is more solution focused and it is more future focused rather than talking about what has happened. In Sri Lanka, again it is not being objective and trying to win the argument. In Sri Lanka not many people are assertive, some of them were and some of them are not very assertive. You can be aggressive but not assertive. In a work situation if we had a work problem; if we had different opinions as to how we should handle it or best resolve it, the person; one with the voice will get his or her way. I was being assertive at the time so basically you would get your way because you are the only one that is saying something. Here definitely people are more assertive and more direct (Int2).

Interviewee 2 explained when he would avoid a conflict:

Conflict will be there always. I would avoid it if I feel that it is going off course or if people are getting personal, or if people are getting tired or not being objective or anything like that. But if I have reasons to believe that what I am saying is right, I will still get my point across. Not saying that I was always correct; if I understand that I am wrong; I will accept it there is no hesitation (Int2).

This suggests that, in a conflict situation, the Sri Lankans in the study would always try to win if they are right, and it is the truth. It is important to acknowledge that it is the Sri Lankans in the sample (interviewees) of the investigation to which the findings apply and who hold such opinions, and, therefore, the findings are not applicable / generalisable to all Sri Lankans living and working in Australia.

Summary

This section analysed the interaction stye differences in a conflict situation between peers and between the supervisor and the employee in Sri Lanka and in Australia. In general, the interviewees take the same approaches in a conflict situation with a peer

146 or the manager in Sri Lanka and in Australia. When they are in a conflict situation, they try to explain their point of view, and try to negotiate with peers and also with supervisors. If the employee is wrong, then they accept it and beg pardon. If the employee is right, then they try to explain it to the peer or to the supervisor.

Low context cultures are informal, allow more equality in interaction, and place less emphasis on hierarchies (Irwin, 1996). In large power distance work situations, the power is centralized in the upper management level, and the manager plays an autocratic role (Ting-Toomey, 2005). In low power distance cultures, organisations have decentralised decision structures, and less application of authority, and subordinates expect to be consulted (Hofstede, 2001).

As described by one interviewee (Int5), the people in Sri Lanka are power oriented, and in Australia the people are work oriented. In a conflict situation with the manager in Sri Lanka, the employee would not talk much to the supervisor even if the manager was wrong because the managers want to secure and show their power and would take disciplinary action towards the employees. But it does not happen in Australia. In such a situation in Sri Lanka, the employees would avoid the conflict situation with the manager.

While individualistic, low context cultures value direct personal interaction to resolve disputes, collectivist, high context cultures prefer more indirect and accommodating approaches. It is also common to have a third party involvement for resolving conflict in collectivistic cultures (Siira, Rogan et al., 2004). Brew & Cairns (2004) point out that, compared to collectivists, individualists are more likely to use a direct face negotiation approach, involving assertive conflict management.

As another interviewee (Int2) described, in Australia, people are more objective in a conflict situation, and they go with clear objectives in mind to find the best solution more than trying to win in the conflict situation. In a conflict situation with a peer, sometimes the Sri Lankans had to get help of a third person to come to a solution, but this does not happen in Australia. In a conflict with the manager in Sri Lanka, the employees would give in even if the manager was wrong to maintain the relationship but this does not happen in Australia.

147 As Hendon, Hendon et al. (1998) point out, a low power distance culture values competence over seniority. In Sri Lanka, when the supervisor has an idea they do not want to be proven wrong, as they would take it personal and they would feel insulted. Also, they wouldn’t accept an idea from a junior employee, as they would think that being older is being wiser. But in Australia, as long as the employees have substance behind what they say, the supervisors accept it. The interviewees describe that when they are not wrong, or when it is within their values, they always try to win in a conflict situation with a peer or with the supervisor, and avoid a conflict situation when people are going off course or getting personal.

Concern for self face and other face

This section describes how the interviewees maintain concern for self face and for other face in a conflict situation with peers and supervisors in Sri Lanka and in Australia. As one interviewee (Int2) explains:

As long as I conduct myself in a proper manner, I don’t think the outcome of the conflict or the solution will determine my self-worth. As long as I don’t use inappropriate words or what not, as long as I don’t lose my temper, and don’t get personal I think I will preserve my self-image. I haven’t lost anything. It doesn’t matter which way the debate goes or whether I lose or win. I think when you are like that it is really difficult for the other person to get personal or use inappropriate language (Int2).

As long as you know the other person, and try to get the idea of trying to find a solution or trying to resolve something, but in an objective manner rather than just winning the argument. I don’t see myself losing any self-worth or self-face or anything like that just because I lose an argument or debate as long as I conduct myself in a proper manner (Int2).

If I were in Sri Lanka I would behave in the same way. I still didn’t use inappropriate language or anything like that. There have been instances where I have lost my temper or said the wrong thing in Sri Lanka. Of course

148 that didn’t end well; couldn’t find a solution and I felt bad about it afterwards. So I regret that I did and never used that again. Even if I didn’t win I was happy with myself that I was better than the previous time. I did have concern for the other person but winning was a little bit more important then so maybe I used that to my advantage and did things differently then. Personally I prefer the style here. I am more comfortable working here (Int2).

Summary

This section described how the interviewees maintain concern for self face and for other face in a conflict situation with peers and supervisors in Sri Lanka and in Australia. As one interviewee (Int2) explained, he has concern for both, himself and for the other person in conflict. This is the same in Sri Lanka and in Australia. In maintaining, ‘self worth’, concern for both parties in a conflict situation, the interviewee conducts himself in a proper manner by not using inappropriate words or losing temper, and by not getting personal. It is important to conduct him self in a proper manner in a conflict situation, rather than just winning an argument. The interviewee preserves concern for both self face and other face in a conflict situation by conducting himself in a proper manner and, trying to find a solution or trying to resolve something in an objective manner.

Dependence – independence

This section analyses the differences about being dependant or independent in a relationship between peers, and between the employee and the manager in Sri Lanka and in Australia.

As interviewees (Int2, Int4, Int5, and Int1) describe:

At work in Sri Lanka, if you are dependent on someone to get some work done, or work with someone, you have to work on that relationship and make sure that person doesn’t feel bad by anything that you say. But in Australia,

149 you can be direct and just move on. In Sri Lanka appraisals and promotions have a lot to do with our relationships and so on; doesn’t matter how well you work. Here at least they are more objective so you can afford to be a bit more independent in Australia (Int2).

Here if you tell something to the bosses they will agree to do it but in Sri Lanka there are a lot of authorities and there is hierarchy and they listen to others and they do not agree straight away. Here they are more independent. They don’t have to depend on other people they can make an agreement and do it (Int1).

In both cases Sri Lanka or Australia, I don’t want to be dependent on friends or peers at work (Int4). Not dependent with peers because we are equal. In general, working in Sri Lanka is dependent; you always work under supervision or under the manager. If I am the only person of that skill, we have some opportunity to work independently. But mostly workers are dependent on managers in Sri Lanka (Int5).

It is less dependent here in Australia compared to Sri Lanka. Here I work in one place; there I have opportunity to work independently. Supervisor did not try to always control me or always intervene in my work saying, do this and this. Initially he instructed this is the way you have to do this. Here supervisor does his work and we do our work. If there is something wrong he tells there is something wrong, please correct it (Int5).

Interviewee 4 had a different experience and opinion to Interviewee 5:

In Sri Lanka I was working in a university and if I have to rank, it was 90% independent as a lecturer with the head of the school hierarchically close relationship, and 70% independent in Australia as a student with the supervisor (Int4).

150 Summary

This section analysed the differences about being dependant or independent in a relationship between peers, and between the employee and the manager in Sri Lanka and in Australia.

According to the interviewees, in Sri Lanka, when you are dependent on someone to get your work done, you have to work on that relationship. But in Australia you do not have to stress on the relationship, and can be direct about the work you have to get done. In Sri Lanka, working is dependent because promotions and appraisals are mostly done on relationships, and in Australia it is independent as they are more objective. In Sri Lanka, employees are dependent on the manager or the supervisor since you work under them. But in Australia, workers are independent as there is not much intervene or control by the supervisor or the manger. Working with peers is independent in Sri Lanka and in Australia as peers are equal.

In Australia, the managers are independent, and if an employee says something they agree and do it. But in Sri Lanka, unless they are more senior managers who would accept what you say, other managers are dependent and they take advice from authority. So they are afraid to agree to what the employees say, and they would not agree straight away with an employee.

Change

This section looks into how the interviewees had to adjust to the behaviour styles of Australia. It describes how differently they would handle a conflict situation with peers and employees in Australia. Also in general, attitudes and the communication style differences they had to adapt to in Australia, what Sri Lankans had to do or change to integrate into the Australian culture, and what they would not change in adjusting their behaviours to the Australian culture. This section analyses the assimilation and the integration patterns of the Sri Lankans into the Australian culture.

151 One interviewee (Int2) described how the attitude and the behaviour has changed when in a conflict situation; in Australia:

Looking back again in Sri Lanka in a conflict situation, in those days you go in with the notion that you are going to win. But this has changed at least for me. When you go back the idea of winning at any cost you will say things but not anymore. It is not about winning the argument I would now show more respect. So I would not make it personal and wouldn’t talk about past mistakes. You just address the subject at hand and try and reach a solution (Int2).

One thing I have learned; I am being more objective in terms of a conflict situation. I mean when you are having a meeting or a discussion in Australia we go with clear objectives in mind, what we have to achieve out of this and we talk about issues. Especially if in work environment, I don’t think if someone was to show that I am doing something in the wrong way, I don’t take it personally any more. Basically if that person has a point and I am at fault and I have an issue, I am accepting that; which is somewhat different to how I would have behaved a few years ago when I was in Sri Lanka. Because at the time I would think that there was a notion that you have to win every battle otherwise it would be demeaning, but not anymore as long as there is a rationale behind it, you can lose a few battles here and there (Int2).

“In Sri Lanka politics does play a big part” (Int2). As interviewee 2 described, it is a power imbalance between interactants in a given context.

If it is with a peer you have to be right. You have to show that you are right otherwise you will lose their respect. But on the other hand even if you are having a bit of a debate, you wouldn’t be having a debate with your superior … you would give in even if your boss is wrong in order to maintain the relationship, which I don’t have to do here (Int2).

However, Interviewee 2 had a different strategy where they would not ‘give in’ to the situation involving a peer in a conflict:

152 In a situation like that with a peer in Sri Lanka, basically I won’t give in. I am just trying to figure out; I am looking back at it sometimes. Within recent situations we had to get outside help meaning that we had to approach our superiors because the other person also was like me. This is not all the time but sometimes we couldn’t reach a solution. But here the few times that we have had disagreements we could resolve it ourselves without going to someone else (Int2).

