Abstract
Persuasion plays an important role in international business interactions. Within this domain, it is often argued that persuasion is a form of communication and as such embedded in cultural norms. It is also argued that forms of persuasion differ across cultures. The data described in this study of persuasive tactics deployed by Israeli and Indian business professionals in their attempts to resolve disputes with their partners suggest otherwise. These data mainly comprise 142 coded letters, addressed to the correspondents’ business partner and to the mediator. The quantitative results of the study show similarities in the choice of persuasive tactics employed by Israeli and Indian correspondents, when writing to each other and when writing to the mediator. The quantitative and qualitative results show that these research subjects, from two culturally different populations, constructed their persuasion tactics and communication in a similar manner. Hence, despite the apparent cultural and communication differences between them, they both employed similar communication tactics. These intriguing data are explained in the light of the fact that both Indian and Israeli subjects were experiencing a situation which they subjectively perceived as one involving a threat of meaningful loss. These perceptions and emotional responses led the participants toward similar communication behavior. This study contributes to international management research, and particularly to intercultural communication research, by demonstrating that contextual conditions do cause culturally different populations to communicate similarly.
Introduction
In recent years, an increasing number of researchers (e.g. Harzing et al., 2011; Zhu and Hildebrandt, 2013) have addressed the importance of language in international business. However, less emphasis has been given within this stream of research to the role played by persuasion, that is, communication intended to shape, reinforce, or change the responses of others (Miller, 1980).
Persuasion communication has an important role in international business interactions as used in written texts (e.g. sales letters and advertisements) as well as in face-to-face negotiation (Han and Shavitt, 1994; Jeon and Beatty, 2002; Johnstone, 1989; Zhu and Hildebrandt, 2013).
One interest of management scholars researching the use of language and persuasion in international business is to assess the link between culture and the business context. In their review of research on language and international business, Tenzer et al. (2017) maintained that in recent years, management scholars have applied the concept of cultural accommodation to show that language priming induces individuals to adapt their thoughts and behaviors to the cultural norms associated with the language they are currently speaking. Other researchers, however, have analyzed the culture-specific rhetoric patterns in speech acts, such as requesting to understand how the speakers of different cultures use language in interactive contexts to create specific meaning.
As for persuasion, which is the focus of this study, the research on persuasion communication predominantly tends to align a specific persuasion style with a particular national culture (e.g. Aaker, 2000; Glenn et al., 1977; Kochman, 1981; Neuliep and Hazleton, 1985; Zhu and Hildebrandt, 2013). This approach assumes that individual businesspersons conform fully to the culture of their own group. The limitations of this approach are that complexity and variation in communication patterns—persuasion tactics, for example—are often ignored, and so the approach is insensitive to adaptation (Zaidman, 2001). Additionally, this approach might generate conceptual “anomalies,” when communication behavior can be perceived as counterintuitive. For instance, Meyer (2014: 74) discusses the “puzzlingly complex cultures” that are characterized by concurrently high-context communication and the provision of direct negative feedback.
A second category of intercultural communication research useful for the analysis of persuasion in international business is that which proposes that communication style (particularly conflict management style) is related to a variety of contexts (e.g. Brew and Cairns, 2003; Putnam and Wilson, 1982; Vollmer and Wolf, 2015).
This study attempts to address these two different positions by explaining that incongruity in the cultural generalization approach (as it relates to persuasion tactics) can be explained by comprehending the context of a given phenomenon. We examined whether indeed the persuasion tactics of international negotiators tend to diverge (i.e. individuals from different cultures would use different persuasion tactics) as indicated by the dominant approach to persuasion communication. Or, alternatively, would the persuasion tactics of international negotiators become similar or converge (i.e. would individuals from different cultures would tend to apply similar persuasion tactics), as indicated by research on communication style and on language (Tenzer et al., 2017); and if convergence is recognized, how may one explain it?
The study addresses these questions by examining the persuasive tactics deployed by Israeli and Indian business professionals in their attempts to solve disputed cases with their partners. Results show that despite the apparent cultural and communication differences between the participants, they, surprisingly, applied similar communication tactics. Counter to the dominant strand in extant research, we argue that what determines the choice of persuasion tactics by actors is not their cultural dispositions, but rather the context in which they are situated. This study contributes to international management research, and particularly to intercultural communication research, by demonstrating that contextual conditions can prompt culturally different populations to communicate in a similar manner, by specifying these conditions.
In this study, we draw upon a well-established communication framework based on the work of Goodwin and Duranti (1992). In line with Goodwin and Duranti (1992: 3), dispute communication letters serve as “the focal event.” To properly understand these letters, we looked beyond “the event” itself to consider other phenomena in which the event is embedded. In this case, the events—that is the dispute letters between Israeli and Indian business partners and their letters to the mediator—are constructed while the participants were involved in what can be defined as a “strong situation.”
