# data[].attributes.body
One thing that needs to be mentioned here is the different cultural backgrounds of these two interlocutors. A comes from the northern part of China, with a more direct communication style; B on the other hand comes from southern China which is famous for its indirect speaking style. Diversity is sometimes framed as a problem to overcome. Conflicting communication styles are the problem in this transcultural communication. According to the three stages raised by Piller(2017), these two interlocutors are still in the first stage, sticking to the communicating style of their own cultural background. And it is the leading reason why they have conflicts.

# data[].attributes.headline
1.Considering Face Theory, how can an organisation do with a culture difference in a transcultural workplace while respecting politeness and face?

# data[].attributes.subject
1.Considering Face Theory, how can an organisation do with a culture difference in a transcultural workplace while respecting politeness and face?

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:
(Im)politeness refers to the spectrum of communicative strategies and behaviors that are perceived as either polite or impolite within a transcultural context. These perceptions are deeply influenced by varying cultural norms, values, and expectations, especially in diverse workplace settings.

Dimensions of (Im)politeness:

Directness vs. Indirectness: The degree to which communication is straightforward and explicit versus subtle and nuanced. Directness may be valued in some cultures for its clarity, while indirectness may be preferred in others for its tact and face-saving qualities. (Scollon R. Scollon S. B. K. & Jones R. H. , 2012)

Positive vs. Negative Politeness Strategies:

Positive Politeness: Strategies that aim to minimize the distance between communicators, such as compliments, assurances, and inclusive language.

Negative Politeness: Strategies that are indirect, hedging, and emphasize the desire not to impose or intrude on the listener's autonomy.

# data[].attributes.body
In recent decades, globalization has fostered cultural diversity and expanded international markets. As Culpeper et al. (2017) said, the same behaviors are shared with differences even within one language. Such differences increase when facing a global and transcultural market.

In transcultural workplaces, (im)politeness is critical, given its connection to power dynamics, especially within hierarchical workplace relationships, as observed by Culpeper et al. (2017, p. 638). This interrelation is strongly linked to face theory, a concept from sociolinguistics, which is about public image negotiation granted by interlocutors in a communicative event (Scollon et al., 2012, p. 47).

# data[].attributes.body
Workplace (im)politeness research, once focused on written materials like emails, has evolved over the past two decades to encompass recorded interactions in diverse settings, including meetings and phone calls. Video recordings have further advanced the field, enabling deeper, multimodal analysis, and enhancing our understanding of workplace (im)politeness. (Culpeper et al., 2017).

The data used here is a screenshot from a WeChat group in a Chinese startup. With the impact of COVID-19, many companies have adopted Work From Home (WFH) as a trend (Bloom, 2020). And remote work communication has become a new norm for young employees and employers as well. Since there's still a lot to uncover in this area, it's worth further exploration and investigation.

# data[].attributes.body
In the given context, we can observe the interplay of face theory in Chinese interpersonal communication. Face theory, as described in the theory above, involves two aspects: positive face (the desire to be identified and appraised by others) and negative face (the desire to be autonomous and not commanded by others). Face sensitivity is crucial in workplace interactions, where individuals seek positive feedback and want to avoid negative evaluations.

For example, in the beginning of this conversation: A: “你真的不会这个吗？这么简单的任务都做不好。(Can't you really do this? You can't even handle such a simple task.)”. B: “你难道只会批评吗？你就不能友善点吗？(Do you only know how to criticize? Can't you be a bit more friendly?)”. In this exchange, Person A is challenging Person B's competence, which threatens B's positive face. Person B responds by questioning A's politeness and asks for more friendly communication, trying to preserve their positive face. In this conversation, we can see a clash between the desire for positive face preservation and the direct criticism of each other's abilities. Person A's bluntness and criticism breach the positive face communicative rules described in Chinese society, potentially leading to conflict and negatively affecting rapport at work, as outlined in the theory. Person B, on the other hand, attempts to maintain face by advocating for more respectful communication and suggesting that teamwork could improve with a less harsh approach.