Two interviewees (Int2, and Int5) described how they had to change their general communication style to suit the Australians when interacting in Australia:

Personally I think I had an issue with being assertive. I certainly had to be a little more direct perhaps. Being assertive is fine but you can still use kind of long-winded statements. This has changed now; I use less time and fewer words trying to get my message across. That is something I had to learn for sure. And then I have accepted that others are being direct as well, so I don’t take it personal (Int2). I had to adjust the behaviour in Australia. It is natural that when you come to a foreign country you have to adjust to that country. Many Sri Lankans tried to call their supervisor Dr or Sir or Professor to show some respect, and they had to adopt to call by the name (Int5). In Sri Lanka some high-ranking people do not like to greet others; the subordinates. That does not happen here. You can talk to any person (Int5).

Some Sri Lankans have assimilated, and some haven’t … they complain that it is not like home. Those that haven’t changed they are still a bit timid or not communicating assertively. They have to say something; they have to express their opinion. Where you do have an opinion I think you are more respected when you do express yourself. And those that have adjusted they are not complaining, they are happy (Int2).

Interviewees (Int5, Int4, Int1, and Int2) described what they had to do differently when integrating into the Australian culture, and what they would not change:

153 I did not face many challenges or difficulties to adapting to working in Australia (Int5). One strategy I use here is that, I try to improve my language abilities. When I came here I found it difficult to understand the Australian accent, and I tried to learn it as time passes; that is one thing. The other things are I am looking at people and how they work, do things and how they get on with others and things like that, and I was trying to learn those things gradually. I think that we are now integrating with the people in Australia, and their routine (Int4).

By contrast, one interviewee (Int2) reported:

The few friends I have they have adjusted to varying levels, and the ones that have adjusted well, I think they get more out of their lives here than the ones that haven’t (Int2). Personally I don’t think I have changed much. In general, I see other Sri Lankans change the way that they communicate but personally I don’t think I have. Most of them I think have tried to grab the Australian accent and use the slang; Australian terms, and pronunciation and things like that. I don’t think they have changed a lot (Int4). Some young Sri Lankans sometimes try to dress, talk and behave like the Australians. When they talk to someone they try to use the Australian accent and the slang words (Int1).

Interviewee 2 further described how he has changed, and what he would not change by living in Australia:

Personally, there was just adjustment that I had to make, but now I don’t think I would change anything. I go with the confidence that I may look different, I may sound different, but I am not inferior or anything like that. We might use different accent or different words or we might pronounce words differently, not the way that the people do here. But it is just that we are different not any better or any worse. I think I have accepted that fact and it has made it very easy (Int2).

154 “There are things that I won’t change. In boardroom situations they use Fs and Bs and whatever which I will not do so. I don’t think I need to change that” (Int2). (These swear words are commonly used by Australians in everyday general conversations with no specific purpose.)

I still believe that you don’t have to change your values if you don’t need to and people still respect you for that. It is better to be who you are rather than trying to be a clone or trying to be someone that you are not. I think you get more respect that way. I am a natural introvert. I wouldn’t feel comfortable to go and introduce myself to people. But I had to change that especially now when I get sent to various places to work, I have to take the initiative. They wouldn’t come looking for you so you have to make sure that you introduce yourself to the right people and so on and so forth (Int2).

Summary

This section analysed the changes the interviewees have made when having to adopt to the Australian culture. These agree with Kim (2005), Siira, Rogan et al. (2004), and Avtgis & Rancer (2004). When in a conflict situation in Australia, the employee would not take it personally or go behind the notion that he wants to win the argument, but address the situation and try to reach a solution. He is being more objective in a conflict situation in Australia. When in a conflict situation with the supervisor in Sri Lanka, the employee would give in to maintain the relationship, but in Australia the employees do not have to do that. In a conflict situation with a peer, sometimes the employee had to get help of a third person in Sri Lanka, but in Australia, they solve it without a third person.

As Kim (2005) describes, the perceived importance of clarity is higher in the more individualistic cultures. In high context cultures, politeness, harmony, and indirect verbal expression are important to communication. People of high context cultures use hedges and qualifiers to minimise the directness of the verbal communication. In contrast in low context cultures, the meaning of a communication message is stated clearly and explicitly, without depending on the context of the communication, avoiding unclear expressions, ambiguity, and wordiness (Siira, Rogan et al., 2004).

155 As Interviewee 2 described, Sri Lankans have assimilated into varying levels. Some Sri Lankans have assimilated well in to the Australian culture and they are happy. The ones that have not assimilated are still not communicating assertively; they are not expressing their opinion. In Australia, one has to express their opinion, and be direct. Taking conflict personally (TCP) is defined by Hample and Dallinger (1995, p.297) cited in Avtgis & Rancer (2004, p.110) as, “a negative emotional reaction to participating in a conflict”. “That is, individuals who take conflict personally feel that conflicts are antagonist, punishing reactions, in which the main goal of the communication is to hurt the other on purpose” (Avtgis & Rancer, 2004, p.110). Sri Lankans are not assertive or not direct when communicating. So when communicating in Australia, the Sri Lankans had to adapt to be assertive and direct, and not take personal when others are being direct.

Sri Lankans also had to change to call everyone by their first name in Australia. The Sri Lankans have integrated into the Australian culture, by getting used to the Australian accent, and by adapting how others do things, and how others get on with each other at work. Generally, the Sri Lankans have not changed much. They had initial adjustments to make to suit the Australian culture, and their routine but they would not change anymore.

The next section considers the role of values in this adaptation process.

Values

This section analyses the values that the Sri Lankans hold, which form a podium on which they interact and communicate with others. Values are what they have learned from religion and what they practise through religion, and also what they have learnt and adopted through education. Respecting everyone as equal, using proper language, respect for differences between individuals and no-harm are fundamental values that interviewees hold from the religion they practice. Also, education has provided them knowledge in how they should communicate, and to understand the differences between groups and how to respond to others. This section looks into how these values form their style of interaction and communication with others.

156 Religion

Right speech

Interviewees (Int3, Int4, Int1, and Int2) described about the right speech they have to use in interacting with others:

According to my religion, we have to use proper language. That means we don’t use bad words when we communicate with other people (Int3). I’m a Buddhist, I always try to tell the truth and believe in the truth. Even when it is not going to be favourable I mention what the truth is. I have the ability; I can explain it in a nice way, even when the truth is not a good thing (Int4). I am practising Buddhism. In Buddhism, you don’t talk bad about others, and do not lie. I don’t like people who lie because according to my religion it is not a good thing, it is a bad thing in our life (Int1).

“I don’t swear at all so I would not do that” (Int2). This is customary practice done in Australia and not necessarily done in anger as in Sri Lanka, where swear words are used in anger and are meant to be and perceived as a deliberate insult to someone, which may be why they had been seen as inappropriate by the interviewee/s in this study.

Also believing to treat everyone with respect. I also accept that they have different beliefs and are different. I am not better than anyone. We are all equal. We just have different viewpoints so it is just a matter of resolving that and finding a common ground to move forward rather than having to win everything or having to prove everyone wrong. Difference here, especially in boardroom situations, they do swear a little bit here in Australia for sure. That is something I wouldn’t do. I don’t need to use certain kinds of words to get my message across. I wouldn’t do that, doesn’t matter how bad the situation is. That is the same in Sri Lanka so there is no difference there (Int2).

157 Respect

One interviewee (Int5) described the respect one has for others in interaction and communicating with others:

I respect others; their beliefs, values, religion, culture, caste, their nationalities, and their right of expression, way of dining, other habits, and doing everything. I have no problem with that. I do not want to make out what they are doing, how they behave, how they eat, how they dress, so it is not a matter for me. I do not like to hate other people, and I do not wish to harm them in any way. If any problem occurred between the other person and me, normally I use my words to solve the problem, negotiate to solve the problem. Other than that I do not go beyond that. That is the way I have practised through my life (Int5).

Another interviewee (Int2) described the importance in living by the religion, when in interaction and communicating with others:

Respecting everyone as equal; even if a person is at fault; they are human. So we would try and work out a solution rather than trying to get to the higher ground. That is definitely something I got from religion. I think it is understanding more about religion and living your religion rather than just being religious (Int2).

Non-harm

Interviewee (Int4) described how ‘non-harm’, the fundamental teaching of Buddhism that Buddhists practice, leads towards how they think and interact with others:

Buddhism teaches non-harm (Luévano, 2009). In religion we have learned not to do harm to others. I believe on that and if I don’t do anything harmful for the others, in return no one will harm me. That is my basic idea and I don’t want to let the others behind and I don’t want to take someone’s chances. If you deserve, it is my wish also that you get it; not that I want it. I

158 believe in that. I think I’m not doing any harm to the others and living a simple life. Sometimes I do compromise lot of things in order to help others, in order to preserve my values. I have the ‘can do’, ‘will do’ attitude to help others or to solve problems. I think I am a mature person. I have the values that we believe to be good. I think harassment, putting someone down, making things that are false; they are not good things. You don’t want to make someone unhappy. I prevent from doing that is harmful for others (Int4).

Education

Interviewees (Int4, Int2, Int5, and Int1) described how education plays a major role in how they communicate, and how education has provided them with knowledge and understanding in responding to different situations:

Knowledge

Education plays an important role in my communication (Int4). Basically all the knowledge that I have got over the years of studying have helped especially in work situations. You have more substance behind what you say. It is not like you are just talking in obedience, you are trying to find out data before when in a conflict situation. It is not only just trying to get your opinion ahead of someone else’s. My research in Australia was more work related. In thinking and communicating, you use frameworks, case studies and things like that I have picked up from my studies to get to a solution rather than just talking. Education definitely does help (Int2).

Another interviewee elaborated this by indicating the link between education and understanding as:

Understanding

I think education plays a major role in dealing with people; how to talk to the people by respecting their customs, values, their religion and other things.

159 That is coming from education I think. When I meet peers, students, and others, I always maintain respect. I respect their views initially. I respect other person’s views even though he is Australian or any other foreign national. I respect their culture, their religion, and everything. There is no problem with that. My view is that everybody is the same in the world (Int5).

Responding

My education plays an important role in how I communicate. Because I think I have learned all these things; I know how to respond to people, and if I do not respond it is not a good thing. Also education has given me knowledge that I can talk about and get on with a discussion (Int4) and, in the bridging program, which I studied when I first came here; the things they did mention is to keep eye contact, not to talk having the face down, and to understand the different cultural situations (Int1).

Summary

This section analysed the values that comes from religion and education that have shaped the interviewees’ interaction and communication styles, which forms a basis and their facework strategies emanate from those in interaction. Notions of face is connected to the fundamental cultural ideas about the social qualities, honour and virtue, shame and liberation and thus to religious concepts (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Face is connected to our innermost identity and maintaining face in interpersonal relationships is of utmost importance (Merkin, 2006a).

