Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Journal of Politeness Research

Language, Behaviour, Culture

Ed. by Grainger, Karen

2 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.000
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.365

CiteScore 2017: 1.65

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.585
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.848

Print + Online
See all formats and pricing
More options …

The faces at play in performance appraisals: With a focus upon a UK retail organization

Dawn Archer
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Languages, Information and Communications, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, Geoffrey Manton Building Rosamond Street West Off Oxford Road United Kingdom,
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Phil Willcox
Published Online: 2018-07-05 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2018-0012

Abstract

A variety of face types can be in operation in workplaces, dependent on, for example, the kind of workplace, the various activities engaged in in that workplace, the status/role/gender of participants working in and/or connected with the workplace, etc. This paper offers an adapted version of Archer’s (2015) Facework Scale as a means of accounting for the different types of face in evidence in one activity - Performance Appraisals - in one workplace, relating to a UK retail organization. We will show that interlocutors used facework strategies that emphasized different or multiple facets of face on both a professional and personal level (Jagodziński 2013). This includes attempting to safeguard/support their working relationships (Haugh 2013) by managing impressions of self and/or the company (Jones and Pitman 1982) at the same time as maintaining credibility for self and/or other(s) (Bolino et al. 2016). We use our findings to argue that employers and their employees would benefit from having an understanding of face(work), and briefly discuss the training implications for Performance Appraisals if face(work) notions were introduced.

Keywords: face; facework; performance appraisal; facework scale; credibility

References

  • ACAS, 2014. How to manage Performance. Advisory booklet [online]. Available at http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/m/0/How-to-manage-performance-advisory-booklet.pdf. (Accessed 1 May 2015).Google Scholar

  • Anderson, Cameron, Sanjay Srivastava, Jennifer S. Beer, Sandra E. Spataro & Jennifer A. Chatman. 2006. Knowing your place: Self-perceptions of status in face-to-face groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91(6). 1094-1110.Google Scholar

  • Archer, Dawn. 2008. Verbal aggression and impoliteness: Related or synonymous? In Derek Bousfield & Miriam Locher (eds.) Impoliteness in language. (Language, Power and Social Processes Series), 181-207. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Archer, Dawn. 2015. Slurs, insults, (backhanded) compliments and other strategic facework moves. Language Sciences 52. 82-97.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Archer, Dawn. 2018. Impression management in the Early Modern English courtroom. In Merja Kytö & Terry Walker (eds.). Dialogues in diachrony. [Special issue]. Journal of Historical Pragmatics. 19(2): (not yet paginated).Google Scholar

  • Arundale, Robert B. 2009. Face as emergent in interpersonal communication: An alternative to Goffman. In Francesca Bargiela-Chappini & Michael Haugh (eds.), Face, communication and social Interaction, 33-54. London: Equinox.Google Scholar

  • Bolino, Mark, David Long & William Turnley. 2016. Impression management in organizations: Critical questions, answers, and areas for future research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 3. 377-406.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Brown, Penelope & Steven C. Levinson. 1987, Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Chen, Serena, Helen C. Boucher & Molly Parker Tapas. 2006. The relational self revealed: Integrative conceptualization and implications for interpersonal life. Psychological Bulletin 123(2). 151-179.Google Scholar

  • CIPD. 2014. Performance Appraisal Factsheet [online]. Available at http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/factsheets/performance-appraisal.aspx. (Accessed 28 July 2014)Google Scholar

  • CIPD. 2017. ‘HR Professionalism: What do we stand for?’ Research Report [online]. Available at https://www.cipd.co.uk/Images/hr-professionalism-what-do-we-stand-for_2017_tcm18-17960.pdf. (Accessed 28 July 2017).Google Scholar

  • Cordella, Marisa. 2004. The dynamic consultation: A discourse analytical study of doctor patient communication. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Culpeper, Jonathan. 2005. Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture 1(1). 35-72.Google Scholar

  • Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • DuBrin, Andrew J. 2010. Impression management in the workplace: Research, theory and practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Edelmann, Robert J. 1994. Embarrassment and blushing: Factors influencing face-saving strategies. In: Stella Ting-Toomey (ed.), The Challenge of Facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues, 231-268. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

  • Emerson, Richard M. 1962. Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review 27(1). 31-41.Google Scholar

  • Gass, Robert H. & John S. Seiter. 2015. Persuasion: Social influence and compliance gaining, 5th edn. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Goffman, Erving. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.Google Scholar

  • Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction ritual. Essays in face-to-face behavior. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar

  • Goffman, Erving. 1981. Footing. In Erving Goffman (ed.), Forms of talk, 124-159. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

  • Goodwin, Charles. 2007. Interactive footing. In Elizabeth Holt & Rebecca Clift (eds.), Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction, 16-46. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

  • Haugh, Michael. 2013. Disentangling face, facework and im/politeness. Sociocultural Pragmatics 1(1). 46-73.Google Scholar

  • Held, Gudrun. 2014. Figura … or Face? Reflections on two sociopragmatic key concepts in the light of a recent media conflict between Italians and Germans and its negotiation in Italian internet forums. In Kristina Bedjis, Gudrun Held & Christiane Maaß (eds.), Facework and social media, 31-62. Berlin: LIT Verlag Münster.Google Scholar

  • Holland, Rob W., Ree Meertens & Mark Van Vugt. 2002. Dissonance on the road: Self-esteem as a moderator of internal and external self-justification strategies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28(12).1713-1724.Google Scholar

  • Holmes, Janet, & Maria Stubbe. 2003. Power and politeness in the workplace: A sociolinguistic analysis of talk at work. London: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Jagodziński, Piotr. 2013. Impoliteness strategies in a British airline call centre: A pragmatic analysis of customer service interactions. Adam Mickiewicz University PhD thesis.Google Scholar

  • Jones, Edward E. & Thane Pittman. 1982. Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In Jerry Sules (ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self, 231-262. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Kádár, Dániel. & Michael Haugh. 2013. Understanding politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

  • Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 2008. Metaphors we live by. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Levinson, Steven C. 1992. Activity types and language. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, 66-100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lim, Tae-Seop & John W. Bowers. 1991. Facework solidarity, approbation, and tact. Human Communication Research 17(3). 415-450.Google Scholar

  • Lim, Tae-Seop. 1994. Facework and interpersonal relationships. In: Stella Ting-Toomey (ed.), The Challenge of Facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues, 209-229. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

  • Martin, Malcolm, Fiona Whiting &Tricia Jackson. 2010. Human resource practice. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.Google Scholar

  • Schlenker, Barry R. 1980. Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relationships. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar

  • Shea, Gordon. 2001. How to develop successful mentor behaviors. Seattle and Washington: Thomas Crisp Learning.Google Scholar

  • Sinek, Simon. 2011. Start with why: How great leaders inspire everyone to take action. London: Penguin.Google Scholar

  • Spencer-Oatey, Helen D. 2002. Managing rapport in talk: Using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 529-545.Google Scholar

  • Spencer-Oatey, Helen D. 2007. Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics 39(4). 639-656.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Spencer-Oatey, Helen D. 2008. Face, (im)politeness and rapport. In Helen Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory. 2nd edn., 11-47. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

  • Tannen, Deborah. 2007. Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Tedeschi, James T. & Valerie Melburg. 1984. Impression management and influence in the organization. In Samuel B. Bacharach & Edward J. Lawler (eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations, 31-58. Greenwich, CT: JA.Google Scholar

  • Vonk, Ross. 1999. Impression formation and impression management: Motives, traits, and likeability inferred from self-promoting and self-deprecating behavior. Social Cognition 17(4). 390-412.Google Scholar

  • Wartenberg, Thomas E. 1990. The Forms of power: From domination to transformation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar

  • Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2018-07-05

Published in Print: 2018-07-26


Citation Information: Journal of Politeness Research, Volume 14, Issue 2, Pages 167–192, ISSN (Online) 1613-4877, ISSN (Print) 1612-5681, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2018-0012.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in