Master Thesis
Corruption in China and the Netherlands
the mediation effect of interpersonal relationship
January 10
th, 2016
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business MSc. International Business and Management
Jingyuan Chen
Student number: 2830760
E-mail: j.chen.19@student.rug.nl
Supervisor:
1
Abstract
Nowadays, corruption has become a central concern for business, because it is rampant all over the world, and has a negative impact on economic growth. Therefore anti-corruption policies become increasingly important in many countries. The key to reduce corruption is to understand what influences corruption. The lines between gifts and corruption are not always clear. Thus, this research developed a theoretical model to try to interpret the effect of different countries on gift giving behavior (corruption) with the mediation effect of interpersonal relationship. I supposed that different cultures in China and the Netherlands have an influence on their interpersonal relationships, which would lead to different gift giving behaviors (corruption). This model was tested by a survey conducted in China and the Netherlands. The results showed that gift giving behavior occurs more in China than in the Netherlands, and China attaches more importance to an interpersonal relationship than the Netherlands. Furthermore, interpersonal relationship is positively related to gift giving behavior. However, interpersonal relationship only has partial mediation effect in the relationship between country and gift giving behavior (corruption).
2
Table of contents
ABSTRACT ………1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ………2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………3 INTRODUCTION ……… 4 LITERATURE REVIEW ………8 Corruption ………8Gift giving behavior ………9
China – the Netherlands ………11
Interpersonal relationship ……… 14
METHODOLOGY ………22
Sample and Procedure ………22
Data ………23
Measures ………24
RESULTS ……… 25
Descriptive Statistics ……… 25
Mediation ……… 26
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ……… 27
Aim and Results ………28
3
Acknowledgements
This thesis marks the end of my master program at the University of Groningen. Many people deserve thanks for their support and help. My studies could not have been completed without the encouragement and support of everyone involved in my academic career.
In particular, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Sanne Ponsioen for her guidance and advice during the process of writing this thesis.
Furthermore, I thank all the respondents of the online survey for their willingness and time to contribute in this research.
I am grateful to my parents for all of the love, support, encouragement and dedication. Without their support, my study at RUG would have not been possible.
4
Introduction
Corruption is rampant all over the world, both in business and government. Anti-corruption policies become increasingly important in many countries. Banerjee, Mullainathan and Hanna (2012) show that the World Bank alone has supported over 600 anti-corruption programs since 1996.
Although corruption is condemned and criticized, the deed that cannot bear the light of the day is never completely eradicated. According to a survey conducted by Transparency International in 2008, nearly two to five of more than 2700 business executives in 26 countries claimed that they had been requested to pay a bribe in the last year when seeking attentions from series of institutions that provide important services for business.
Nowadays, corruption has become a central concern for business. A large number of empirical evaluation have shown that corruption has a negative impact on economic growth, political stability, judicial effectiveness, democratization, educational attainment, and equality of income (Sheheryar & Catherine, 2012). Clearly, in order to make an appropriate business strategy decision, and run business smoothly, it‟s important and interesting for managers and decision makers to know the situation of corruption within the environment they do business.
5
table. It is interesting to find out what causes different situation of corruption in different countries.
In order to deal with corruption, some researchers focus on anti-corruption policies. Di Tella and Schargrodsky (2003) suggest that the degree of audit intensive is important to the effectiveness of anti-corruption. Banerjee, Mullainathan and Hanna (2012) suggest establishing a simple norm that courts can easily interpret and people can use them to judge what they should do and should not do. However, key to find effective solutions is to understand what influences corruption. In other words, why some countries have higher corruption than other countries? Once the antecedents of corruption are found and understood, multi-national companies can start to deal with such problems and focus on increasing the possibilities to reduce corruption.
In this study, I will see gift giving as a way to carry out corruption and as a concrete measurement of corruption. The line between gift giving and corruption is distorted. Sometimes gift giving behavior could be an appropriate part of business relationship, while sometimes such behavior may become a severe breach of business ethics, and even a violation of the law (Smith, 2014). Then a new problem has arisen: why people give gifts to others? To establish and improve interpersonal relationship could be the motive for such behavior. Furthermore, before bribing others, interpersonal relationship should be set up between bribers and bribees, since bribees do not dare to receive gifts from strangers. Bribers cannot ensure whether the people they want to bribe will receive their gifts, and in turn bribees cannot ensure whether bribers will sell out them, but the solid interpersonal relationship could put off those doubts and fears to some extent.
6
level as well.
Gift giving behavior is influenced by cultural context of a country because each culture has its own rules and modus operandi (Shanka & Handley, 2011). For example, Arunthanes, Tansuhaj and Lemak (1994) point out that the acceptable amount given of a gift is influenced by specific cultural and legal background in different countries. As the popular saying goes: „Chinese culture is a gift culture‟, that is Chinese has a special culture in gift giving and taking. Every important meeting is made auspicious by the exchange of gifts, including within the family, friends, business and so on. Gift giving is widely accepted as legal practice in business in Chinese cultural society (Tian, 2007).
Gift giving has been regarded as a courtesy in some countries, but it could lead to corruption as well (Law, 2013). The lines between gift giving and corruption are always indistinct (Steidlmeier, 1999). Different degree in corruption is related to different gift culture. Analyzing one of special aspects of culture could help us understand some extreme cases deeply. In other words, it is interesting to explain the reason why China is the most likely country engaging in corruption and the Netherlands is the least one by analyzing its special gift culture which runs a long course from a remote source.
7
seems likely to be able to clarify the behavior of bribers and bribees. Thus the research question that follows is:
“What is the relationship between country and gift giving behavior (corruption) and how can this relation be explained by interpersonal relationship?”
Research has been done on countries and corruption / gift giving behavior, but I try to find out why some countries are more engaged in such behavior than others. In other words, I aim to find an explaining mechanism, which is the research gap in this study. In this thesis, I will be striving to contribute to the current research debates on the relationship between country and gift giving behavior, which is related to corruption. I suppose that interpersonal relationship plays as a mediator in the relationship between country and gift giving / corruption. It may explain why corruption occurs more often in China than in the Netherlands. This thesis gives a deeper understanding in how the effect of country influences gift giving. It is important to understand cultural factors that are likely to influence corruption because increased globalization has been accompanied with increasing cross-national interdependence between and within organizations (Mavondo and Rodrigo, 2001). For practitioners, understanding the cultural influence on gift giving and corruption allows them decide business strategies better under the different cultural backgrounds. It is also important for business scholars to research in this area, because it can help develop an understanding of the influence of contextual factors by which gift giving behavior and corruption become endemic to certain organizations. Moreover, once understood whether and how countries explains differences in corruption, more great and effective methods would be developed to reduce or keep away from corruption.