For the Sri Lankans, it is important to use proper language and not to use bad words, and be honest when communicating to others. Talking badly about others and using swear words are not done. They dislike doing or saying anything that is harmful for others. They value treating everyone equally, and respectfully. They accept and respect differences between individuals and nations and wish goodwill for others. Theses are the values they hold from religion in interacting and communicating with others. If there is any conflict, they negotiate to solve the problem.

160 Education has given the knowledge to fulfill the required tasks at work, to communicate with others, and to come to a solution when there is a conflict. Education has provided the knowledge to understand, respect, and to respond to others. Also, education has provided knowledge about differences in cultural expectations. These are the values that Sri Lankans hold, through education, towards communicating properly with others. Religion and education definitely has provided the foundation for proper communication and in maintaining face with others in interaction.

The interviewees have lived in Australia for varying years (2-6 yrs), thus, they have also adapted their behaviour to the Australian culture. All respondents were adults above 18 years of age when they came to Australia. All the respondents indicate that their values have not changed since arriving in Australia: “Values are the same in Sri Lanka and in here; you preserve values” (Int4). Yet they indicated that it is natural to make behavioural adjustments having to integrate into the Australian culture, and having to make some changes to the way they do things.

As Kim (2001) states, when people have to interact in a new culture, the new culture exerts substantial influence on the psychological and social practice of newcomers, and foreigners adopt the cultural patterns of the new environment. These general adaptive changes in foreigners take place in more external spheres, such as overt role behaviour. As Kim (2001, p.51) describes, “A change in basic values is extremely difficult, slow and rare. A person can be pressed to conform to requirements in social interactions, but cannot be forced to accept and appreciate the underlying values”. What Kim (2001) has claimed is evident of the Sri Lankans living in Australia as they describe about their values and how some of their behaviour has changed by living in a new culture, but not their values.

161 Findings on the research questions

The interviews aimed at clarifying the findings of the survey questionnaire instrument about self schema, face concern, and conflict solution strategies of the Sri Lankan respondents. Also the interviews aimed at exploring values and behaviour of the Sri Lankan interviewees that influence their facework strategies, the adjustments they make to Australian culture and, and the values and behaviour that have not changed. The interview responses to the interview questions were analysed previously in this chapter. This section looks directly at the research questions and provides answers from what was discovered by the interview responses to these research questions.

Through the survey questionnaire, the researcher found the following answers about the self-schema, face concern, and conflict solution strategies of Oetzel & Ting- Toomey’s face negotiation model (2003) for the Sri Lankan respondents that work in Australia:

Self Schema Independent Self – Interdependent Self

ƒ Australians and Sri Lankans show similar concern for independent self. ƒ Sri Lankans show more concern for interdependent self than Australians.

Face Concern Self Face – Other Face

ƒ Sri Lankans show more concern for self face than Australians. ƒ Sri Lankans show more concern for other face than Australians.

Conflict Solution Strategy Dominating – Integrating – Avoiding

ƒ Australians and Sri Lankans are similar in the use of dominating conflict strategies.

162 ƒ Australians and Sri Lankans are similar in the use of integrating conflict strategies. ƒ Australians and Sri Lankans are similar in the use of avoiding conflict strategies.

The findings of the interviews further clarify these findings of the survey questionnaire instrument about self schema, face concern, and conflict solution strategies of the Sri Lankan respondents.

Self schema & face concerns

The survey responses found that, Sri Lankans show similar concern for independent self as the Australians, yet Sri Lankans show more concern for interdependent self than the other Australians. Also the survey shows that, Sri Lankans are higher in both self face concern and the other face concern than the Australians. The interview responses provide attributes that support these findings about the self schema and the face concerns about the Sri Lankans, as they explain in their communication strategies. Sri Lankans show more interdependence, as revealed in their style of communication, compared with the Australians. These attributes are reflected in their hierarchical system at work, respect for seniority, hospitable nature, and in their use of gestures.

According to the interviewees, the work nature in Sri Lanka is more interdependent, than independent. The relationship with the supervisor is formal in Sri Lanka, and it is more informal in Australia. When you go to your boss or supervisor in Sri Lanka you just talk about your job, and only about your work; concentrating only on duty type, nothing-friendly kind. But here you can talk about anything even if it is personal. In Sri Lanka, always there is authority and the top person, and you always have to say ‘madam’ or ‘sir’. In Sri Lanka, there is this hierarchal difference, which you have to obey. So before you go to your boss, because of this hierarchical order or respect, you have to prepare. Interviewees described that it is easy to communicate with the managers in Australia, and difficult to communicate with the managers in Sri Lanka. Here managers are more independent. They don’t have to depend on other people. When an employee makes a suggestion, they make an agreement and implement it.

163 In Sri Lanka, you can see some authoritative system; it is always the hierarchy of the positions and the people are power oriented. In Australia, people are work-oriented. The knowledge or the skills, the attitude or being able to do something better are more important here, but in Sri Lanka, if someone is related to the manager or it is whom you know and how you are connected to and things like that are important. In general, working in Sri Lanka is dependent. You always work under supervision or under the manager. It is less dependent here in Australia compared to Sri Lanka. Here employees have opportunity to work independently. Also, in Sri Lanka you have to be dependent because the appraisals and promotions have a lot to do with the relationships and so on; doesn’t matter how well you work. Here at least they are more objective so you can afford to be a bit more independent in Australia. In both cases Sri Lanka or Australia, the Sri Lankans don’t want to be dependent on friends or peers at work, and they are treated as equal.

For the Sri Lankans, it is important to preserve the self image of both parties in communication or in a conflict situation. As Interviewee 2 described, “as long as I conduct myself in a proper manner I don’t think the outcome of the conflict or the solution will determine my self-worth - as long as I don’t use inappropriate words, lose my temper, or get personal I think I will preserve my self-image”; I don’t see myself losing my self-worth or self-face just because I lose an argument or debate as long as I conduct myself in a proper manner. In another situation in Sri Lanka, as the interviewee (In2) explained, if you are dependent on someone just to get some of your work done or to be successful in doing your work with someone, you have to work on that relationship and make sure that person doesn’t feel bad by anything that you say. But here even if you are dependent on someone you can still have a good conversation and be direct about it and then just move on from that situation (Int2).

The general communication style of the Sri Lankans is of accommodating nature, compared to the Australians. The Australians are very assertive and they are very direct in how they communicate; they are objective, and they are loud. As interviewee 2 explained, “you can’t be direct to an Asian or South Asian the same way; you come out as being rude, especially when someone is new here. So when you are communicating with a Sri Lankan or someone from that part of the world, then you need to tone down the vocabulary; of course even being assertive can be a

164 problem. Most of the Sri Lankans are not assertive, or loud…they are more soft spoken, and here they are a little bit louder” (Int2). However, these are not the norm and may vary according to individual and group factors such as educational background, social status, socioeconomic level etc.

In Sri Lanka, junior employees are more polite and obedient, when an elder person or manager is talking to them; they do not answer back. Yet, if the employees did the correct thing, they would explain the facts to the manager and answer back, but not in an aggressive way. Here the age doesn’t mean anything as long as you have substance behind what you are saying the managers will accept it. Generally in Sri Lanka, you have to respect your elders and seniors or superiors or visitors, and people are very hospitable in Sri Lanka. So even if you know the other person is wrong you would keep quiet so that you don’t offend the other person. Some times Sri Lankans use more non-verbal language; gestures. In the Sri Lankan culture, the people use a lot of expressions: with the words they use body language like using hands to explain something.

The interview responses show that Sri Lankans value independence, at the same time showing interdependence to a greater extent in maintaining their relationship with others. Maintaining concern for both parties in communication is important to the Sri Lankans.

Conflict solution strategies

The survey responses show that Sri Lankans use dominating, integrating, and avoiding conflict solution strategies similarly as the Australians. The interview responses described the strategies that Sri Lankans use in a conflict situation with a peer or the supervisor at work. The Sri Lankans show that winning is important in a conflict situation, yet they take integrating strategies or avoiding strategies at other times. These different situations where they take different solution strategies were investigated in detail.

In a conflict situation, in Sri Lanka and in Australia, the employees want to win a situation if it is within their values; if it is really what has happened and is the truth,

165 then they try to win, and explain the situation and the facts. If they are wrong they would accept it, explain and try to negotiate, especially with peers and also with the supervisor. When they are not wrong then they would still explain the issues.

In Australia, working with peers is easier in that you can approach them directly, and talk to them; they are more objective in Australia than in Sri Lanka. In Sri Lanka, one needs to think about the relationships of their peers. In a situation like that with a peer in Sri Lanka, the employee won’t give in. They had to get outside help meaning that they had to approach their superiors because the other person also was like them.

To solve a problem with a supervisor or colleague, the Sri Lankans would use different approaches. With a colleague in Sri Lanka, one would have a friendly discussion. If it is a difficult issue they would ask someone who can handle the situation, or ask a friend who is a friend of both parties, to help with the situation. But that is not possible here. So finally, they would talk straight away with the person in conflict. In Sri Lanka or here, the employee is not going to have arguments. As interviewee 4 described, “I will put it in a very mild way. In solving just mild differences with a supervisor, I just say my point of view, I try to explain. If I explain my point of view most of the time there is more chance to get it implemented” (Int4). If the employee has a problem, she would try to explain it to her supervisor or boss, in Australia also the same.

As Interviewee (Int2) described, the managers in Sri Lanka, when they’ve made up their mind, they were not objective. The employee basically ignored them. In Australia, it is being objective and it is more solution focused in a conflict between the employee and the manager. As the employee wanted to secure his job, he would not talk much, even the boss or manager is incorrect in Sri Lanka. The employee would give in even if the boss is wrong in order to maintain the relationship in Sri Lanka, which they don’t have to do in Australia. Also, one would avoid a conflict if they feel that it is going off course or if people are getting personal, or if people are getting tired or not being objective or anything like that.

166 As the interviewees explained, in a conflict situation with a peer or the manager they always try to win, if they believe they are right. They would integrate with the other person in conflict, if they believe they are wrong. Also, the Sri Lankans would avoid a conflict situation if the other party is going astray or not being objective.

Values

The interviews aimed at exploring the values that the Sri Lankans hold, which influence their face work strategies. These are the values they have gained and practised through religion and education.

As the interviewees described, they have to use proper language. That means they don’t use bad words when they communicate with other people. They always try to tell the truth and believe in the truth. Also the interviewees believe in to treat everyone with respect. The employees respect others; their beliefs, values, religion, culture, caste, their nationalities, and their right of expression, and so on. They accept that others have different beliefs and are different, so they would try and work out a solution in a conflict situation.