Literature review
Divergence and convergence in persuasion and in communication
Existing research demonstrates that forms of persuasion differ across cultures. For instance, consumer research on culture has repeatedly shown that the content of persuasion appeals differs across cultural contexts (Aaker, 2000; Aaker and Maheswaran, 1997; Han and Shavitt, 1994; Martenson, 1987). Other studies have demonstrated cross-cultural differences in persuasion strategies and their effectiveness in mass media, politics, and marketing (Jeon and Beatty, 2002; Pak, 2000; Zhu and Hildebrandt, 2013). Cultural differences in persuasive strategies also appear to be significant in international negotiation and conflict resolution (Glenn et al., 1977; Kochman, 1981; Neuliep and Hazleton, 1985; Patai, 1973). Based on this research, one can argue that national culture is a key factor determining persuasion or communication interactions between individuals.
Yet while persuasion communication research predominantly tends to correlate a specific persuasion style with a particular national culture, research on communication style presents a more complex view. As is the case with persuasion research, in one approach, cultural dimensions are perceived as a major predictor of communication style. For instance, the results of a meta-analysis of empirical studies on the effects of cultural values on communication show, among other things, that individualism is positively related to direct communication and self-promotion, and negatively related to sensitivity and face-saving concerns, and that high-power distance is positively related to sensitivity and face-saving concerns, and to indirect communication (Merkin et al., 2014; see also the research of Holtbrügge, Weldon, and Rogers, 2013, demonstrating similarities in communication).
At the same time, in addition to the cultural dimension approach, there are several streams of research that suggest alternatives to divergence. Examples include focusing on conversion in communication, either directly—an example is presented in the review of Giles and Ogay (2007)—or indirectly. The latter include studies that focus on particular communication frameworks that can be viewed as “platforms” that can potentially enhance convergence.
Giles and Ogay (2007) view conversion in communication as a strategy whereby individuals adapt their communicative behaviors, in terms of a wide range of linguistic and nonverbal features, in such a way as to become more similar to their interlocutor’s behavior. This strategy is led by the motivation to gain approval. Several studies, however, show that speakers may converge with their listeners even when the intent behind this convergence is not to show intimacy but to indicate social distance.
Research on discourse systems illuminates a different point of view. Scollon and Scollon (1995) suggest that international managers are socialized to several discourse systems; these include the Utilitarian discourse, which is widely dispersed across cultural boundaries and increasingly throughout international business. The Utilitarian discourse is organized around the idea that objective facts and logical processes should be sufficient to determine a course of action. It can be characterized as anti-rhetorical (i.e. the speaker provides nothing but information, with no attempt to influence the listener), positivist-empirical, and deductive. Speakers and writers avoid set phrases, metaphors, proverbs, and clichés and seek to make their statements fresh and original. Within this communication system, clarity, brevity, and sincerity are widely valued (Scollon and Scollon, 1995; Varner, 1988). From this point of view, one can expect that international negotiators would apply persuasion tactics that adhere to facts, logic, and professional standards.
A third view on communication convergence is related to the impact of the communication context on participants’ communication. This approach suggests that communication style is linked to a variety of contexts, including organizational contexts, interpersonal attraction, and self-perception, reflecting the idea that one’s style is contingent upon such things as time, context, and situation (Kapoor et al., 2003). An example of situational constrains on the use of communication strategies was discussed in Brew and Cairns’ (2003) research. The research showed that in a multicultural workplace, cultural orientation alone may not predict strategic choice. In particular, compared to Australians, East-Asian interacting with superiors managed conflict more indirectly, as expected from their cultural upbringing. Similarly, Putnam and Wilson (1982) argued that individual choices of communication strategy during a conflict are often influenced by situational constraints such as the status of the other, perceived attributions of the other, or external pressures such as time urgency. Another example is a study showing that participants from different cultures adopt similar conflict styles when dealing in an intensive communication context (Vollmer and Wolf, 2015).
Finally, to the best of our knowledge, the idea of a “strong situation,” which can be perceived as an extension of the contextual approach, has rarely been applied in the discussion on convergence in communication. We found it, however, a useful way of illuminating this study’s findings. As psychologists generally recognize, behavior is a joint function of individual differences and situations. Situational strength is defined by Meyer et al. (2010) as implicit or explicit cues provided by external entities regarding the desirability of potential behaviors. According to Mischel (1977), as discussed and applied in the work of Neyer and Harzing (2008), strong situations are characterized by salient behavioral cues, that is, the circumstances are interpreted similarly by all parties concerned, leading toward identical expectations regarding the appropriate response. For example, one would expect that most people would be suitably somber in comportment when attending a funeral. Weak situations, by way of contrast, are characterized by minimal constraints on behavior and do not induce uniform expectations. They provide the opportunity for individual differences, such as different cultural backgrounds, to play a greater role in determining behavior. A main argument of this literature is that situational strength restricts the behavioral expression of various individual differences (Meyer et al., 2010.)