8
to answer the research question. Then the methodology will be explained and the model will be tested. Then the results will be given followed by a discussion, the study‟s theoretical and practical implications. Following is limitations. Advice for future research will be presented at the end and finally a conclusion will be drawn.
Literature Review
Corruption
There exist a wide range of definitions applying to the term corruption. Banerjee, Mullainathan and Hanna (2012) define corruption as the breaking of rule for private gain, including taking an overt monetary bribe to bend a rule, nepotism and “steal time”. For the purpose of my analysis, however, I will use the relative narrow definition of corruption based on Wantchekon and Serra (2012) and Wikipedia: the abuse of bestowed power or position to acquire a personal monetary or nonmonetary benefit (gifts) above the interests of the general public. To monetary gifts belong cash and cards. Nonmonetary gifts include jewelry, home appliances, cars, houses, overseas travels, gratuitous services and so on.
9
the organizations they work for do not pay them properly; they are desperate to buy favors (Miller, Grødeland & Koshechkina, 2001).
In addition, corruption can stem from different antecedents, being macro- and micro level. Mocan (2008) reveals that on the micro-level, personal characteristics of the individual, such as age, marital status, labor market activity, wealth, education, gender and the location of the residence,should be taken into account. Concerning the macro-level, research has shown that variables related to a country, such as attributes of the country, including legal, cultural and economic development aspects; and quality of institutions in the country, including institutional characteristics and standard human capital (Mocan, 2008). Mauro (1995) shows that corruption is negatively related to economic growth and private investment. Ades and Di Tella (1999) suggest that making markets more competitive could reduce corruption. Treisman (2000) shows a relationship between corruption and judicial effectiveness. Uslaner (2008) elaborates that how fairness in the rule of law has effect on corruption. Lederman, Loayza and Soares (2005) reveal the relationship between corruption and political institutions. You and Khagram (2005) argue that income inequality raise the level of corruption. By assessing macro-level (China and the Netherlands) of corruption, more guidance of anti-corruption for countries and companies can be delivered, and countries and companies can exert more influence on anti-corruption than individuals.
Gift giving behavior
10
Björn, 2010). They claim that corruption has an explicit request for beneficial future treatment; however, gifts do not always include an obvious expectation of reciprocity. On the other hand, the lines between gifts and corruption are not always clear; and gifts could be kinds of extortion and bribery (Steidlmeier, 1999). Gift giving behavior may perplex or conceal a system of corruption (Millington, Eberhardt & Wilkinson, 2005). As Steidlmeier (1999) presents, values of self-interest could be replaced by absolute selfishness and expediency; meanwhile, corruption can be concealed easily by gift giving behaviors. Shaw and Barry (2004) claim that corruption can be in the form of gifts, such as money, entertainment, or preferential treatment; moreover, it is not easy to know the border of business gifts and corruption. As James (2002) states, it is challenging to judge when a particular payment is a bribe. Thus I use gift giving as a way to narrow down the concept of corruption. That is to say, gift giving could be regarded as a concrete measurement of corruption.
The concept and convention in the value of the gift in daily life have the influence on the level of corruption. Li (2011) finds that international luxury items have frequently appeared in the evidence lists in corruption. Status of a person is positively related to the generosity of one‟s gift giving (Schneiders, 1998). Ordinary commodities will hardly please sophisticated officials, who always enjoy various privileges and benefits. Some bribers spend a lot of time investigating and discovering the personal preferences of targeted officials. Li (2011) also points out that according to a local procuratorate, 92% of the officials prosecuted for bribe-taking in its jurisdiction in 2007 had accepted shopping-cards from bribers, among whom one had taken as many as 45 cards, worth around 15700 euro. Therefore the level of corruption is related to gift giving.
11
and Lemak, 1994). Rugimbana, Donahay, Neal and Polonsky (2001) study various motivations for gift giving; and the most common motivations are obligation, self-interest, altruism and basic exchange or reciprocity. The reasons of gift giving are various, such as investing in relationships, shaping identities (Marotta, 2015), showing affection, showing off skills (handmade gifts), promoting business, marking milestones, rewarding another‟s behavior, expressing appreciation (Anamika, 2015). In business, the motive of gift giving as a bribe is to ask for benefit, or make an understanding of returning a favor (Roy, 2010). As Severson (2012) states, the appearance or recognition of the gifts imply debt. In other words, the presence of the gifts means it enters the horizon of economy. The reciprocity cycle begins with the receiver returning the gifts, whenever the gifts are identified. In business, an understood return favor starts to creep in when giving gifts; and it is accompanied by increasing in the value of what is given (Stell, 2011).
China – the Netherlands
In this thesis, I argue that gift giving behavior (as an operationalization of corruption) is influenced by country factors. More specific, in this thesis I will study whether gift giving behavior differs between China and the Netherlands. Subsequently, I would go into detail on China and the Netherlands, and their gift culture, which will lead to the first hypothesis.
12
Survey and the CPI. The first one is the degree to which culture impacts expectations of achievement (what Hofstede (1997) terms as masculinity dimension: value material gains over quality of life) and the other one is amoral familialism, which Hofstede terms as power distance. Therefore, culture plays an important role in corruption, and it is necessary to take notice of cultural influence on corruption research.
Roberts (2013) states that gift giving behavior in business is influenced by cultures, and he compares European business gift giving with Chinese‟s. He points out that Europeans do not see gifts as an essential part of business relationship. It means on the first or routine meeting, Europeans are not expected to give a gift; however, it does not mean a suitable gift on special occasions is not appreciated. On the contrary, Roberts (2013) places China in countries where a gift is expected in business. Passport to Trade, the website that specializes in international business culture and business etiquette, points out that in the Netherlands gift giving is not a common part in business, because the Dutch do not like to be obliged, and they do not expect to present gifts in business except the due reward owing to services or help provided. Passport to Trade also presents that Westerners pay much more attention on the actual transaction at hand, and less on courtesies and rites in business, such as gift giving.
13
Netherlands.