In religion, Sri Lankans have learned not to do harm to others, they believe in that. They do compromise lot of things in order to help others; and to preserve their values. As one interviewee (Int4) described, harassment, putting someone down, making things that are false; they are not good things. They don’t want to make someone unhappy, and they prevent from doing that is harmful for others.

As the Sri Lankans also explained, education plays an important role in their communication. Basically, all the knowledge that the employees have got over the years of studying have helped them, especially in work situations. As Interviewee 2 explained, he has more substance behind what he says. In thinking and communicating, he uses frameworks and case studies he has picked up from his studies to get to a solution rather than just talking. Also as the interviewees described, education plays a major role in dealing with people; maintaining respect for others and in communicating with them. Education has provided knowledge that the employee can talk about and get on with a discussion.

167 Religion and education has shaped the Sri Lankans in their face work strategies as they described. ‘Non- harm’ is a major factor that influences all of their strategies in interaction and in communication with others; in turn, this has a major impact on their facework. The Sri Lankans are careful in their use of words; not to hurt anyone. They also compromise for the benefit of others. Maintaining respect at all times is important for the Sri Lankans. These values describe why Sri Lankans are higher on both self face concern and other face concern; they stress maintaining respect for themselves as well as for the others, and it is important to conduct themselves in a proper manner.

Adaptation

The interviews investigated how the Sri Lankans have adapted to the Australian culture. The study identified the changes they make in their values and behaviours in integrating to Australian culture, and the values and behaviours that do not change by living in Australia.

Sri Lankans had to adjust to the behavioural norms in Australia. The level of respect that they show to seniors in Sri Lanka does not exist to the same extent in Australia. Getting up from the seat when someone walks in, that sort of practice doesn’t exist here. Sri Lankan’s respect for elders as expressed by getting up when they approach is mostly symbolic. In Sri Lanka, it is also dependent on other factors related to the social status of the elder, family or social relationships and power imbalances between the elder and others. Calling the boss by the first name is non-existent in Sri Lanka, and they had to adapt to calling by the name. The Sri Lankans had to change to use words instead of the gestures in Australia. Other communication strategies that were adapted are, being objective in terms of a conflict situation, and not to take criticism personally. Also, the Sri Lankans had to change to be assertive and direct when communicating in Australia.

As Interview 2 stated, the few Sri Lankan friends he has, they have adjusted to varying levels, and the ones that have adjusted well, they get more out of their lives in Australia than the ones that haven’t. Those that haven’t changed they are still a bit timid or not communicating assertively. They have to say something; they have to

168 express their opinion. Where they do have an opinion they are more respected when they do express themselves in Australia (Int2).

The Sri Lankans did not face many challenges or difficulties to adapting to working in Australia. When they came here some found it difficult to understand the Australian accent, and tried to learn it as time passes. One strategy some used in Australia is, try to improve their language abilities. The other things are, looking at people how they work, do things and, how they get on with others and things like that, and trying to learn those things gradually. The interviewees stated as, “I think that we are now integrating with the people in Australia and their routine” (Int4), and “it is more I have changed, I am now used to them; their culture, and their accent” (Int1).

They indicated that their values are the same in Sri Lanka and in here: ‘you preserve values’ (Int4). There was just adjustment they had to make, but now they would not change anything. There are certain things that they would not change, such as using swear words, they would not do.

Conclusion

The interview responses supported and clarified the findings gained through the survey questionnaire about the facework strategies of the Sri Lankan respondents working in Australia. Independence at work is valued by the Sri Lankan interviewees, and also they show a higher level of interdependency as they try to maintain the relationship with others. The values Sri Lankan interviewees have influence them to have a higher level of self concern and other face concern. The Sri Lankan interviewees have shown the use of all dominating, integrating, and avoiding conflict solution strategies in different conflict situations. Also, the Sri Lankan interviewees have made behavioural adjustments, having to integrate into the Australian culture, yet they do not change their values.

169

Chapter 6

Conclusion

170 Unfolding facework strategies of Sri Lankans and Australians

Introduction

The topic of this research is a comparative analysis of facework strategies of Australians and Sri Lankans working in Australia. To compare facework strategies of these two nations, a quantitative and a qualitative investigation was performed. The quantitative investigation was carried out to find face work strategies of the two cultural groups in Australia, adopting the face negotiation model (Oetzel & Ting- Toomey, 2003). The qualitative investigation was done to find answers to: ‘what are the values that influence the facework of Sri Lankans working in Australia’, and ‘how have Sri Lankans adopted their facework strategies to the Australian culture’; and the adjustments Sri Lankans make to Australian culture, and the values and behaviour that have not changed by living in Australia. Conclusions drawn from the findings of these quantitative and the qualitative investigations of the above three research questions are the subject of this chapter.

The interviews (qualitative investigation) further explained and supported the findings of the survey questionnaire (quantitative investigation) about the self schema, face concern, and conflict solution strategies of the Sri Lankans living and working in Australia. These finding are further analysed under discussion of research findings later in this chapter. The interviews revealed important information about how the Sri Lankans have adapted to the Australian culture that could not be discovered through the survey questionnaire, and also about the values that they do not change.

Research findings

Survey investigation

RQ1. Comparison of facework strategies of Sri Lankans and Australians

This study analysed facework strategies of 63 Sri Lankans and 63 Australians living and working in Australia using a survey questionnaire. A survey questionnaire was

171 constructed using previously validated and reliable instruments to measure the facework strategies of Oetzel & Ting-Toomey’s (2003) face negotiation model. The face negotiation model describes the face construal (independent or interdependent), face concerns (self face or other face), and the conflict solution strategies (dominating, integrating, or avoiding) of individualist and collectivist cultural groups. A comparative analysis was done on the above seven concepts of the face negotiation model about the Sri Lankans and the Australians.

The Sri Lankans in this investigation are all born in Sri Lanka, and working in Australia; either as migrants or non migrants in Australia. The Australians are all born in Australia, and working in Australia. They are of mainly European origin and Anglo-Celtic Australians. This study compared Australians and Sri Lankans who, on average, have gained the same level of education and on average, are very similar in age. This study also investigated Australians who are of Australian/European origin observing mainly Christian religion with the Sri Lankans of mainly Sinhalese origin and observing Buddhist religion. The Australians have lived in Australia on average three times longer than the time on average the Sri Lankans have lived in Australia.

Analysis of the seven concepts of the face negotiation model provided the following results about the Sri Lankans and the Australians:

™ Self Schema

Independent Self – Interdependent Self

ƒ Australians and Sri Lankans show similar concern for independent self. ƒ Sri Lankans show more concern for interdependent self than Australians.

™ Face Concern

Self Face – Other Face

ƒ Sri Lankans show more concern for self face than Australians. ƒ Sri Lankans show more concern for other face than Australians.

172 ™ Conflict Solution Strategy

Dominating – Integrating – Avoiding

ƒ Australians and Sri Lankans are similar in the use of dominating conflict strategies. ƒ Australians and Sri Lankans are similar in the use of integrating conflict strategies. ƒ Australians and Sri Lankans are similar in the use of avoiding conflict strategies.

Interview investigation

The qualitative investigation aimed at finding the values that Sri Lankans hold that influence their attitude and behaviours, which reflect in their facework strategies as found in the quantitative investigation, and how they have adapted to the Australian culture. This research investigated the changes they make in integrating to the Australian culture; the changes they make in their attitudes and behaviours; and what does not change in their values and behaviours while adapting to the Australian culture.

RQ2. What values do Sri Lankans hold?

The interviews investigated the values that the Sri Lankans hold that is gained through religion and education. All interviewees are of Buddhist background, and all of them have completed at least a Masters degree. It is important for them to conduct themselves in a proper manner at all times, and use proper language when interacting and communicating with others. Maintaining respect for themselves and to the other party in interaction is also of importance to the Sri Lankan respondents. They value telling the truth, and believing in the truth.

They accept differences in others, and respect others; their values, religions, nationalities, and so on. As Buddhists, they have learnt not to do harm to anyone. This is a main value that they stand by and prevent them from doing anything

173 harmful to others. They like to compromise in order to help others and to preserve their values. They believe in to treat everyone with respect, and try to negotiate in a conflict situation. Harassment, putting someone down, making things that are false; which are not good, is not done by them.

Education has provided them with knowledge of how to communicate with others and to respond to others while maintaining everyone’s respect. Education has also given them knowledge that they can use at work; they have substance behind what they say. In thinking and communicating, they use case studies and frameworks learnt in studies to get to a solution. Also, education has provided them knowledge that they can talk about and get on with a discussion.

RQ3. How have Sri Lankans adopted to the Australian culture?

There were behaviour norms that the Sri Lankan interviewees had to adapt to in Australia. For example, they had to call everyone by their first name in Australia. Also they had to use words instead of the gestures that they were used to in communicating with other Sri Lankans. Another example relates to behavioural norms in dealing with seniors.

Employees had to learn to be objective in a conflict situation; in a discussion in Australia, they go with clear objectives as to what they have to achieve and talk about the issues. In communicating with the Australians, they had to learn to be assertive and direct, and to express their opinion. Also in conflict situations, they had to learn not to take criticism personally.

When the Sri Lankan interviewees were new to Australia, some had the difficulty in understanding the Australian accent, and they learnt the accent quickly as time passed. The Sri Lankan interviewees learnt at work gradually by seeing others and how they work, do things, and how they interact with others, and have adopted those practices. This is how they integrated with others in Australia, and developed their routines. They have become accustomed to the Australian culture, and to the Australian accent.

174 The Sri Lankan interviewees do not change their values in Australia. They only make adjustments to how they do things at work. Although, there are things that they won’t change for example, they would not adapt to use improper words whatever the situation is. Also, they would not change anymore after few years living in Australia.

When interviewees talk about their values, and provide self-reports to an interviewer, the social desirability effect (trying to make one look/sound good for the researcher) can come into play in their opinions expressed, especially when the researcher who is also a Sri Lankan living and working in Australia. The fact that only a few Sri Lankans were willing to be interviewed also indicates their need to ‘save face’ with a Sri Lankan interviewer.

Discussion of research findings Face negotiation

Independence - interdependence and self face - other face

Sri Lanka has a collectivist-high context, and high power distant culture (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005; Merkin, 2000; Waisfisz, 1992). The Sri Lankans in this study have described their communication style, showing similar characteristics to other collectivist cultures, in interacting between peers, and between employers and the subordinates. Also, the Sri Lankans have adopted the communication style of Australia while working here to varying degrees. According to the research findings, Sri Lankan respondents have shown likeness to be independent when dealing with others at work, in Sri Lanka and in Australia and, at the same time, interdependence to keep the harmony in relationships.