In this study, we adapt the idea of situational strength to demonstrate that strong situations can explain communication conversion among culturally different individuals. That is, we argue that certain conditions can cause international business partners engaged in financial disputes to experience the situation in a similar fashion and to communicate their positions in a similar fashion despite the noticeable cultural differences between them.
Methods of persuasion: A cultural perspective
Scholars have identified four general cultural sensitive methods of persuasion. The logical–cognitive (also called “factual–inductive”) method of persuasion includes the use of reason, evidence, cognitive argument, and logical consistency (Glenn et al., 1977; Johnstone, 1989; Ross, 1994). The affective method includes feelings expressed through emotional appeals, personal involvement, and needs reduction. The presentational argumentation is based on the assumption that to be persuaded is to be moved, swept along by the rhythmic flow of words and sounds (Johnstone, 1989: 148). Finally, analogical persuasion works by calling to mind traditional wisdom, often in the form of parables or fable-like stories (Johnstone, 1989: 149).
Research shows cultural differences in the use of styles of persuasion. For instance, English-speaking people favor the logical–cognitive method, which is also called “the Utilitarian discourse” (Glenn et al., 1977; Johnstone, 1989; Scollon and Scollon, 1995). Similarly, it has been found that Americans are persuaded by objective evidence, while Russians tend to be persuaded when ideals and feelings are invoked, rather than evidence and logic (Glenn et al., 1977). Neuliep and Hazleton (1985) found that American and Japanese differ significantly in their selection of compliance-gaining strategies; experts in Arab cultures consider Arabic rhetoric to be dominated by emotional (i.e. the affective method of persuasion) rather than by rigorous standards (Patai, 1973; also see Kochman, 1981). Research has also shown that “collectivistic” cultures have generally been found to have lower levels of argumentativeness, compared to “individualistic” cultures (Croucher et al., 2016; Hsu, 2007).
The cultural differences and communication style of Israeli and Indian business professionals
A concise summary of certain cultural differences between Israelis and Indians was presented in Snir’s (2014: 365) study. A multinational cultural value survey conducted in the 1990s by Schwartz (2003) found that Israelis were relatively high on individualism-related values (autonomy, creativity, curiosity, broad mindedness, freedom, and equity), while Indians were relatively high on collectivism-related values (harmony, unity with nature, hierarchy, authority, and conservatism). These findings are supported by two main meta-surveys, the GLOBE project (House et al., 2004) and the World Values Survey Association (2001). Interestingly, Meyer (2014) classifies Israel as a relatively high-context communication culture, rather than assuming that a high score on individualism will always equate to low-context communication; he classifies India as high-context communication culture as well.
Several studies have documented communication differences between Israelis and Indians. For instance, Storti (2007) argued that preserving harmony is the overriding concern in most Indian social and workplace interactions and that the primary purpose of communication among Indians is to preserve harmony and avoid giving offense—thereby safeguarding the personal relationship between the speakers. In line with this approach, the results of a comparative study showed that Indian students preferred indirect communication and had more positive perceptions of silence than their American counterparts (Kapoor et al., 2003).
The findings of studies focusing on communication between Indian and Western hi-tech employees support these general observations. It was found that the most frequently mentioned stressors emerging from cultural differences were communication problems; mostly the direct confrontational communication style applied by Israelis and the “the harmony model of conflict management” and communication applied by Indian hi-tech employees (Pines and Zaidman, 2014). Similar communication problems were reported in a study about Indian and German hi-tech workers. This study found that it took some time for the Indian colleagues to open up and voice their questions openly at the start of collaborative projects (Zimmermann and Ravishankar, 2014).
Another study suggested that communication gaps between Israeli and Indian employees of hi-tech multinational corporation resulted from the use of different discourses. Yet these gaps were not pervasive in the light of the dominance of the utilitarian discourse at the studied organization, which adhered to task-oriented direct communication but at the same time followed norms of politeness (Zaidman and Brock, 2009).