In addition to the differences in amount given of gifts, the occasions of gift giving in business vary from country to country. The culture of society determines the particular occasion for gift giving or gift-exchange (Qian, Razzaque & Keng, 2007). It is well known that gifts are given on a wide variety of different occasions including holidays, birthdays, and special events, such as wedding, promotion, moving house, funeral, visiting a patient and so on. Gift giving in business always occurs in the course of the festivals (Greaves, 2001). For Westerners, Christmas and birthdays are the most important occasions to give gifts (Qian, Razzaque & Keng, 2007). They also give gifts on Thanksgiving Day, Valentine‟s Day and so on. While Chinese give gifts on Chinese New Year, Mid-autumn Festival, the Dragon Boat Festival, Double Ninth Festival and on some other traditional festivals. Therefore, China has more occasions to give gift in business than the Netherlands.
The frequency and timing of giving the gifts are very important and could directly affect the total amount of gift giving, which could finally lead to corruption. The skill of giving gift is regarded as a kind of expertise when doing business in China. For example, by searching the key word “gift-offering (called „songli‟ in Chinese)” in online bookstore, you can find many popular self-help books that teach you how to have your gifts accepted. You can also find a lot when searching the topics such as “when to give gifts to superior” or “what to say when presenting a gift to your superior” on the search column. That is to say, Chinese pay more attention to gift giving in business.
14
the concept of propriety, are the foundation of social intercourse in Chinese society. According to Lévi-Strauss (1957), as a means to get or express prestige, some Westerners exhibit the Christmas cards and gifts on mantelpiece and exemplify the waste of wealth. However, in the Netherlands, the idea of „quid pro quo‟ is less popular among those have the closer social ties (Aafke, 1996).
In China, People would “warm up the relationship” first before they would bribe (Li, 2011) and the “warm up” often starts with the offering of gifts or other gratuitous services. There is a statement popular in China: “the thing is half done once the gift is accepted.” It also means the gift-receivers would not accept the gifts to offer the gift-givers favorable treatment if the givers don‟t have good relationship with them before. Sometimes people had spent about one year embarking on painstakingly elaborate process building trust, deploying gifts and gratuities before they send the expensive gifts for the purpose of “help” from officials or superiors. Thus, having frequent gift giving would cause a relative high level of corruption.
In view of the above-mentioned arguments, the first hypothesis is as follows:
Hypothesis 1: Gift giving behavior occurs more in China than in the Netherlands.
Interpersonal relationship
15
in such society interpersonal relationship works as an important power, and could gain benefit without obligating regulations and norms (Luo, 2008). In this study, I argue that interpersonal relationship is seen as a mediator in the relationship between country and gift giving behavior (corruption). To be specific, in this thesis I will study whether China attaches more importance to an interpersonal relationship than the Netherlands. Then I would go into detail on the interpersonal relationship of China and the Netherlands, which will come to the following hypotheses.
Here interpersonal relationships can be defined as the relationships that occur between people who fill each other‟s explicit or implicit physical needs in some way, and the relationships would be developed and improved through meeting the physical needs. Rylander et al. (1997: p65) states that “much of commitment occurs at a personal rather than organizational level.” Interpersonal relationship in business is important. According to existing research, interpersonal relationship could cut transaction costs and make transactions go smoothly in a society with weak institutional and legal structure (Millington, Markus & Wilkinson, 2005). Especially in the command economy, interpersonal relationship can help to gain access to distribution channels, connect to suppliers and markets (Guthrie, 1998). The quality of interpersonal relationship in business has a significant influence on people‟s ability to get success in work, because people feel more productive and better if they have good personal connections in business (Vokić and Hernaus, 2004). OSU.EDU, the website of The Ohio State University, also presents that interpersonal relationship in business plays an important role in individual career success, because strong and positive interpersonal relationship is conducive to effective communication and understanding in business. Therefore, it is imperative to develop interpersonal relationship in business.
16
dimensions in the existing literatures: social bonding, face-giving, trust, long-term orientation, reciprocity, cooperation and interpersonal commitment.
Social bonding
Social bonding indicates the influence of mutual personal elements on business interpersonal relationship. Lacobucci and Ostom (1996) point out that some Westerners think that there is no association between social interaction and business relationships. In other words, they think social bonding is not important or meaningful for the development of close relationship in business. However, Chinese regard socialization as crucial in developing business relationships. This could point toward that Chinese pay more attention than Dutch to social bonding, which is a part of the interpersonal relationship.
Face-giving
Hu (1944) defines face-giving as a person‟s social position or status recognized by other people; that is to say, face is the standing in the eyes of other people. Sean (2013) points out that face represents individual‟s “reputation and feelings of prestige” and it plays an important role in developing and maintaining interpersonal relationships. Mavondo and Rodrigo (2001) present that people could take advantage of the value of face to make sure that others abide by their promises. In China, face-giving is important, so sometimes it could make things goes more smoothly and save time. However, some Westerners cannot understand face-giving, because they think any emotional decision-making show a symbol of weakness (Mavondo and Rodrigo, 2001). Thus face-giving plays a more important role in interpersonal relationship in China than in the Netherlands.
Trust
17
behavior, long relationship, commitment and effective communication are some factors that could increase interpersonal trust. Two components: feeling and rational thinking form interpersonal trust (Rodriguez & Wilson, 1995). As a complement to legal obligation, trust is very important in business transactions (MacNeil, 1980). In Asian countries, where praise highly collectivistic culture, rational thinking could have impact on affective component; contrary to individualistic culture, in Western countries, emotional component could not affect behavior. The development of trust needs much time, so many Westerners are reluctant to invest in when doing business; however, in Asia trust even could substitute formal contracts (Thorelli, 1990). Trust is considered as a norm in interpersonal relations in many Asian countries (Osland, 1990). In general, trust, as a measurement of interpersonal relationship, is more valued in China compared to that in the Netherlands.
Long-term orientation
When people dedicate to develop and maintain long-term relationships and follow with interest long-term results, long-term orientation exists. Gronroos (1994) and Yau (1988) find that long-term orientation means that when interpersonal relationship is set up, it may not be profitable at first; and both parties would be willing to keep good relationship through reciprocity and mutual benefit in the long run, in other words, it would be profitable continually over a long period of time. As Mavondo and Rodrigo (2001) elaborate, according to existing empirical research, Chinese view long-term orientation as an input, while Westerners regard continuity as a product of interpersonal relationship. This could indicate that the long-term orientation, being part of the interpersonal relationship, is better developed in China as opposed to the Netherlands.