The Sri Lankan interviewees are independent when working with peers and also with the supervisor in Australia. In Sri Lanka, they did not have the freedom to be independent when working with their supervisor as a result of the authoritarian structure at work, though they liked to be independent there. In Australia, they have the freedom to be independent and, they have adapted to this egalitarian system at

175 work in Australia. In interacting with others, the Sri Lankan respondents have shown greater concern for both self face and for the other face. As respondents described, it is important not to do harm to others at the same time being careful of communicating in a proper manner to preserve their self image, and to maintain respect for the other person. These fundamental values show that they are considerate of both self face and the other face.

People need autonomy and acceptance (Brown & Levinson, 1987). If we say or act in away that destroy another person’s sense of autonomy or acceptance, we are engaging in a ‘face threatening act’ (Domenici & Littlejohn, 2006). “The surest way for a person to prevent threats to his face is to avoid contacts in which these threats are likely to occur” (Goffman, 1972, p.15). In a conflict situation, people take different conflict solution strategies such as dominating, integrating and avoiding (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). Individuals take these differing strategies in different situations to minimize the impact of the face threatening act: to feel involvement on equal terms with others, and to be able to defend for one’s self and feel independence (Domenici & Littlejohn, 2006; Villemoes, 1995).

In explaining politeness theory, Penelope Brown & Stephen Levinson (1987) claim that people need autonomy and acceptance. Politeness is acting in a way that enables others to have these, and we too having them (Domenici & Littlejohn, 2006). The Sri Lankan respondents have shown to be high on politeness as expressed in their values (non harm, respect, and conducting them selves in a proper manner, and using proper words), which explains the concern for autonomy and acceptance for one’s self and for the other self. This may, in turn, contribute them to their having high concern for self face and for the other face.

Conflict solution strategies

Sri Lankan respondents use different conflict resolution strategies for different situations. These strategies include dominating, integrating, and avoiding. The Sri Lankan respondents show their feelings, make the effort to express their views, and value being honest in communication. These characteristics are somewhat representative of an individualistic culture. As is shown in both survey data and in

176 interview responses, the Sri Lankan respondents are high in independence, though they are shown to be higher in interdependence compared to the Australians. According to Siira, Rogan et al. (2004), individualistic cultures tend to prefer solution strategies. Also, the interview responses show that the Sri Lankans take solution oriented strategies in a conflict situation, as explained by them, ‘I negotiate to solve the problem’, and ‘I will have a friendly discussion to solve a problem with the supervisor or a colleague’.

Brew and Cairns (2004) argue that when communicating in a conflict situation, collectivists are likely to use high levels of indirect face negotiation tactics involving a non-confrontational style regardless of the type of face threat that is called attention to. The findings in my research show that Sri Lankan respondents use a confrontational style in a conflict situation, when they think they are right, and is the truth, and they want to express their views with the supervisor or with a peer. This style is rather different to other collectivists, as Brew and Cairns (2004) argue. Also according to Oetzel & Ting-Toomey’s (2003) face negotiation model, individualistic cultures tend to use more dominating conflict strategies than collectivistic cultures, and collectivistic cultures use more integrating and avoiding conflict strategies. Yet this study has shown that Sri Lankan respondents use dominating conflict strategies similarly to the Australians. This study found that the Sri Lankan respondents working in Australia have an independent self construal similar to the Australians in strength. This may explain why Sri Lankan respondents use dominating conflict solution strategies in their adaptation to Australian culture.

Changes made in Australia

The Sri Lankans have generally settled easily into Australia, and the rate of assimilation among Sri Lankan Australians is fairly high (Sri Lankan Australian, 2010). According to Berry (2005), there are cultural and individual differences in how people acculturate: how much stress they experience and how well they adopt psychologically, and socioculturally.

On the interview data analysis of the seven concepts of the face negotiation, results show that Sri Lankan respondents working in Australia are similar to Australian

177 respondents in independence, self face, dominating, integrating and avoidance, and the difference is in that, the Sri Lankan respondents are higher in interdependence and self face concern and other face concern than the Australian respondents. The interview data supports these findings of the survey about the face negotiation approach both in the similarities and the differences between the Sri Lankans and the Australians. Some of the reasons why the integration of the Sri Lankan respondents to Australian culture has made it easy for them may be owing to these factors of similarities as seen in the analysis of the concepts of the face negotiation and the values that they hold. The Sri Lankan respondents did not face many challenges or difficulties to adapting to working in Australia.

The Sri Lankan interviewees also explained their attitudinal and behaviour changes in different situations in Australia. Being more objective in terms of a conflict situation, and if someone was to show that they are doing something in the wrong way, they don’t take it personally any more. Also, here when they are in a disagreement situation with a peer, they resolve it without going to someone else. The Sri Lankan interviewees had to make adjustments in their communication style in Australia; as in using less time and fewer words trying to get their message across, and then accepting that others are being direct as well, so that they don’t take it personally. Sri Lankans have adjusted in varying levels. Those that haven’t changed they are still not communicating assertively. The ones who have adjusted well, get more out of their lives here than the ones who haven’t. They had initial adjustments to make in Australia, but now after living for five years, they would not change anything.

Values

When individuals encounter a new culture, they are confronted with situations (shocks) where their mental and behavioural way of life are called into question and these inner conflicts in turn compel them to learn new cultural systems (Kim, 2001). “A change in basic values is extremely difficult, slow and rare. A person can be pressed to conform to requirements in social interactions, but cannot be forced to accept and appreciate the underlying values” (Kim, 2001, p.51). The respondents

178 have described that they make adjustments in their behaviours to suit the Australian culture.

Yet, in regards to the values they hold, the Sri Lankan respondents preserve their values that they had in Sri Lanka, and also after coming and living in Australia. In interacting with others in different situations, the Sri Lankan interviewees explained the values they hold: they avoid doing anything that is harmful for others, and use proper language when they communicate. Also, they believe that it is important to treat everyone with respect and in equality. They respect others; their beliefs, values, religion, culture, and other differences. If any problem occurred between the other person and them, normally they negotiate to solve the problem. They don’t want to make someone unhappy.

Culture dimensions and facework

Sri Lanka has a collectivist, high power distant, feminine, and a medium-low uncertainty avoidance culture according to a small study by, Waisfisz (1992). Australia represents an individualist, low power distant, masculine and medium uncertainty avoidance culture (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). A study done by Brew & Cairns (2004) with Anglos and Chinese in Australia on styles of managing interpersonal workplace conflict in relation to status shows that Anglo responses rated higher on assertive conflict style, and they preferred direct communication strategies when self face was threatened. Also, Anglos showed assertive and diplomatic conflict style for face threat.

In Sri Lanka, subordinates accept power and hierarchy and superiors are seen as ‘good fathers’ (Knoll, 2004). A study of power distance and facework strategies by Merkin (2006a) shows that individuals of large power distance cultures are more likely to use cooperative, indirect and direct communication strategies to manage face threats than their small power distance counterparts. Sri Lanka is a high power distant culture (Waisfisz, 1992). The interview responses show that Sri Lankans living in Australia report that they use cooperative, direct and indirect communication strategies in a conflict situation. Also, they tend to take polite

179 communication approaches, compared with Australians, who are assertive and direct in their approach.

Sri Lanka is a society with feminine values; such as caring for one another rather than accomplishing individual goals (Knoll, 2004). In an investigation of facework and Hofstede’s culture dimensions by Merkin (2000), masculine cultures use more competitive strategies than feminine cultures, and feminine cultures use more indirect harmonious and cooperative levelling strategies than masculine cultures. The Sri Lankans in this investigation have shown that they use harmonious and cooperative strategies.

Previous research also shows that Sri Lanka represents a medium-low uncertainty avoidance and a high power distant culture (Waisfisz, 1992). Merkin’s (2000) study shows that members of high power distance cultures used indirect communication strategies, while low power distance was related to aggression. This study shows that low uncertainty avoidance cultural members used significantly more aggressive facework strategies than high uncertainty avoidance cultural members. The interview responses of the Sri Lankans show that they use indirect, harmonious, and cooperative strategies, as with other feminine and high power distant cultures. Aggression is not exhibited by the Sri Lankan interviewees in the study in a conflict communication situation to the same degree as in other low uncertainty avoidance cultures. This may explain why Sri Lankan interviewees, when they come to Australia, may integrate easily, because the score on Sri Lankan’s uncertainty avoidance are similar to Australians.

Comparing facework on the face negotiation model

Previous research suggests that Sri Lanka is a collectivistic culture (Waisfisz, 1992) and Australia represents an individualistic culture (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). The face negotiation model highlights that individualistic cultures have an independent self schema, and collectivistic cultures have an interdependent self schema, and members of individualistic cultures have a greater concern for self-face and lesser concern for other-face, and collectivistic cultures have a greater concern for other- face and lesser concern for self-face. Also members of individualistic cultures tend

180 to use more dominating conflict strategies than members of collectivistic cultures, and collectivistic cultures use more integrating and avoiding conflict strategies (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). The Sri Lankan responses in this investigation show similarities and also some differences to the explanations given for collectivist cultures on the face negotiation model, as described in this chapter.

According to Merkin (2006a), independent attitudes can be face threatening to people from large power distance cultures as they believe that interventions that challenge authority or that threatens with the need to open up and confront conflict is not appropriate. Yet the Sri Lankan respondents living in Australia have tended to confront and challenge their superiors, though the superiors are not willing to accept these attitudes by the subordinates in Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan respondents as a collectivist nation, has shown all dominating, integrating and avoidance conflict strategies similarly to the Australians.

Previous research on Asians, as collectivist cultures, as presented by Siira, Rogan et al. (2004) and Oetzel & Ting-Toomey (2003) in comparison with individualist cultures has provided somewhat different results to my Sri Lankan respondents. Siira, Rogan et al. (2004) states that members of individualistic cultures tend to prefer direct conflict communication and solution strategies. These styles emphasise the value of independence, competitiveness, and the need for control. Members of collectivistic cultures tend to prefer obliging and conflict-avoidance styles. These styles emphasise the value for interdependent compliance and for maintaining relational harmony in conflict.

Through the interviews, it was found that, in different situations, Sri Lankans use confrontational, solution oriented, cooperative, and conflict avoidance strategies. These strategies represent behaviours from both individualist and collectivist characteristics. This may be as a result of Sri Lankan respondents being similar to Australians in the independent self, and also high on interdependent self, as found in the survey responses.

Also, Oetzel & Ting-Toomey (2003) states that members of collectivistic cultures have a greater concern for other-face and lesser concern for self-face than members of individualistic cultures. Yet, Sri Lankan respondents have shown greater concern

181 for both self face and other face. According to Siira, Rogan et al. (2004), members of collectivist and high context cultures are concerned with both self-face and other face maintenance for the purpose of maintaining relational harmony and to disperse shame and embarrassment. These features are very clear in the interview responses by the Sri Lankans, as they highly value proper conduct of themselves, treating others with respect, and using proper language in communicating with others, and to maintain high concern for one’s self and for the other person is done and valued by them.