Unlike research that has demonstrated some cultural differences in the communication styles employed by hi-tech workers, Snir’s (2014) study showed otherwise. The author conducted a study focusing on negotiation between 103 Indian and 102 Israeli private sector business professionals. The findings indicated that both populations are equally competitive and aggressive in their communication and negotiation style. The author explained that Israelis, as members of a relatively individualistic low-context culture, employed a more competitive negotiation strategy compared to that employed by the collectivistic high-context Indians. As for the Indian negotiators, Snir explained that they communicated in a different style when collective solidarity was not a primary concern. They embraced a competitive strategy in intercultural negotiations, as opposed to their typical intra-cultural behavior which involved the deployment of cooperative strategies to maintain harmony.
Following the “Method” section, we present an extensive section establishing the context of the study. Next, we present and discuss our research findings, based on our initial research question as follows.
The study ends with a discussion and conclusions.
Method
This study is based on the analysis of dispute cases between Indian and Israeli business professionals. We were given access to, and subsequently documented, all the dispute files maintained by the Indian Embassy to Israel, in Tel Aviv. The files cover the period 1997–2002 and included letters issued by companies from across India (e.g. Jalandhar, Kanpur, Madras, Pushkar, Mumbai, Calcutta, Kerala, Bangalore, New Delhi, Jaipur, etc.) as well as from all over Israel. Each dispute file included a letter to the Indian Embassy and two to six appendixes (see the following).
We were asked not to publish detailed and specific information about the people involved, the companies, and the dynamics of the disputes. Nevertheless, we were able to analyze the rich data as reflected in the letters that comprised the 54 files of dispute cases between the participants. Most of the files were written during the years 2000 (n = 36) and 2001 (n = 15). Each file included at least one letter by the initiator describing the situation to the mediator, with a request to intervene in the business dispute (n = 82), and letters that were written to the initiators’ partner as supporting documents (n = 60). Both types of letters were coded and analyzed.
To enhance reliability, we applied a triangulation of quantitative and qualitative methodologies. We used the quantitative methodology to assess the degree to which each population used each tactic and to identify similarities and differences in the use of persuasion strategies by the parties. We used the qualitative methodology to examine the specific way that the research subjects, the correspondents, constructed each tactic in terms of content and language, and to assess similarities and differences between the populations in that respect.
Quantitative analysis
Sample
The research/analysis unit was a document/letter written by an Israeli or an Indian, and addressed to the Embassy, and letters written to an Indian or Israeli addressee (as they appeared in the supporting documents in the dispute file). According to the embassy officials, we analyzed all cases that were collected between 1997 and 2002.
At the initial stage of our analysis, we analyzed each sample, that is, each category of documents, separately. We found that there were no significant differences for each item in each sample. We were, however, unable to perform the test with several items because the samples were too small. For this reason, we combined the two samples before performing the analysis. Our final sample included 142 letters, including 85 letters written by Indian business professionals and 57 written by Israeli business professionals.
Procedure
We applied a content analysis on each of the documents and combined deductive and inductive approaches. Thus, we used three sources to determine the study’s coding procedure. Our first step was to read about 20 percent of all the letters to identify all the tactics that the correspondents had applied (example included appealing to law or to contract, and appealing to business standards, relationships, and claim necessity). This procedure can be defined as data-driven coding, its main source being participants’ letters (Gibbs, 2007). Additionally, to ensure that we did not narrow data analysis into a short list of persuasive tactics, we reviewed and incorporated persuasive tactics that had been identified in the existing research (see Mulholland, 1994. Examples included accumulation arguments). We incorporated tactics that could be relevant in the context of business interaction and ignored tactics that had little or no relevance to our research (e.g. those related to spoken communication). Along with the list of persuasive tactic styles, we incorporated several aspects pertaining to the correspondent’s style of writing. These included bluntness, use of metaphor, and formality. This procedure was aimed at assessing participants’ application of a particular style of communication, or alternatively, to identify the application by them of a unified platform of communication, such as the Utilitarian discourse system. Combined, these two sources were used to extract the relevant concept-driven codes (Gibbs, 2007). Appendix A contains the complete list of items coded, and the definition and explanation attached to each one.
Two independent coders reviewed and coded the documents, the first author and a research assistant. Twenty-two percent of the files were coded by both coders to verify reliable coding results. The level of agreement between the two coders was 94 percent. The coders coded each letter based on a standard coding sheet (see Appendix A). Part A of the coding sheet included categories intended to extract from the document general information regarding the sender, the addressee, and the topic. In part B, we coded persuasive tactics that appeared in the text, for instance, tactics referring to the logical method and aspects of emotions. In part C, we coded elements of communication style such as repetitions, formality of language, cliché, and so on.
Occasionally during the coding process, parts of a text (e.g. sentences) were coded as relevant to more than one code. For example, a sentence could have been coded as both “argument” and “bluntness.”