Reciprocity
18
benefits exchange; while in China, it may not be equal and it would be greater (Osland, 1990). That is to say, reciprocity, which plays an imperative role in maintaining interpersonal relationships, is better developed in China than in the Netherlands.
Cooperation
Cooperation shows the willingness of people to have more exchange beyond transactions in order to build a relationship (Nielson & Wilson, 1994). Cooperation includes “resource or information sharing, joint action, harmony and flexible” (Mavondo & Rodrigo, 2001: p114), and leads to trust, commitment and satisfaction increased in interpersonal relationship. Common goals and joint work increase the satisfaction and commitment (Wilson, 1995). When doing business in China, the environment has greater uncertainty, managers should be more flexible. When looking at Chinese managers, they prefer flexibility and compromise, whereas Western managers prefer to face challenges and solve problems with confrontational approach. It means, being part of interpersonal relationship, cooperation is viewed as a more important thing in China, compared with that in the Netherlands.
Interpersonal commitment
19
In many Western countries, equality and individualism ideologies have been influenced by western historic factors and now enjoy popular support by people. These ideologies play important roles in interpersonal relationships for westerners. Westerners believe that all of people are born of equality in the world, and everyone has the right to pursue independence and freedom. The Netherlands is one of Western countries, where underscore individual role, status, function and achievement. By comparison with Western, Chinese pay more attention to interdependency in interpersonal relationship, and define themselves within a group. In China, people think everybody is born with reasonable inequality. For instance, the seniority and the young, superior and subordinate are regarded as the unequal social status. They emphasize on their identity in the relations of others. So, personal relation network is very important in China, which could help people deal with the tricky things smoothly, even sometimes break the normal procedures. As Ju (1995) states, interpersonal relationship (called “guanxi” in Chinese) is the most important social-business resource of an individual Chinese; and nothing can be done without it. Therefore, compared to Westerners, Chinese pay closer attention to develop and improve the interpersonal relationship.
According to the comparisons of interpersonal relationships from these seven dimensions between China and the Netherlands, the second hypothesis is as follows:
Hypothesis 2: China attaches more importance to an interpersonal relationship than the Netherlands.
20
intermediary to find the interpersonal connections; and the intermediary here means the person who is able to use his or her relationship to reach the target person (Ting-Toomey, 1996). Thus, gift giving behavior in business occurs once a close interpersonal relationship has developed.
The development of interpersonal relationship is often the preparation for gift giving behavior. Perhaps the most important characteristic of interpersonal relationship (called „guanxi‟ in Chinese) is reciprocal obligation (Bian, 1997), which could facilitate interpersonal relationship as well. Three components in interpersonal relationship: instrumental relationship, expressive commitment and mixed commitment that presented by Mavondo and Rodrigo (2001) could help make sense of reciprocal obligation in interpersonal relationship. Procurement of proportional economic benefits is the driver of developing instrumental relationships. Expressive commitment is about personal feeling, values and norms; and benefits are allocated to satisfy the recipients‟ needs, regardless of contribution. Mixed one is characterized by both instrumental and expressive relationships. The benefits of it are mutual and require a long-term orientation as the exchange is neither instant nor straight. Interpersonal relationship can be sustained when one party receives a favor from another, and the former will be expected to reciprocate in the future (Qian, Razzaque & Keng, 2007). When weaving personal relation network, the web of gift obligations also be woven. In other words, people who enjoy the benefits of networks take reciprocal obligation to repay at some time in the future. Aafke (1996) presents that gift giving, not only in non-Western cultures but also in Western cultures, becomes to a mechanism to establish and maintain social relationships; and he also finds that there is a strong relationship between giving and receiving: those who give more and receive more. In other words, gift giving behavior occurs more with the development of interpersonal relationship.
21
Interpersonal relationship and the benefits it brings need to be valued in order to maintain it over time. When people want to develop and improve the relationship, they will create opportunities to connect that person. Steidlmeier (1999) presents that gift giving is a natural dynamic of any relationship: it shows the relationship is valued. It is a way to express respect and honor for that person. In business, with the relationship improved, people would choose to send more expensive gift to show their sincerity and the desire to further development, so value of the gifts and frequency of gift giving both increase. The survey conducted by Aafke (1996) confirmed that gift giving has the function to confirm existing relationship. Thus to set up and improve the interpersonal relationship is the necessity before gift giving. The third hypothesis presents as follows:
Hypothesis 3: Interpersonal relationship is positively related to gift giving behavior.
To summarize, gift culture distinguishes between China and the Netherlands. Cultural logic gives emphasis to socio-cultural values and beliefs, and directs individual‟s social behavior (Steidlmeier, 1999). Qian, Razzaque and Keng (2007) acknowledge that culture has an impact on gift giving behavior, which includes perceived importance of gift giving, amount value of gift given, gift selection effort and brand orientation. Different cultures result in differences in gift giving behavior in these two countries.
In addition to the differences in gift giving behavior, the culture of country also influences people‟s attitude to others and the ways to deal with interpersonal relationships.
22
has established. Moreover, stronger relationship deserves more expensive and more often gift giving, which would increase total amount of gifts; thus in business, corruption occurs more often with a higher total amount. Lovett, Simmons and Kali (1999) present that bribes may happen in the disguise of gift giving within interpersonal relationship.
To sum up, I argue that gift giving behavior occurs more in China than in the Netherlands. I try to explain this by means of cultural differences. More specially, the Chinese culture attaches more importance to the interpersonal relationship than the Netherlands. Chinese people focus more on social bonding, face-giving, trust, long-term orientation, reciprocity, cooperation and interpersonal commitment as opposed to Dutch people. Consequently, this high attachment to building an interpersonal relationship causes Chinese people to give more gifts, in order to express gratitude or expect a favor in return. When the expected compensation is specific and benefits the gift giver privately, a gift becomes a bribe.
I expect the relationship between country and gift giving behavior (corruption) to be mediated by interpersonal relationship. This relationship is also depicted in the conceptual model (Appendix 1).
Hypothesis 4: Interpersonal relationship mediates the relationship between country and gift giving behavior (corruption).