# data[].attributes.body
The (im)politeness and face strategies play crucial roles in the context of transcultural workplaces, particularly in Chinese culture. From a linguistic perspective, using circumlocution and euphemism is converting some words to a more considerable expression in communication. In terms of interpersonal communication, the interplay of positive and negative faces and the use of (im)politeness strategies profoundly impact communication dynamics at work.

# data[].attributes.body
Linguistic politeness is defined as interactive discourse strategies aimed at maintaining harmonious interpersonal relationships and avoiding conflicts with others. In the given context, many impoliteness strategies have resulted in conflict and offense in the conversation, thus undermining the cooperative and mutually beneficial atmosphere in the work environment.
For example, at the beginning of the conversation, when colleague B made a mistake at work, A directly pointed out B's error and employed a questioning strategy to inquire and complain about B's mistakes in the workplace. This initial approach violated the principles of linguistic politeness in discourse. The conversation did not begin with polite language, small talk, or salutations. As a result, in the subsequent conversation, both parties resorted to using rhetorical questions and mutual criticism. For instance, A:“友善?” (Friendly?), and B：“无用建议?” (Useless advice?). A further escalated the conflict by using, “团队合作?'”(Teamwork?) and “刻薄?” (Harsh?). Furthermore, both parties employed aggressive language specific to the Chinese context, such as “高高在上” (high and mighty) and “无用的建议” (useless advice), intensifying the hostile atmosphere of the conversation. Even though A may have seen it as straightforwardly stating their genuine opinion about B's performance, their discourse came across as harsh and lacked displays of friendliness, respect for their colleague, or willingness to cooperate in problem-solving. This disrupted the collaborative and supportive atmosphere within the team.

# data[].attributes.body
Face is highly influenced by “(im)politeness” actions in interpersonal communication. Face involves two aspects: the positive face and the negative face. Negative face refers to individuals eager to be autonomous and not commanded by others, while positive face indicates a person’s desire to be identified and appraised by others (Spencer-Oatey, 2008). Face sensitivity is one of the bases of rapport as it is commonplace for everyone to be concerned about face in workplace interaction, where individuals hope to receive positive feedback about their behaviors from others and do not want others to evaluate them negatively.

In Chinese society, face has always been regarded as a crucial component of a person’s identity, especially the positive face as the foundation to foster rapport. Some strategies are adopted to keep a positive face, for example, avoiding criticizing others and using circumlocution and euphemism in comments about other’s performance (Hwang, 1987). However, when someone breaks the positive face communicative rules and points out another’s drawbacks straightforwardly, these utterances may affect the interlocutors’ self-esteem, such as their dignity, reputation, and so forth. The results of disregarding others’ positive faces can lead to conflicts between two sides and further affect the rapport at work.

# data[].attributes.headline
2. In the context of remote work becoming an increasingly prominent trend, what are the positive and negative impacts of using mobile apps for work-related communication in a transcultural organization?

# data[].attributes.subject
2. In the context of remote work becoming an increasingly prominent trend, what are the positive and negative impacts of using mobile apps for work-related communication in a transcultural organization?

# data[].attributes.body
Before having a transcultural communication, understand each other's cultural habits and tell each other their expectations for cooperation in advance at the early stage of communication, which can effectively keep the face of both sides and avoid conflicts caused by different cultural backgrounds.

# data[].attributes.body
Having communication across different kinds of diversity, like, gender, religion, ethnicity geographic background, can also be considered a kind of transcultural communication. Piller (2017) gives a definition of the three different stages in a transcultural workplace:

Stage one: Using the communicative styles of people from different nations.
Stage two: Exploring actual communicative practices in the workplace.

Stage three: Understanding people, and communicating transculturally.

# data[].attributes.body
Bloom, N. (2020). How working from home works out. Stanford Institute for economic policy research, 8.

Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., & Kádár, D. Z. (2017). The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. In Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7

Hwang, K. K. (1987). Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American journal of Sociology, 92(4), 944-974.

Piller, I. (2017). Intercultural communication: A critical introduction(2 ed.). Edinburgh University Press.

Scollon, R., Scollon, S. W., & Jones, R. H. (2012). Intercultural communication: A Discourse Approach. John Wiley & Sons.

Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.). (2008). Culturally speaking second edition: Culture, communication and politeness theory. Bloomsbury Publishing.