To identify significant differences in tactics usage between the two populations, we conducted two different statistical tests: (a) χ 2 tests were conducted on tactics that were already coded as dichotomist variables (“yes” or “no” answers) and (b) t-tests for equality of means were conducted on tactics where we also counted their appearances in each single letter (e.g. the amount of accumulation and arguments). These tests enable us to establish the answer to the “differential-similarity” question concerning the two populations communicating on a similar context.
Qualitative analysis
To discover the similarities and differences in the persuasive communication tactics employed by Israeli and Indian business professionals, we examined all the quotations extracted during the coding process for specific tactics. We distinguished between the statements exchanged by four categories: between the Indian and Israeli business professionals and between letters written to partners and to the mediator. We then examined the quotation list in each category, looking for similarities and differences within each category and between categories. In particular, we were looking at the ways (in terms of language usage) participants formed these categories.
In addition to the documents analysis, which was the primary concern of this study, we conducted three open interviews with experts. The first interview was conducted with an Israeli national working in the economic and commercial wing of the Indian Embassy in Tel Aviv. With this officer, we conducted one interview, followed up with several informal discussions. The second interview was conducted with the former Commercial Attaché of the Indian Embassy in Tel Aviv. The third interview was conducted with the former Economic Attaché of the Israeli Embassy in New Delhi. These experts provided information and insights regarding the study’s context.
Context
As explained, our initial standing is that context is crucial in understanding certain phenomenon. Following Goodwin and Duranti (1992), we considered two main dimensions of context. The first refers to the social and spatial framework within which encounters are situated (Goodwin and Duranti, 1992). In our case, this is the actual exchange of letters between the correspondents and between the correspondents and the mediator. Detailed information about social relationships between the partners could shed light on the communication event. However, this information was not available to us. We did, however, consider the differences in the communication event, that is, in the letters, in terms of their addressee. This first dimension also refers to the extra-situational context which, according to Goodwin and Duranti (1992), referred to the background knowledge and frames of relevance within which that talk is embedded. In the case of this study, this (combined) dimension refers mainly to the context of business relations between Israeli and Indians just after the establishment of commercial relationships between India and Israel, as discussed in the following.
The second contextual dimension is language. According to Goodwin and Duranti (1992), language can also be a context. In our case, we referred to the discourse repertoire from which correspondents drew the text of their letters.
The study context
The study documents the very early stage of business relationships between Israeli and Indian companies, following the establishment of economic relationships between Israel and India in 1992. Apart from trade in diamonds, Israeli and Indian firms only began to establish business relationships after that date. The dispute cases analyzed in this study were filed between 1997 and 2001. Thus, the relationships documented between these companies were relatively young, between 1 year and 9 years. At that early stage of the business relationships, there were not many mediating agencies or consultants, and knowledge and experience about international trade at the company level was limited or did not exist at all. Consequently, quite a few firms (both Indian and Israeli) faced acute problems, and individuals had to face these problems with very limited access to means of knowledge or support.
Indian or Israeli firms locked in dispute could turn to the Indian Embassy in Tel Aviv with a request for intervention. Generally, small- and medium-sized firms approached the Embassy. The claims ranged between US$650 and US$53,000, with the majority lying between US$650 and US$10,000. Many of these smaller firms lacked financial reserves, with the owners relying on loans from financial institutions, family members, and friends. Many were not financially stable, to the point that they went bankrupt during the mediation process (personal interview, former Commercial Officer, Embassy of India in Israel). The disputes were about issues such as nonpayment of fees by Israeli companies; non-release of goods ordered by the Israeli company; poor quality of goods supplied by the Indian firm, such as defective fabric and spoilt yarn; nonpayment for shipment supplied by Indian company; differences of opinion over shipment fees; non-clearance of consignment; and nonpayment of commission to an Israeli company.
The letters were mainly written by company owners. Only a few letters were written by the lawyers of the respective company.
The linguistic context
As indicated earlier, several studies have documented communication differences and difficulties between Israeli (or Western) and Indians in the hi-tech sector and in business (Pines and Zaidman, 2014; Snir, 2014; Zaidman, 2001; Zaidman and Brock, 2009; Zimmermann and Ravishankar, 2014). As for communication between Indian and Israeli business professionals, it has been found that during interactions, Israeli business professionals often applied the utilitarian discourse system and “Dugri” (straight-talking) speech, while Indian business professionals tended to apply Indian English, a code quite different from the ones used by Israeli business professionals (Zaidman, 2001).