Methodology
Sample and Procedure
23
relationship between country and gift giving behavior (corruption) and how this relation can be explained by interpersonal relationship. In order to answer these questions, I conducted a questionnaire, which is „one of the most widely used data collection methods within survey strategy‟ (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2012). Each respondent is asked to answer the same set of questions in a prearranged order (de Vaus, 2002).
This thesis emphasizes on collecting the perceptions of corruption from people in China and the Netherlands. The real purpose of the survey should not be entirely disclosed; therefore, the survey was mentioned to “find out how you feel about the relation between culture and work behavior”. This was done because the topic is sensitive, with questions relating to business ethics. In addition, it was mentioned that “the survey is anonymous, and no information about individuals will be used for other purposes except this study”, hopefully raising the response rate.
Data
Data for this study was collected by distributing a web-based questionnaire through the online survey software Qualtrics. Since the topic is sensitive to some extent, participants were asked to complete the survey anonymously by themselves in the privacy. The period of data collection was from November 11th to November 20th. Sixty Dutch and sixty Chinese were invited and finally I received 100 responses totally, so the response rate is 83.33 percent. After checking the responses, I excluded uncompleted questionnaire, so finally 94 completed questionnaires became valid data of the whole sample.
24
largest in the Netherlands; and Shanghai is the largest city in China and one of the three largest metropolises in the world (Wikipedia). The dwellers in these two cities are good representations of the Netherlands and China. As the questionnaire was written in English, and the English level of middle aged Chinese is limited, the Chinese respondents are mostly young people. In order to reduce the influence of age and make it more comparable, main Dutch respondents are young as well. The ages of respondents are 20-58 years old, and their average age is 26.5 years old (SD =6.55). Among 50 Dutch respondents and 44 Chinese respondents, 45.7% are males and 54.3% are females.
Measures
Nationality, the independent variable, is a binary variable. Therefore, a binary scale
measured this variable. Respondents could choose between Dutch and Chinese (Dutch =1, Chinese=2).
Gift giving behavior, the dependent variable, was assessed with an 8-item measure,
based on the proven measurement developed by Qian, Razzaque and Keng (2007), which aims at gift giving behavior from four dimensions: importance of gift giving, amount given, gift selection effort and brand orientation. These eight items evaluated the respondents‟ own gift giving behavior on a 5-point Likert scale. The scale is ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The scale was highly reliable (α=.88). Some examples of the eight items included in the scale are „Gift giving is
part of culture and tradition‟, and „I often wait until the last minute to purchase gifts
(reverse scored)‟. For respondents‟ understanding, I provide them with some examples of monetary gifts and nonmonetary awards. In this manner, the results will be more relevant and more valuable.
25
scale developed by Mavondo and Rodrigo (2001) which aims at measuring levels of business relationships. The scale about interpersonal relationship in business consists of seven dimensions: social bonding, face-giving, trust, cooperation, reciprocity, long-term orientation and interpersonal commitment. I used a 5-point Likert-type response scale (ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree) to measure the answers for each item. The scale was highly reliable (α=.97). Sample items include “I
often interact with my partner on a social basis outside of work” and “I carry on developing my relationship with my business partner so as to provide future advantages for myself”.
In this study, control variables are respondents‟ gender (1=male, 2=female) and age.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
26
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics: Mean, Standard Deviation, Minimum, Maximum, and Pearson correlation among the variables
Variables Mean Standard Deviation Min. Max. 1 2 3 4 5 1 Age 26.54 6.55 20 58 - 2 Gender 1.54 .50 - - -.06 - 3 Nationality 1.47 .50 - - -.11 .26* - 4 Interpersonal Relationship 2.97 .86 2 5 -.04 .24* .81** - 5 Gift-giving Behavior 2.68 1.02 1 5 -.05 .29** .78** .86** -
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Mediation
In Table 2, one can assess the results from the regression analysis by step and path. Step 1, which tested the regression of nationality (IV) on gift giving behavior (DV), was significant for b = 1.59, t = 11.96, p < .001. This shows that gift giving is more important and more popular in China than in the Netherlands. Therefore, this supports hypothesis 1 that gift giving behavior occurs more in China than in the Netherlands.
27
Path B of the mediation model, which tested the regression of interpersonal relationship (M) on gift giving behavior (DV), while controlling for nationality, was significant, b = .78, t = 7.50, p < .001. This implies that interpersonal relationship is positively related to gift giving behavior, hereby supporting hypothesis 3.
Next is tested whether interpersonal relationship (M) mediates the relationship between nationality (IV) and gift giving behavior (DV). There is a significant relationship, b =.51, t = 2.87, p = 0.005, between nationality and gift giving behavior. As such, there is no full mediation. Interpersonal relationship is a partial mediator. So hypothesis 4 is not supported: interpersonal relationship partly mediates the relationship between country and gift giving behavior.
Table 2: Mediation
Dependent variable Gift giving behavior
Interpersonal relationship
Gift giving behavior
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Independent variables Nationality 1.59** 1.38** .51* Interpersonal relationship .78** R Square .61 .65 .76 * p < .005 ** p < .001
28
Aim and results
There has been done research on country and gift giving behavior, and by including a mediator “interpersonal relationship” aimed to answer the question if gift giving behavior is more common in some countries than in others and how this can be explained by “interpersonal relationship”.
By conducting the survey, I found a partial mediation. I found that gift giving occurs more in China than in the Netherlands; and China has a stronger interpersonal relationship than the Netherlands, which is consistent with my hypothesis. In addition, as I expected, interpersonal relationship is positively related to gift giving behavior. To sum up, the results of this study showed that culture of different countries has the influence on gift giving behavior (corruption), but only with the partial mediation effect of interpersonal relationship.
Theoretical implications
In this thesis, I try to find out why people from China are more inclined to engage in corruption than people from the Netherlands. Corruption Perceptions Index 2014 reported by Transparency International, which shows the perceived levels of corruption in 175 countries/regions worldwide, points out that China scored 36 and ranked 100, while the Netherlands scored 83 and ranked 8, on a scale from 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean). I try to search for mediators to explain this strong relationship between country and gift giving behavior / corruption. Interpersonal relationship only has a partial mediation effect in this relationship.
29
Another important finding of this study is that gift giving varies in China and the Netherlands, from four aspects: importance of gift giving, amount given, gift selection effort, and brand orientation. Gift giving behavior occurs more in China than in the Netherlands.