Comparison with other Asians

This study shows that there are differences and similarities between other collectivist cultures and the Sri Lankan respondents. Sri Lankan respondents in my study have shown more tendency to individualist values in self construal, face concern, and conflict solution strategies compared to other collectivists in their facework strategies. A vast majority of cross-cultural communication research involves comparisons of Asian and Western cultures (Gudykunst, 2002). These studies give the impression that East Asians behave similarly, but there are grounds to believe that Asians are significantly different from one another in their attitudinal and behavioural patterns (Kim, Wang et al., 2007), as discovered in this study.

Difference in male and female responses

Also, this study shows that both male and female respondents show a similar style of solution strategies in a conflict situation, yet female responses have been shown to be more solution orientated. As Wood & Dindia (1998) suggest, the differences in men and women in communication are small and where differences between women and men exist, they are differences of degree not kind. According to Siira, Rogan et al. (2004), women tend to be more solution oriented in the conflict behaviour than men but there is no difference in their use of avoidance / non confrontational approach. This confirms earlier research.

182 Summary

There is no previous research done on facework strategies of Sri Lankans working in Australia. This study found that Sri Lankan respondents who work in Australia show similar concern for independent self as the Australian respondents, yet Sri Lankans show more concern for interdependent self than Australians. Also, Sri Lankan respondents show more concern for both self face and other face than Australian respondents. In the use of conflict solution strategies, Sri Lankan respondents and Australian respondents are similar in using dominating, integrating and avoiding strategies. Interview findings supported what was found in the survey responses. Interview responses show that in a conflict situation, Sri Lankan respondents in Australia use dominating, integrating, and avoidance strategies in different situations. Also, Sri Lankan respondents have a high concern for both self-face and other face. Although they like to be independent in working and interacting with others, they show more interdependency in maintaining the relationship with others. These responses explained and added value to the survey findings. Also the interviews found that, Sri Lankan respondents have not changed their values by living in Australia, yet they make behavioural adjustments, having to integrate into the Australian culture, and have to make some changes to the way they do things.

Future research

Future research should focus on a larger scale Australia wide study into how facework differs, and the similarities of face and facework in a conflict situation between the Sri Lankans and the Australians working in Australia. In the effort of doing so, research should include a larger, random, representative sample of people for the survey, and use a larger, more representative sample of interviewees, both Australians and Sri Lankans working in Australia who belong to different industries, sectors, levels in the organizational hierarchy, including both blue and, white collar workers, etc. as interviewees for a more comprehensive data, and also use focus groups to discuss strategies they had used/could use in various conflict situations.

183 Drawing on Oetzel & Ting- Toomey (2003), individualism-collectivism is the main dimension that this research is based on. However, communication is influenced by more than one dimension (Gudykunst, 2002; Gudykunst & Lee, 2002). Age, gender, spirituality, educational level, social and economic status also influence intercultural facework behaviours (Orbe, 2007). Future research should investigate how other cultural dimensions influence facework of the Sri Lankans. Future research should also investigate, more thoroughly, the effect of these factors on the facework of Sri Lankans who are working in Australia.

184

Appendix A

Survey Questionnaire

185

Complete this survey only if you are an Australian born in Australia, or a Sri Lankan born in Sri Lanka and 18 years of age or above. Use a pencil in circling responses, so that you can erase if you make a mistake and circle the correct response. Please return the completed survey to QUT in the reply paid envelope or through internal mail.

Please complete the full survey to allow the best possible outcomes for the project!

Thank you very much for your participation. Your responses are very much appreciated!!

Part A

Instructions:

The following questions measure a variety of feelings and behaviours in various situations. Listed below are a number of statements. Read each one as if it referred to you. Beside each statement circle the number that best matches your agreement or disagreement. Please respond to every statement.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

DISAGREE DISAGREE DISAGREE DON’T AGREE AGREE AGREE STRONGLY SOMEWHAT DISAGREE SOMEWHAT STRONGLY OR AGREE

1 I enjoy being unique and different from others in many 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

respects.

2 I can talk openly with a person who I meet for the first 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

time, even when this person is much older than I am.

186 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

DISAGREE DISAGREE DISAGREE DON’T AGREE AGREE AGREE STRONGLY SOMEWHAT DISAGREE SOMEWHAT STRONGLY OR AGREE

3 Even when I strongly disagree with group members, I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

avoid an argument.

4 I have respect for the authority figures with whom I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

interact.

5 I do my own thing, regardless of what others think. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6 I respect people who are modest about themselves. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 I feel it is important for me to act as an independent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

person.

8 I will sacrifice my self interest for the benefit of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

group I am in.

9 I'd rather say "No" directly, than risk being 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

misunderstood.

10 Having a lively imagination is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11 I should take into consideration my parents' advice when 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

making education/career plans.

12 I feel my fate is intertwined with the fate of those around 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

me.

13 I prefer to be direct and forthright when dealing with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

people I've just met.

14 I feel good when I cooperate with others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15 I am comfortable with being singled out for praise or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

rewards.

187 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

DISAGREE DISAGREE DISAGREE DON’T AGREE AGREE AGREE STRONGLY SOMEWHAT DISAGREE SOMEWHAT STRONGLY OR AGREE

16 If my brother or sister fails, I feel responsible. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17 I often have the feeling that my relationships with others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

are more important than my own accomplishments.

18 Speaking up during a class or a meeting is not a problem 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

for me.

19 I would offer my seat in a bus to my boss or to a more 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

senior person.

20 I act the same way no matter who I am with. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21 My happiness depends on the happiness of those around 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

me.

22 I value being in good health above everything. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

23 I will stay in a group if they need me, even when I am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not happy with the group.

24 I try to do what is best for me, regardless of how that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

might affect others.

25 Being able to take care of myself is a primary concern for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

me.

26 It is important to me to respect decisions made by the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

group.

27 My personal identity, independent of others, is very 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

important to me.

188 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

DISAGREE DISAGREE DISAGREE DON’T AGREE AGREE AGREE STRONGLY SOMEWHAT DISAGREE SOMEWHAT STRONGLY OR AGREE

28 It is important for me to maintain harmony within my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

group.

29 I act the same way at home that I do at school, work, or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

outside home.

30 I usually go along with what others want to do, even 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

when I would rather do something different.

189 Part B

Instructions:

We are going to ask you to respond to a series of items regarding a conflict you have had recently. Conflict is defined as, “any intense disagreement between two parties which involves incompatible goals, needs, or viewpoints”. We would like you to recall a conflict that you had recently with another person (not your supervisor) in a business or work situation. For the following items, please think about the self- image concerns (face-saving issues) that were important to you in this conflict.

There are no right or wrong answers. Please respond to every statement. For each item, please circle the appropriate response according to this scale.

1 2 3 4 5

Disagree Disagree No opinion/ Agree Agree Strongly Indifferent Strongly

1 My primary concern was saving my own face. 1 2 3 4 5

2 I was concerned with maintaining the poise of the other 1 2 3 4 5

person.

3 Maintaining humbleness to preserve the relationship was 1 2 3 4 5

important to me.

4 Helping to maintain the other person’s pride was 1 2 3 4 5

important to me.

5 I was concerned with protecting my self-image. 1 2 3 4 5

6 My concern was to act humble in order to make the other 1 2 3 4 5

person feel good.

190 1 2 3 4 5

Disagree Disagree No opinion/ Agree Agree Strongly Indifferent Strongly

7 My concern was to help the other person maintain his/her 1 2 3 4 5

dignity.

8 I didn’t want to embarrass myself in front of the other 1 2 3 4 5

person.

9 I wanted to maintain my dignity in front of the other 1 2 3 4 5

person.

10 My primary concern was helping the other person to save 1 2 3 4 5

face.

11 Preserving our mutual self-images was important to me. 1 2 3 4 5

12 Saving both of our faces was important to me. 1 2 3 4 5

13 I was concerned with maintaining my own poise. 1 2 3 4 5

14 I was concerned with helping the other person maintain 1 2 3 4 5

his/her credibility.

15 My primary concern was protecting both of our feelings. 1 2 3 4 5

16 I was concerned with not appearing weak in front of the 1 2 3 4 5

other person.

17 I was concerned with helping the other person to 1 2 3 4 5

preserve his/her self-image.

18 I was concerned with protecting my personal pride. 1 2 3 4 5

191 Part C

Instructions:

Think of disagreements you have encountered in a particular task situation with your immediate supervisor. Then indicate below how frequently you engage in each of the described behaviours. For each statement circle the number that represents the behaviour you are most likely to exhibit. There are no right or wrong answers.

Please respond to every statement.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ALWAYS VERY OFTEN SOMETIMES SELDOM VERY NEVER OFTEN SELDOM

1 I blend my ideas with my supervisor to create new 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

alternatives for resolving a disagreement.

2 I shy away from topics which are sources of disputes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

with my supervisor.

3 I make my opinion known in a disagreement with my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

supervisor.

4 I suggest solutions which combine a variety of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

viewpoints.

5 I steer clear of disagreeable situations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6 I give in a little on my ideas when my supervisor also 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

gives in.

7 I avoid my supervisor when I suspect that he or she 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

wants to discuss a disagreement.

192 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ALWAYS VERY OFTEN SOMETIMES SELDOM VERY NEVER OFTEN SELDOM

8 I integrate arguments into a new solution from the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

issues raised in a dispute with my supervisor.

9 I will go 50-50 to reach a settlement with my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

supervisor.

10 I raise my voice when I’m trying to get my supervisor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

to accept my position.

11 I offer creative solutions in discussions of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

disagreements.

12 I keep quiet about my views in order to avoid 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

disagreements.

13 I give in if my supervisor will meet me halfway. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14 I downplay the importance of a disagreement. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15 I reduce disagreements by making them seem 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

insignificant.

16 I meet my supervisor at a mid-point in our differences. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17 I assert my opinion forcefully. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18 I dominate arguments until my supervisor understands 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

my position.

19 I suggest we work together to create solutions to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

disagreements.

20 I try to use my supervisor’s ideas to generate solutions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

to problems.

21 I offer trade-offs to reach solutions in a disagreement. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

193 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ALWAYS VERY OFTEN SOMETIMES SELDOM VERY NEVER OFTEN SELDOM

22 I argue insistently for my stance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

23 I withdraw when my supervisor confronts me about a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

controversial issue.

24 I side-step disagreements when they arise. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

25 I try to smooth over disagreements by making them 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

appear unimportant.

26 I insist my position be accepted during a disagreement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

with my supervisor.

27 I make our differences seem less serious. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

28 I hold my tongue rather than argue with my supervisor. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

29 I ease conflict by claiming our differences are trivial. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

30 I stand firm in expressing my viewpoints during a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

disagreement with my supervisor.