“Dugri” speech is considered a dominant style of communication among Israelis. In Arabic and Hebrew, dugri speech means talk that manifests truthfulness, informativeness, and clarity (Katriel, 1986). Dugri speech is closely related to the native Israeli culture, which itself is characterized by—among other things—its pragmatic orientation, with an emphasis on the elemental, basic, instrumental, survival-oriented necessities of life, and impatience with verbal polish or circumlocution (Katriel, 1986: 29). The Israeli business professional’s communication is also characterized by high level of directness (Zaidman, 2001). In contrast, Indian business professionals adopted Indian English, a rhetorical style characterized by high involvement, formality, and poetic cadences. Indian English is dominated by long sentences with complicated structures and a form of politeness expressed through the lack of directness in speech (Mehrotra, 1995; Zaidman, 2001).
The participants’ perspectives
According to Goodwin and Duranti (1992), taking as a point of departure, the analysis of context the perspective of the participants whose behavior is being analyzed is of crucial importance. Accordingly, we learnt from the letters written by our research subjects that they perceived losing the money involved in the dispute cases as crucial. In the letters written by the Indian and Israeli business professionals to the mediator, they described the situation using terms like “immense financial loss and hardship to us” and “a lot of damage was caused to our company.” These are only two examples out of many that we identified.
Findings: Persuasion tactics and style
As mentioned earlier, the quantitative data gathered indicated the selection of persuasion tactics applied by each category of correspondent. It also indicated significant differences in the frequency that a particular tactic was deployed in the specific corpus of data. The qualitative analysis shows how each category of correspondent constructed their tactics and refers mainly to similarities and differences in their writing style.
Quantitative findings and analysis
Our first findings relate to the usage rates of each of the tactics by the Indian and Israeli business professionals, respectively (see Table 1)
Inner ranking of persuasive strategies and style in letters to the Embassy and to partner.
a t(119.6) = 3.61, p ˂ 0.01.
b χ 2 = 5.57, p ˂ 0.05.
In both populations, the tactic with the highest usage rate was “accumulation,” that is, the extent to which the authors used vast number of details to support a view. The second was “accusation”; the third “arguments”; and so on. As seen in Table 1, the only significant findings are that Israeli business professionals used “accumulation” and “formal style” less than their Indian counterparts. That is, within the Israeli group, the relative use of these tactics is lower: Accumulation is the most common, but by not much compared to the most common tactic. Among the Indians, accumulation usage is far ahead of other tactics. The intriguing finding, then, is that there is an unexpected similarity in the ranking of the frequency of the tactics used by each population. In other words, Indian and Israeli business professionals tended to use almost the same tactics, and the ranking of the tactics is similar.
The tactics most frequently used by both Indian and Israeli businesspeople were “accumulation” (used by 61 percent of the Israelis and 79 percent of the Indian business professionals), “accusation” (used by 48 percent and 50 percent, respectively), and “arguments” (used by 43 percent and 40 percent, respectively).
The tactics that were less frequently used confirm the trend of similarity between the populations: “applying to trust” (used by 18 percent of the Israeli business professionals and 20 percent of their Indian counterparts); “appealing to law/mutual contract” (used by 16 percent and 27 percent, respectively); “claim necessity” (18 percent and 14 percent, respectively); “appealing to business standards” (11 percent and 11 percent, respectively); and “appealing to professional procedures” (9 percent and 8 percent, respectively).
Indian and Israeli business professionals hardly used “expressing extreme views” and “vagueness” in their correspondence and used metaphors and cliché even less.
Our second finding relates to the particular selection of tactics and the style of writing employed by Israeli and Indian business professionals. First, we found that the majority of the participants used data to tell the story or to make a point. About half of the Indian and Israeli research subjects used a blend of accusations and argumentations, with some data introduced to support the tactic employed. Second, less than half of the participants expressed emotions—and when they did, these were mostly negative emotions such as anger and frustration—in their letters. Third, surprisingly, although they were dealing about business disputes, fewer than a quarter of the research subjects applied the law or the mutual contract. A relatively small number applied to (mostly their business partners’ disregard of) business standards. Fourth, interestingly, fewer than a quarter of the subjects employed a blunt communication style. This includes the Indian business professionals. There was hardly any use of formality in their writing. Neither metaphors nor cliché was used either. Finally, fewer than a quarter of the subjects tended to claim necessity, that is, that the loss was meaningful to them.
Finally, we found that there was not much difference in selection of tactics and style of writing, whether the participants were writing to the mediator or their business partners (see Table 2).
Quotes from letters sent to the mediator and form letters sent to partners.