Furthermore, this research contributes to business interpersonal relationship research. The survey showed that people in China lay more emphasis on business interpersonal relationship than in the Netherlands. People who give more attention to interpersonal relationship incline to give more gifts to others in business.
Managerial implications
The results of this study provide some important practical implications as well. First, even though interpersonal relationship did not turn out to be the explanatory mechanism, it is likely that cultural differences and preferences play a part in corruption. Existing research suggests that with the increasing globalization and cross-national interdependence, it is important to recognize and familiar with cultural influence and follow cultural logic on doing business (Millington, Eberhardt and Wilkinson, 2005). For example, Westerners think an even number of flowers indicates bad luck, but pairs of something signify good luck in China. People who do business abroad should keep in mind that gift giving varies from culture to culture in many aspects, such as color, amount, brand orientation, occasion.
30
policies in American, such as Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in 1977, Omnibus Foreign Trade and Competitiveness Act in 1988, provide a relative fair and clear business environment for both domestic and foreign companies. But in some countries, transparency in rules and regulations is inadequate. In order to make a relative fair and open market and attract multinational companies to invest money, local governments should lay down effective anti-corruption rules.
Furthermore, as the anti-corruption measures on macro level mentioned above, it would be better if accompanying with micro level measures. As the results in this study, interpersonal relationship is positively related to gift giving behavior and corruption; people cannot change culture, but can undermine the long-term relationship artificially by boosting staff circulation within the company. Corruption exists because of inadequate monitoring and motivation to eliminate it (Banerjee, Mullainathan & Hanna, 2012). Millington, Eberhardt and Wilkinson (2005) suggest that from the perspective of companies, they can reduce corruption by establishing formal structures, switching staff positions, setting up corporation responsibilities, increasing the participation of superior in the procedure and boosting anti-corruption education among employee and suppliers.
Limitations
31
or employees. It could be possible that with age growing and career progress, people may come into touch with deeper gift giving culture in their own country and in business. In order to draw general conclusion in this topic, data should be collected from different age groups and people that do full time jobs. And it would be a good idea to add the question that asks about work of the respondents.
It is necessary to be aware of the limitation of the cross sectional design of this study because it doesn‟t give a good basis for establishing causality. More specific, independent variable country and dependent variable gift giving / corruption are measured at the same point in time, so the results can show that these two variables are related someway, but cannot absolutely conclude if the difference in country culture causes the differences in gift giving / corruption. In other words, it is not possible to find out a very true and exact relationship between the cause country and the effect gift giving / corruption due to without longitudinal data.
The findings would be more reliable if the survey is carried out in different industries. It is necessary to take account of diverse industries in this research because I study gift giving behavior and corruption on the country level. According to Bribe Payers Index 2008 reported by Transparency International, the corruption level differs from industrial sectors, for example, public works contracts/construction is the most like sector to engage in corruption. So whether the findings could be used to all industries needs to be further explored.
32
Future research
In this research, I study gift giving behavior at interpersonal level, but some gift giving behavior (corruption) happens at inter-organizational level as well; for instance, in 2008, the company of Siemens was hit by a big bribery scandal, which finally cost Siemens 1.6 billion US dollar as a fine. The research of gift giving (corruption) at inter-organizational level could be built on this study. How does gift giving operate at inter-organizational level could be paid more attention in future business gift giving (corruption) research and it could borrow from my study in some aspects, such as the measurement of relationship. In this way, based on my research of gift giving at interpersonal level, people could get comprehensive understanding of gift giving if combining with the study at inter-organizational level. In addition, further study could investigate that whether inter-organizational relationship has effect on gift giving behavior between two companies.
In addition, more study is needed to build a more comprehensive model include other mediation effects in the relationship between country and gift giving (corruption), then the model could be better explained. For example, I suppose that the forms of society, such as socialist society and capitalist society, could be one of partial mediators in this relationship.
Although interpersonal relationship does not have a full mediation effect on the relationship between country and gift giving / corruption, but the measurement and dimensions of interpersonal relationship could provide reference to further research on examining whether interpersonal relationship mediates the influence of corruption on other culture, such as the way people work, organization types and company structure.
33
international companies need to know cultural differences very well in order to make different business plans in the countries that have dissimilar culture. As Steidlmeier (1999: p121) states, it is difficult for people to become accustomed to local way of doing things in a foreign culture, and one of the hardest lessons in doing business is gift giving with „cultural logic and social practices‟. Taking the experience gained at one unit and popularizing it in a whole area, the countries which pay more attention on gift culture should have more stringent monitoring systems to reduce corruption that in the guise of gift giving. Thus more research is evidently needed to further explore the question that how international companies can make business strategies that not only meet the corporate culture and legal requirements in home countries, but also accord with business culture in foreign countries.
Conclusion
34
Bibliography
Adams, J.M., Jones, W.H. (1999). Handbook of Interpersonal Commitment and Relationship Stability. Kluwer Academic.
Ades, A., Di Tella, R. (1999). Rents, Competition, and Corruption. American
Economic Review, 89(4): 982-993.
Arunthanes, W., Tansuhaj, P., Lemak, D.J. (1994). Cross-cultural business gift giving: A new conceptualization and theoretical framework. International Marketing Review, 11(4): 44-55.
Banerjee, A., Mullainathan, S., Hanna, R. (2012). Corruption: The Handbook of Organizational Economics, Ed. Robert Gibbons and John Roberts, Princeton
University Press, 1109‐1147.
Banuri, S., Eckel, C. (2012). Experiments in Culture and Corruption: A Review.
Impact Evaluation, Series 56.
Bardhan, P. (1997). Corruption and Development: A Review of Is-sues. Journal of
Economic Literature, 1320-1346.
Bian, Y. (1997). Bringing Strong Ties Back In: Indirect Ties, Network Bridges, and Job Searches in China. American Sociological Review, 62: 366-385.
Bruhn, M. (1996). Business gifts: A form of non-verbal and symbolic communication.
35
Carmichael, H.C., MacLeod, W.B. (1997). Gift Giving and the Evolution of Cooperation. International Economic Review, 38(3): 485-110.
de Vaus, D. (2002). Surveys in Social Research (5th edition). London: Routledge.
Di Tella, R., Schargrodsky, E. (2003). The Role of Wages and Auditing During a Crackdown on Corruption in the City Buenos Aires. Journal of Law and Economics, 46(1): 269-292.
Fisher, J. (2007). Business marketing and ethics of gift giving. Industrial Marketing
Management, 36: 99-108.