194

Part D

Finally, please provide us with a little background information about yourself.

1. Sex (please circle) Male Female

2. Age (please write) _____ Yrs

3. Highest level of education (mark with an X)

Less than year 12 _____ 1 Year 12 completed _____ 2 Completed technical college course _____ 3 Undergraduate degree _____ 4 Honours/diploma _____ 5 Masters degree _____ 6 Doctorate _____ 7 Other, please write ______

Please write answers to the following:

4. Your occupation (including student) ______

5. Religion ______

6. In which country were you born? ______

7. Cultural or ethnic background ______

8. How long have you lived in Australia? ______

Thank you very much for your participation!!

195

Appendix B

Interview Questions

196 Interview Questions

Background to the questions:

How is the facework (communication - interaction behaviour) influenced by Australian culture? (Values and behaviour - adjustments Sri Lankans make to Australian culture and, values and behaviour that has not changed)

• The purpose of the interview is to study the verbal and non verbal communication of the interviewees as they would engage in interaction with a peer, employee or manager in different situations in Australia.

• The interview questions are based around of normal work situations, and will include conflict in work situations such as, overlapping responsibilities, different organisational goals, and limited resources. Also in negotiating at work, discussions of work/conditions, making requests, asking for/or giving advice, coming to agreements /or disagreements and so on.

• How is the way you communicate in Sri Lanka different to the way you communicate in Australia? Are there any differences in the interaction style that you notice between the two cultures? What adjustments do you make to interact with Australians?

Questions:

1. Good morning / afternoon and thank you very much for taking the time to talk to me about your experience of living here in Australia. Can you start by telling about yourself?

How long you have been here; what you do here in Australia, why you came to live in Australia and generally how you feel about living here.

2. What are your observations about living and working here and the communication approaches used by people in Australia?

Have you noticed any differences in the way you communicate, now that you live here in Australia?

In general, do you see any differences in the way you use non-verbal strategies: The tone of voice, Body language; Gestures, posture, and Eye contact – in communicating in Australia when compared with how you communicated when you lived in Sri Lanka?

197 I would like now to focus on a couple of specific types of situations that you have experienced here in Australia

3. What are the challenges and difficulties of living in Australia, as a host culture and the strategies that you have tried to integrate into this culture?

4. In a work situation, can you see any differences in the way you communicate with a supervisor / manager or any other person in authority in Australia in comparison to in Sri Lanka? Can you give any examples?

How does this style affect your communication style?

5. Do you notice any differences in the way you communicate with a peer (another worker) / colleague at work in Sri Lanka and in Australia? Can you give examples?

Do you ever experience embarrassment or concern for how they interact with you?

When researchers think about these issues, we often talk about the idea of a ‘self image’ (self face), or a person’s way of considering themselves, their sense of self worth, and how they appear to others. By contrast, ‘concern for the other person’ is how much concern goes into protecting the face of others. I’d like to now ask you some questions about your self image and how you communicate and what values that you hold.

6. How important is self image concern to you when in interaction, and how important is this in a conflict situation? Can you explain what you would / wouldn’t do?

How important is the concern for the other person to you when in interaction / and how important is this in a conflict situation? Can you explain what you would / wouldn’t do?

7. How important is self image concern and the concern for the other person in a conflict situation with a peer / employee / manager or supervisor, and how would you interact in Australia, and in Sri Lanka? What is important to you in the way you interact-communicate in solving the problem?

Think of a conflict you had with a peer / employee. What did you to solve the conflict? How would you come to a solution in Australia, and in Sri Lanka?

Think of a conflict you had with a manager / supervisor, what did you to solve the conflict? How would you come to a solution in Australia, and in Sri Lanka?

198 In a conflict situation, when would you act to win an argument? And when would you avoid a conflict situation?

8. When you are communicating generally, what are the most important values that you hold?

a. What are the values that you hold from religion?

How does your religion influence the way - how you communicate? Can you explain / provide examples of what values you hold from religion when you communicate / interact with others? What you would do and wouldn’t do?

How do these values influence your behaviour in a conflict situation? What would you do, and wouldn’t do? What are the values that you hold from religion?

b. Do you think your education play any role in how you communicate? Can you explain?

Have you completed any training courses that have helped your communication skills that made aware of strategies in the way you communicate in Australia?

9. Do you see any differences in being dependent or independent when having to work with a peer / employee in Australia and in Sri Lanka? How differently would you communicate / interact with them in Australia and in Sri Lanka?

Do you see any differences in being dependent or independent when having to work with a manager or supervisor in Australia and in Sri Lanka? How differently would you communicate / interact with them in Australia and in Sri Lanka?

10. How does/ how much adjustment do you notice in your behaviour in Australia? How does that change the way you interact with other Sri Lankans?

Have you noticed other Sri Lankan Australians adjust their behaviours to suit Australians?

As you work in Australia, what would you do differently / any particular way of communicating that you have adopted in Australia? Any challenges / difficulties that you face?

Have you seen other Sri Lankans behaving the same way that you do in Australia?

199

Thanks!

Finally, please provide us with a little background information about yourself.

1. Sex (please circle) Male Female

2. Age group (please circle)

20-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61+

3. Highest level of education (mark with an X)

Less than year 12 _____ 1 Year 12 completed _____ 2 Completed technical college course _____ 3 Undergraduate degree _____ 4 Honours/diploma _____ 5 Masters degree _____ 6 Doctorate _____ 7 Other, please write ______

Please write answers to the following:

4. Your occupation (including student) ______

5. Religion ______

6. In which country were you born? ______

7. Cultural or ethnic background ______

8. How long have you lived in Australia? ______

Thank you very much for your participation!!

200

References

201 References

Ariyabuddhiphongs, V. (2007). The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. Philadelphia. RESEARCH: Money Consciousness and the Tendency to Violate the Five Precepts Among Thai Buddhists, 17(1), 37- 45.

Australian Social Trends. (1997). Australian Bureau Of Statistics. Retrieved 28 April 2008, from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/2f762f95845417Aeca 25706c00834efa/95a816f7735aabd5ca2570ec001b074f!OpenDocument

Avtgis, T. A., & Rancer, A. S. (2004). Personalization of conflict across cultures: A comparison among the United States, New Zealand, and Australia. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 33(March), 109-118.

Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(6), 697-712.

Brett, J. M. (2001). Negotiating globally: how to negotiate deals, resolve disputes, and make decisions across cultural boundaries (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brew, F. P., & Cairns, D. R. (2004). Styles of managing interpersonal workplace conflict in relation to status and face concern: a study with Anglos and Chinese. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15(1), 27-56.

Brian, J. H. (2007). The influence of culture on international business negotiations. Industrial and Commercial Training, 39(7), 354-360.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cavana, R. Y., Sekaran, U., & Delahaye, B. L. (2001). Applied business research: qualitative and quantitative methods. Milton, Qld.: John Wiley & Sons Australia.

Chang, L. (2003). An examination of cross-cultural negotiation: Using Hofstede framework. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 2(2), 567-570.

Chavan, M. (2005). Diversity Makes Good Business. Equal Opportunities International, 24(7/8), 38-58.

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2003). Business research methods (8th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2006). Business research methods (9th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

202 Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2008). Business research methods (10th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Domenici, K., & Littlejohn, S. W. (2006). Facework bridging theory and practice. California, USA: Sage Publications.

Dou, W., William, G., & Clark, J. (1999). Appreciating the diversity in multicultural communication styles. Business Forum, 24(3/4), 54-61.

Edhlund, B. M. (2008). NVivo 8 essentials: the ultimate help when you work with qualitative analysis. Stallarholmen, Sweden: Form & Kunskap.

Emory, W., & Cooper, D. R. (1991). Business research methods (4th ed.). Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Ethnicity and Religion. (2011). Department of Census and Statistics – Sri Lanka. Retrieved 8 January, 2011, from http://www.statistics.gov.lk/home.asp

Evered, R. D., & Louis, M. R. (1981). Alternative perspectives in the organizational sciences: “Inquiry from the inside” and “Inquiry from the outside”. Academy of Management Review, 6 (3), 385-395.

Evered, R. D., & Louis, M. R. (2005). Two contrasting modes of inquiry. In C. C. Lundberg & C. A. Young (Eds.), Foundations for inquiry: Choices and trade-offs in the organizational sciences. (pp. 91-98). Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.

Fang, T. (2003). A critique of Hofstede's fifth national culture dimension. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 3(3), 347-368.

Fielding, N., & Fielding, J. L. (1986). Linking data. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Flick, U. (2006). An introduction to qualitative research (3rd ed.). London, Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Francesco, A. M., & Gold, B. A. (2005). International organizational behavior: text, cases, and exercises (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Freeman, M. A. (2001). Linking self and social structure: a psychological perspective on social identity in Sri Lanka. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(3), 291-308.

Gagné, N. O. (2010). Reexamining the notion of negative face in the Japanese Socio linguistic politeness of request. Language & Communication, 30(2), 123-138.

Gamage, S. (1998). Curtains of culture,ethnicity, and class: changing composition of the Sri Lankan community in Australia. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 19(1), 37-56.

203 Gamage, S. (2001). Sinhalese in Australia. In J. Jupp (Ed.), The Australian people - An Encyclopedia of the nation, its people and their origins (2 ed., pp. 684- 685). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gamage, S. (2002 ). Adaptation experiences of Sri Lankan immigrants and their children in Australia in the context of multiculturalism and Anglo- conformity. In A. Richardson & M. Wyness (Eds.), Exploring cultural perspectives: integration and globalization (pp. 3-29). Edmonton: International Cultural Research Network (ICRN) Press.

Geddie, T. (1999). Moving communication across cultures. Communication World, 16(5), 37. Retrieved March 11, 2008, from Academic Search Elite database. (Document ID: 1786570).

Gibbs, G. (2002). Qualitative data analysis: explorations with NVivo. Buckingham: Open University.

Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: an analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 18, 213-231.

Goffman, E. (1972). Interaction ritual: essays on face-to-face behaviour. London: Allen Lane.

Gudykunst, W. B. (2002). Issues in cross-cultural communication research. In W. B. Gudykunst & B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (2nd ed., pp. 165-177). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Lee, C. M. (2002). Cross-cultural communication theories. In W. B. Gudykunst & B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (2nd ed., pp. 25-50). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Lee, C. M. (2003). Cross-cultural communication theories. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Cross-cultural and intercultural communication (pp. 7-33). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Hall, E. T. (1973). The silent language. Garden City, N.J.: Doubleday.

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture (1st ed.). Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press.

Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1990). Understanding cultural differences. Yarmouth, Me: Intercultural Press.

Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (2002). Key concepts: underlying structures of culture. In D. C. Thomas (Ed.), Essentials of international management: a cross-cultural perspective (pp. 151-162 ). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

204 Harvey, M. G., & Griffith, D. A. (2002). Developing effective intercultural relationships: The importance of communication strategies. Thunderbird International Business Review, 44(4), 455-476.

Healey, J. (2005). Multiculturalism in Australia. Thirroul, N.S.W.: Spinney Press.

Hendon, D. W., Hendon, R. A., & Herbig, P. (1998). Negotiating across cultures. Security Management, 42(11), 25-28.

Hodgins, H. S., Liebeskind, E., & Schwartz, W. (1996). Getting out of hot water: Facework in social predicaments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 300-314.

Hofstede, G. H. (1984). Culture's consequences: international differences in work- related values (Abridged ed.). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture's consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. H., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind (Rev. and expanded 2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

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(2), 141-159.

Irwin, H. (1996). Communicating with Asia: understanding people and customs. NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Kakabadse, A., Bank, J., & Vinnicombe, S. (2004). Working in organisations (2nd ed.). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Kim, M. S. (1994). Cross-cultural comparisons of the perceived importance of conversational constraints. Human Communication Research, 21(1), 128-151.

Kim, M. S. (2005). Culture-based conversational constrains theory - Individual and culture level analysis. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 93-117). Thousand Oaks, Calif. London: Sage.

Kim, T., Wang, C., Kondo, M., & Kim, T. (2007). Conflict management styles: the differences among the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans. International Journal of Conflict Management, 18(1), 23-41.

Kim, Y. Y. (2001). Becoming intercultural: an integrative theory of communication and cross-cultural adaptation. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

205 Kiyoko, S. (2004). Differences in the perception of face: Chinese Mien-Tzu and Japanese Metsu. In Intercultural communication: a global reader (pp. 292- 304). Thousand Oaks, Calif. London: Sage Publications.

Knoll, L. (2004). Beyond Cultural Differences 'Intercultural' Co-operation in a German/Sri Lankan Development Project. Internationales Asien Forum. International Quarterly for Asian Studies, 35(3/4), 295-306.

Korac-Kakabadse, N., Kouzmin, A., Korac-Kakabadse, A., & Savery, L. (2001). Low- and high-context communication patterns: towards mapping cross- cultural encounters. Cross Cultural Management, 8(No. 2), 3-22.

Korzenny, F., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1990). Communicating for peace: diplomacy and negotiation. Newbury Park, USA: Sage Publications.

Lawrence, M. (2006). Keys to global relationships. Baylor Business Review, 24(2), 8.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Luévano, R. (2009). Catholic Discernment with a View of Buddhist Internal Clarity. Buddhist - Christian Studies. Honolulu, 29, 39-51.

Maccoby, M. (2006). Dealing with the new diversity. Research Technology Management, 49(3), 58-60.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousands Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Matveev, A. V., & Nelson, P. E. (2004). Cross Cultural Communication Competence and Multicultural Team Performance: Perceptions of American and Russian Managers. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management: CCM, 4(2), 253-270.

McGilvray, D. B. (1993). South Asia -- the presence of the past: chronicles, politics, and culture in Sinhala life by Steven Kemper. The Journal of Asian Studies, 52(4), 1057-1058.

Merkin, R. S. (2000). A cross-cultural examination of facework communication: An application of Hofstede's cultural dimensions. Unpublished Ph.D., Kent State University, United States - Ohio.

Merkin, R. S. (2006a). Power distance and facework strategies. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 35(2), 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.

206 Merkin, R., & Ramadan, R. (2010). Facework in Syria and the United States: A cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Intercultural Relations: IJIR, 34(6), 661-669.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Morand, D. A. (2003). Politeness and the clash of interaction orders in cross-cultural communication. Thunderbird International Business Review, 45(5), 521-540.

Moriizumi, S. (2009). Face Concerns and Requests in Japan: Exploring the Effects of Relational Closeness and Social Status. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 38(3), 149 -174.

Munck, V. C. D., Dudley, N., & Cardinale, J. (2002). Cultural models of gender in Sri Lanka and the United States. Academic Research Library, 41(3), 225-261.

Neuliep, J. W. (2000). Intercultural communication: a contextual approach. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Neuman, W. L. (1997). Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Neuman, W. L. (2004). Basics of social research: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Niles, F. S. (1994). The work ethic in Australia and Sri Lanka. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134(1), 55-59.

Niles, F. S. (1999). Toward a cross-cultural understanding of work-related beliefs. Human Relations, 52(7), 855-867.

Niles, S. (1996). Cultural variation in learning strategies: A comparison of Australian and Sri Lankan university students. The Journal of Psychology, 130(1), 83.

Oetzel, J., Garcia, A., J., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2008). An analysis of the relationships among face concerns and facework behaviors in perceived conflict situations: A four-culture investigation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 19(4), 382-403.

Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Chew-Sanchez, M. I., Harris, R., Wilcox, R., & Stumpf, S. (2003). Face and facework in conflicts with parents and siblings: a cross- cultural comparison of Germans, Japanese, Mexicans, and U.S. Americans. Journal of Family Communication, 3(2), 67-93.

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.

207 Oetzel, J. G., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2003). Face Concerns in Interpersonal Conflict. Communication Research, 30(6), 599-624.

Oetzel, J. G., Ting-Toomey, S., Yokochi, Y., Masumoto, T., & Takai, J. (2000). A typology of facework behaviors in conflicts with best friends and relative strangers. Communication Quarterly, 48(4), 397-419.

Orbe, M. (2007). Multicultural vision for dialog communication for the 21st century. Paper presented at the World Communication Association Conference, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

Pallant, J. F. (2007). SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (3rd ed.). Crows Nest, N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin.

Polychronic. (2010). Retrieved on 1 July 2010, from www.encyclopedia.com/doc/ 1O7-polychronic.html

Price, C. (2002). Australian population: ethnic origins. People and Place, 7(4), 12- 16.

Punch, K. F. (1998). Introduction to social research: quantitative and qualitative approaches. London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications.

Punch, K. (2005). Introduction to social research: quantitative and qualitative approaches (2nd ed.). London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE.

Pyke, J. (2005). Productive Diversity: Which Companies are Active and Why. Paper presented at the Australian Social Policy Conference, University of NSW, Australia.

Rosenbloom, B., & Larsen, T. (2003). Communication in international business-to- business marketing channels: Does culture matter? Industrial Marketing Management, 32(4), 309-315.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2003a). Research methods for business students (3rd ed.). Harlow, England; New York: Prentice Hall.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2003b). Selecting Samples. In M. Saunders, P. Lewis & A. Thornhill (Eds.), Research methods for business students (3rd ed., pp. 150-187). Harlow, England; New York: Prentice Hall.

Siira, K., Rogan, R. G., & Hall, J. A. (2004). "A spoken word is an arrow shot": A comparison of Finnish and U.S. conflict management and face maintenance. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 33(No.2, June), 89-107.

Singelis, T. (2008). Self-Construal Scale. Retrieved 25 August 2008, from http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/aacdr/measures/singelisscs.doc.

Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self- construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580-591.

208 Spiers, J. A. (1998). The use of face work and politeness theory. Qualitative Health Research, 8(1), 25-47.

Sri Lanka. (2006). Bureau of Public Affairs - U.S. State Department. Retrieved 18 February, 2011, from http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71444.htm

Sri Lanka Country Brief. (2011). Australian government department of foreign affairs and trade. Retrieved 8 January, 2011, from http://www.dfat.gov.au/ geo/sri_lanka/sri_lanka_country_brief.html

Sri Lanka - Ethnic Groups. (1988). U.S. Library of Congress. Retrieved 18 February, 2011, from http://countrystudies.us/sri-lanka/38.htm

Sri Lankan Australian. (2010). Wikipedia. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved 6 March, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_ Australian

Taylor, S. (2006). Communicating across cultures. The British Journal of Administrative Management, Jun/Jul, 12-13.

Theodore, A., & Andrew, S. R. (2004). Personalization of conflict across cultures: A comparison among the United States, New Zealand, and Australia. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 33(March), 109-118.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213-238). California, USA: Sage Publications.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1992). Cross-cultural face-negotiation: An analytical overview. Paper presented at the Pacific region forum on Business and Management Communication, Simon Fraser University at Harbour Centre.

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): California, USA: Sage Publications.

Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (2001). Managing intercultural conflict effectively. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (2002). Cross-cultural face concerns and conflict styles: current status and future directions. In W. B. Gudykunst & B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (2nd ed., pp. 143-163). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Toma, M. (2004). Diversity: Headache or head start? Human Resource Management International Digest, 12(2), 2-4.

Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96(3), 506-520.

209 Triandis, H. C. (2004). Dimensions of culture beyond Hofstede. In H. Vinken, J. Soeters & P. Ester (Eds.), Comparing cultures: dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective (pp. 28-42). Leiden Boston: Brill.

Varner, I. I. (2000). The Theoretical Foundation for Intercultural Business Communication: A Conceptual Model. Journal of Business Communication, 37(1), 39-57.

Varner, I. I., & Palmer, T. M. (2005). Role of Cultural Self-Knowledge in Successful Expatriation. Singapore Management Review, 27(1), 1-25.

Villemoes, A. (1995). Culturally determined facework priorities in Danish and Spanish business negotiation. In K. Ehlich & J. Wagner (Eds.), The discourse of business negotiation (pp. 291-312). Berlin New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Vinken, H., Soeters, J., & Ester, P. (2004). Cultures and dimensions: classis perspectives and new opportunities in 'dimentionalist' cross-cultural studies. In H. Vinken, J. Soeters & P. Ester (Eds.), Comparing cultures: dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective (pp. 28-42). Leiden Boston: Brill.

Wagner, J. (1995). What makes a discourse a negotiation? In K. Ehlich & J. Wagner (Eds.), The discourse of business negotiation (pp. 9-36). Berlin New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Waisfisz, B. (1992). ITIM International. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH - German Agency for Technical Cooperation.

Warren, C. A. B. (2002). Qualitative Interviewing. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: context & method (pp. 83-101). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Wilson, S. R., & Waltman, M. S. (1988). Assessing the Putnam-Wilson organizational communication conflict instrument (OCCI). Management Communication Quarterly: McQ (1986-1998), 1(3), 367-388.

Wood, J. T., & Dindia, K. (1998). What's the difference? A dialogue about differences and similarities between women and men. In D. J. Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication: critical essays and empirical investigations of sex and gender in interaction (pp. 19- 39). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Zandpour, F., & Sadri, G. (1996). Communication in personal relationships in Iran: a comparative analysis. In W. B. Gudykunst, S. Ting-Toomey & T. Nishida (Eds.), Communication in personal relationships across cultures (pp. 174- 196). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Zikmund, W. G. (2003). Business research methods (7th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Thomson/South-Western.

210