Qualitative analysis
We were also surprised to discover similarities in the ways that the research subjects constructed their persuasion tactics, in terms of content and style. As discussed before, arguments and accusation were the most commonly used persuasion tactics, and they often overlapped, that is, a sentence or a paragraph would often mix arguments with accusations. We found similarities in the content of both arguments and accusations: both populations refer to the other party’s misconduct as one of several aspects of the business exchange. When writing to the mediator or their partners, Indian businesspeople accused their partners of charges such as failing to clear documents from the bank, fraudulent activities, disregarding the partner’s requests, not wanting to reach a solution, bombarding them with false allegations, providing false arguments, deviation from the original terms agreed, not responding to initiated communication, involvement in unethical practices, making excuses for not paying as expected, cheating, “putting pressure illegally to obtain discount with active support of the bank,” and not paying dues. When writing to the mediator or to their partners, the Israeli business professionals accused their partners of unfair misconduct, conducting illegal action, misappropriating money, cheating and lying, abolishing exclusivity, providing poor quality products, sending goods not in line with the initial order, and of lying with regard to the quality of the goods.
The arguments and accusations of the parties reflect their role in the exchange, because Israelis tended to be the buyers in the commercial transactions and their arguments and accusations tended to relate to the quality of the goods. Likewise, because Indians tended to be the suppliers, their accusations were mostly about nonpayment.
Similarities were found not only in the content of the messages, namely, the other party’s misconduct, but also in the style of communication, with both populations communicating their messages in a direct and straightforward manner. For instance, an Israeli businessman wrote in his letter to his partner: “We refused to pay because we believe that if [partner’s company name] sent the announcement on time we would release that immediately.” (Quotes in section and in the table are taking directly from the correspondence between the parties, and reflect their use of the English language). But it is not only the Israeli business professionals who used direct language. Indians employed this too. For example, one wrote to his partner: “We cannot understand what you are expecting from us.” Furthermore, in several letters, the communicants used blunt language. For example, one Israeli wrote to his partner, in an attempt to resolve a payment issue: “Is it a crime to cash around US$14,000 in advance all the money that you owe me?” Another Israeli wrote to his partner: “We have bought from you black pepper husk quality and not black pepper mixed with 50 percent sand. We have already invested 25,000USD in black paper full of sand, so you tell me who is honest.” The following two quotes can also be seen as examples of the direct “Dugri” code. In the first, an Israeli wrote to his partner: How long you intend to tell us stories about effectuated transfer of $1,129?…You don’t seem to be youngest anymore, so expecting to behave accordingly respecting business ethics too and behave like a serious man, not doing the opposite. [partner used direct language combined with cynicism and patronizing tone].
When writing to the mediator, both Indian and Israeli business professionals stated their arguments (about their business partner) in a straightforward manner. For instance, an Israeli businessman said: “The supplier should take full responsibility for their product since we bought and paid for first quality yarn.” An Indian businessman wrote to the mediator: “Even after making the shipment…no complaints were made.” As in the case of the letters to their partners, several of the Indian and Israeli business professionals employed blunt language. For instance, an Indian exporter wrote: “The goods which at one stage were totally unacceptable to them were very well sold after the discount being offered to them!” Another wrote to the mediator: “Actually we feel his main intention is to cheat all the people that is the reason he is trying to find the faults and excuses always.” In summary, both categories of correspondents used direct and straightforward language when constructing their arguments to a mediator and/or to their business partners.
Another key finding relates to the communication of emotions. In the texts of both Israeli and Indian correspondents, we identified a spectrum of emotions, mainly negative emotions, such as shock, anger, frustration, and despair.
In their letters to their partners, the Indian business professionals wrote: “We have been shocked to learn that the Haifa port has decided….” Another one wrote: “I have had to repeat the above all over again (although it is most embarrassing and frustrating) just to reemphasize on the severity of the problems.” Similarly, the Israelis wrote to their partners in terms such as: “During our visit to [name of a company], we were shocked to see your material, packed in used big bags.”
Emotions were also manifested when the Indian and Israeli business professionals wrote to the mediator. For instance, an Indian businessman wrote: “We feel totally dejected and disappointed on this sudden term of event and can only look forward to your esteemed office to help us.” Another Indian businessman wrote: “we are now in distress because the merchandise worth 12,111.8 USD are lying at Ashdod port since last 10 months…we seek with hopeful eyes your cooperation and help to draw us out from this critical position.” Similarly, the following two quotes were taken from letters that Israeli businesspeople wrote to the mediator: “Madam…you have all the information regarding my problems. Please try help me—where is my product, who will take the responsibility regarding my product, with who I can speak, what I can do?”; and “After exhausting all my ways of persuasion, I’m writing this letter, with heavy heart and sorrow, with the plea to receiving some help in the matter following and repair some of the damage I incurred.”
More quotes from the letters are presented in Table 2.