Goodwin, C., Smith, K. L., Spiggle, S. (1990). Gift Giving: Consumer Motivation and the Gift Purchase Process. Advances in Consumer Research, 17(1): 690-698.
Goulder, A.W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. American
Sociological Review, 25(2): 161-178.
Greaves, S. (2001). How Corporate Gifts Add Value to Firms. Marketing, Oct 4, page 33.
Gronroos, C. (1994). From Marketing Mix to Relationship Marketing: Towards a Paradigm Shift in Marketing. Management Decision, 32(2): 4-20.
Guthrie, D. (1998). The declining Significance of Guanxi in China's Economic Transition. China Quarterly, 154: 254-282.
36
Hu, P., Tan, Y. (2013). The Comparison of Chinese and American Interpersonal Relationships. International Academic Workshop on Social Science. September.
Hupert, A. (2014). Are Chinese negotiators long-term or short-term? Yes. [online] Available at: http://www.globalsources.com/NEWS/SIC-are-chinese-negoti ators-long-term-or-short-term.HTM. [Accessed 12 December 2015]
Husted, B. (1999). Wealth, culture, and corruption. Journal of International Business
Studies, 30(2): 339–360.
Jain, A.S. (2015). Why do we Give Gifts? 9 Reasons People buy Presents. [online] Available at: http://hubpages.com/holidays/Buy-gifts-Christmas-New-Year. [Accessed 26 November 2015]
James, H.S. (2002). When is a Bribe a Bribe? Teaching a Workable Definition of Bribery. Teaching Business Ethics, 6 (2): 199-217.
Ju, Y. (1995). Communicating change in China. in Cushman, D.P. and King, S.S. (Eds), Communicating Organizational Change: A Management Perspective, New York State University, Albany, NY, 227-249.
Komter, A.E. (1996). Reciprocity as a principle of exclusion: Gift giving in the Netherlands. Sociology, 30(2): 299-316.
Lambsdorff, J.G., Frank, B. (2010). Bribing versus gift-giving – An experiment.
Journal of Economic Psychology.
37
Lederman, D., Loayza, N.V., Soares, R.R. (2005) Accountability and Corruption: Political Institutions Matters. Economics & Politics, 17: 1–35.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1957). The Principle of Reciprocity. Sociological Theory. New York: Macmillan.
Li, L. (2011). Performing Bribery in China: guanxi-practice, corruption with a human face. Journal of Contemporary China, 20(68): 1–20.
Lipset, S.M., Lenz, G.S. (2000). Corruption, culture, and markets. In Lawrence E. Harrison, Samuel P. Huntington (Eds.), Culture matters: How values shape human progress. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Lovett, S., Simmons, L.C., Kali, R. (1999). Guanxi Versus the Market: Ethics and Efficiency. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(2).
Luo, Y. (2008). The changing Chinese culture and business behavior: The perspective of intertwinement between guanxi and corruption. International Business Review, 17: 188-193.
Macklin, N.C., Walker, M. (1988). “The joy and irritation of gift-giving”. Proceeding of the Academy of Marketing Science, Academy of Marketing Science, Montreal, 67-86.
MacNeil, I.R. (1980). The New Social Contract: an Inquiry into Modern Contractual Relations. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Marotta, D.J. (2015). Three Reasons To Engage In Gift Giving. [online] Available at:
38
-giving/. [Accessed 29 November 2015]
Mauro, P. (1995). Corruption and Growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110 (3): 681-712.
Mavondo, F.T., Rodrigo, E.M. (2001). The effect of relationship dimensions on interpersonal and interorganizational commitment in organizations conducting business between Australia and China. Journal of Business Research, 52: 111-121.
Miller, W.L., Grødeland, Å.B., Koshechkina, T.Y. (2001). A Culture of Corruption? : Coping with Government in Post-communist Europe. New York: Central European
University Press.
Millington, A., Eberhardt, M., Wilkinson, B. (2005). Gift Giving, Guanxi and Illicit Payments in Buyer-Supplier Relations in China: Analysing the Experience of UK companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 57: 255-268.
Mocan, N. (2008). What Determines Corruption? International Evidence from Micro data. Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, 46(4): 493-510.
Nielson, C.C., Wilson, E.J. (1994). Interorganizational Cooperation in Buyer-Seller Relationships. Paper presented at the Second Research Conference on Relationship Marketing, Relationship Marketing: Theory, Methods and Applications, Emory University.
Noonan, J.T. (1984). Bribes. New York: Macmillan.
39
Qian, W., Razzaque, M.A., Keng, K.A. (2007). Chinese cultural values and gift-giving behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24(4): 214 – 228.
Raghunandan, T R. (2014). Ten reasons why people pay bribe, and more. [onli ne] Available at: http://bangalore.citizenmatters.in/articles/ten-reasons-why-people -pay-bribe-and-more. [Accessed 29 November 2015]
Roberts, K. (2013). International Business Gift Giving Overview. [online] Available at:
http://www.cyborlink.com/besite/international_gift_giving.htm. [Accessed 12 November 2015]
Rodriguez, C.M., Wilson, D.T. (1995). Trust Me!!!. . .But How? Pennsylvania State
University Park: Institute for the Study of Business Markets, 16.
Rotter, J.B. (1967). A new scale for measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of
Personality. 35(4):651- 665.
Roy, A. (2010). When is a gift really a bribe?. [online] Available at:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-03-25/33308. [Accessed 8 November 2015]
Rugimbana, R., Donahay, B., Neal, C., Polonsky, M.J. (2001).The Role of social Power Relations in Gift Giving on St. Valentine‟s Day. American Marketing
Association, 12: 144-145.
Rylander, D., Strutton, D., Pelton, L.E. (1997). Toward a synthesized framework of relational commitment: implications for marketing channel theory and practice.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 5(1): 58-71.
40
Schneiders, S.M. (1998). The desire to give or the need to have. Vital Speeches of the
Day, 64(18): 568-570.
Sean, U.M. (2013). Gaining and Losing Face in China. [online] Available at:
http://chinaculturecorner.com/2013/10/10/face-in-chinese-business/. [Accessed 18 December 2015]
Severson, E.R. (2012). Gift and Economy: Ethics, Hospitality and the Market. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Shanka, T., Handle, B. (2011). Gift Giving: An Exploratory Behavioural Study. Asia
Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 16(4): 359-377.
