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