Shaw, W.H., Barry, V. (2004). Moral issues in business. Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Smith, K. (2014). The Ethical Dilemma in Business Gifts: Giving or Bribery?. [online] Available at: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140716125123-14373257 -the-ethical-dilemma-in-business-gifts-giving-or-bribery. [Accessed 15 December 2015]
Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Gift Giving, Bribery and Corruption: Ethical Management of Business Relationships in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 20(2): 121-132.
Stell, T. (2011). The Ethics of Gift Giving or Receiving – Bribery Act 2010. [online] Available at: http://www.hrmanagementsupport.com/the-ethics-of-gift-givi ng-or-receiving-bribery-act-2010/. [Accessed 22 November 2015]
41 State University of New York Press.
Thorelli, H.B. (1990). The Gay Nineties in International Marketing. Thorelli, H.B., Cavusgil, S.T. (eds). International Marketing Strategy. Pergamon, Oxford and New York.
Tian, Q. (2007). Perception of Business Bribery in China: the Impact of Moral Philosophy. Journal of Business Ethics, 80: 437–445.
Treisman, D. (2000). The Causes of Corruption: A Cross-national study. Journal of
Public Economics, 76(3): 399-457.
Uslaner, E.M. (2004). Trust and corruption. In Lambsdorf, J.G., Taube, M., Schramm, M. (Eds.), Corruption and the new institutional economics. London: Routledge.
Uslaner, E. M. (2008). Corruption, Inequality, and the Rule of Law. Cambridge
University Press.
Vokić, N.P., Hernaus, T. (2004). Interpersonal Relations at Work Perceived by Croatian and Worldwide Employees and by Different Age, Gender, Education, Hierarchical and Company Size Groups – Empirical Evidence. Management, 10(1): 23-49.
Wantchekon, L., Serra, D. (2012). New Advances in Experimental Research on Corruption. Bingley: Emerald Book Serials and Monographs.
Wilson, D.T. (1995). An Integrated Model of Buyer-Seller Relationships. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4): 335-345.
42
Implications. European Journal of Marketing, 22 (5): 44-57.
You, J.S., Khagram, S. (2005). A Comparative Study of Inequality and Corruption.
American Sociological Review, 70(1): 136-157.
Online resources
eDiplomat [online] Available at: http://www.ediplomat.com/np/cultural_etiquette/c
e_nl.htm. [Accessed 12 December 2015]
Executive Planet [online] Available at: http://www.executiveplanet.com/netherland s-2/netherlands_gift_giving-2/. [Accessed 12 December 2015]
OSU.EDU [online] Available at: http://onpace.osu.edu/modules/transitioning-to-the -workplace/building-interpersonal-relationships/why-are-interpersonal-relationships-i mportant. [Accessed 12 December 2015]
Passport to Trade [online] Available at:
http://businessculture.org/western-europe/business-culture-in-netherlands/business-eti quette-in-netherlands/. [Accessed 12 December 2015]
Transparency International [online] Available at: www.transparency.org. [Accessed 10 October 2015]
Wikipedia [online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption. [Accessed 7 November 2015]
43
44
Appendix
Appendix 1 - Conceptual model
Appendix 2 – Questionnaire
Culture and Work Behavior Survey 2015
Dear participant,
Welcome to this online survey!
45
If you do decide to take part, the questionnaire should take you no longer than 5 minutes to complete. Please answer the questions in the space provided. Try to complete the questions at a time when you are unlikely to be disturbed. Also, do not spend too long on any one question. Your first thoughts are usually your best! Even if you feel the items covered may not apply directly to you, please do not ignore them. Your answers are essential in building an accurate picture of the issues that are important to this study.
PLEASE COMPLETE THE QUESTIONNAIRE NO LATER THAN 20 NOVEMBER.
I hope you will be willing to complete the questionnaire and thank you for your time. If you have any questions, please email me on j.chen.19@student.rug.nl.
Thank you for your help.
Jingyuan Chen
University of Groningen
First, I would like to invite you to fill out the following questions about demographic information.
46
Nationality: □ Dutch □ Chinese Gender: □ Female □ Male Age: _______
Questions:
Now, I would like to ask some questions about interpersonal relationships one can have with another within a business context.
For your understanding, let me provide you with some examples of what may be considered a business partner: colleague, superior, supplier, investor, customer, agent, and official.
For the following statements please tick √ the box □ that matches your view most closely. Strongly Disagree=1 Disagree=2 Not Sure=3 Agree=4 Strongly Agree=5 1. I often interact with
my business partner on a social basis outside of work. 2. My business partner
and I are able to talk openly as friends. 3. I take care not to
47
4. I would not confront my business partner at a meeting even if he/she was in the wrong.
5. I am likely to resolve conflict in an
agreeable way, rather than through the use of power.
6. My business partner is honest and truthful with me.
7. I feel that I can trust my business partner. 8. Mutual trust has
48
11. “Calling in” favors is part of doing
business.
12. The practice of “give and take” of favors is a key part of the relationship between my business partner and I.
13. I feel sense of obligation to my business partner for doing me a favor. 14. I would feel embarrassed if I was unable to provide a requested favor to my business partner. 15. It is bad business not
to return favors. 16. I am dedicated to establishing a long-term relationship with my business partner. 17. I would continue the
49
providing me any immediate benefit. 18. The relationship I
have with my
business partner was developed over a long period of time. 19. I carry on developing
my relationship with my business partner so as to provide future advantages for myself.
Then, I would like to ask some questions about gift giving behavior within a business context.
When answering the questions, one can think about monetary gifts such as cash or cards. But also nonmonetary awards such as invitations to go on a luxury business trip, have a luxurious dinner, take part in an expensive sport activity, have a deluxe service, and flowers, wine, and daily supplies are considered gifts within the business context.
For the following statements please tick √ the box □ that matches your view most closely. Strongly Disagree=1 Disagree=2 Not Sure=3 Agree=4 Strongly Agree=5 In a business context …
50
tradition.
2. … I think gift giving is important.
3. … I spend a lot of money on gifts. 4. … I almost never
give gifts to people. 5. … I often wait until
the last minute to purchase gifts. 6. … I always try to
spend a lot of time for gift-shopping. 7. … I look for
well-known brands when choosing gifts. 8. … I think that the
brand-name of gifts is important.
Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me by emailing:
j.chen.19@student.rug.nl.