Discussion and conclusions
The quantitative results of the study show similarities in the choice of persuasive tactics employed by Israeli and Indian correspondents when writing to each other and when writing to the mediator. The quantitative and qualitative results show that the research subjects, from these two culturally different populations, constructed these persuasion tactics and their communication in a similar manner. The findings also show that Indians and Israelis use a combination of tactics, rather than adhering to one distinctive method of persuasion. In the cases analyzed in this study, they used accumulation as a tactic but also sought to convey logical arguments. These forms of persuasion fall within what has been described as the logical–cognitive method of persuasion (Glenn et al., 1977; Johnstone, 1989; Ross, 1994) or as methods of persuasion associated with the utilitarian discourse (Scollon and Scollon, 1995). But both the Israeli and the Indian business professionals also conveyed emotions in their writing. We note that sentences involved despair tended to be directed to the mediator and were employed as an attempt to motivate her or him to act on behalf of the initiators, that is, they sought to persuade the mediator of the correctness of their position. In other words, both the Indian and Israeli business professionals employed the affective method of persuasion (Johnstone, 1989). Finally, we also found that in their writing, both the Indian and Israeli participants employed a direct style of communication. Direct style of communication is not typical to Indians (Storti, 2007).
These results are inconsistent with the previous research showing that certain populations employ specific, distinctive methods of persuasion (e.g. Glenn et al., 1977; Johnstone, 1989), with the research showing differences in styles of persuasion communication between culturally different populations (Glenn et al., 1977; Kochman, 1981; Neuliep and Hazleton, 1985; Patai, 1973). We have thus sought to explain these intriguing findings regarding the similarities in the choices of persuasive tactics applied by the Israeli and Indian business professionals, in spite of the abovementioned research and in spite of the noticeable communication differences between these populations (e.g. Blum-Kulka, Danet, and Gherson, 1985; Katriel, 1986; Kachru, 1992; Mehrotra, 1982; Mehrotra, 1995; Zaidman, 2001).
We argue that the participants did not adapt their communication behavior to their colleagues’ behavior to gain approval or to indicate social distance, as suggested by communication accommodation theory (Giles and Ogay, 2007). Rather, we argue that the key to comprehending these results lies in understanding the context of the correspondents’ communications, or in what Goodwin and Duranti (1992) call the “extra-situational context” of the communication event.
Based on earlier research, one can argue that when Indians and Israelis (or Indian and Germans, in Zimmermann and Ravishankar’s (2014) research) communicate with each other during the course of their work in the hi-tech industry, individuals adhere to their particular style of communication and to the utilitarian discourse commonly employed in hi-tech organizations. Since participants do not fully converge to the Utilitarian discourse system, there are indications of some difficulties that result from differences in participants’ particular communication styles (see, e.g., Pines and Zaidman, 2014; Zaidman, 2001; Zaidman and Brock, 2009; Zimmermann and Ravishankar, 2014). The results of this study show that rather than differences, convergence in communication behavior takes place, particularly at the time of crises. This convergence in communication is not founded on the utilitarian discourse paradigm. Particularly, correspondents did use data in their arguments and in their accusations (as would be conventionally expected when using the utilitarian discourse), but in many other ways, they did not follow the utilitarian code; for instance, they described the situation subjectively and were blunt and direct in their accusations and in their argumentations. Furthermore, they expressed negative emotions, such as anger, frustration, despair as well as cynicism.
Unlike prior studies covering communication between Indian and Israelis, or about communication between Indian and Germans working in the hi-tech industry (Pines and Zaidman, 2014; Zaidman, 2001; Zaidman and Brock, 2009; Zimmermann and Ravishankar, 2014), the data from the dispute cases show that there is almost no evidence showing communication differences between the two culturally different populations. But it is not only that particular cultural differences between the populations are marginalized in their texts; we also found, as explained, that in the letters, the correspondents ignored the utilitarian discourse. This discourse characterizes the communication of Indian and Israeli hi-tech employees during the course of their daily work, and it can be perceived as enforced by the hi-tech culture; in other words, it can be interpreted as a discourse applied in a specific context, leading to some convergence (Zaidman and Brock, 2009).
We posit that a completely different context led the research subjects in this study to converge in their communication behavior and to communicate quite differently from the norms accepted in the utilitarian discourse. We argue—and this argument is supported by, among other factors, the estimations of the experts we interviewed—that the Indian and Israeli subjects experienced a situation which they subjectively perceived as one that involved the threat of meaningful loss. As documented (in the letters and in the interviews), the correspondents were at the time owners of small- and medium-sized companies with limited financial backup, and the threat that they could lose their investments was, for them, significant. Almost all the participants tried to communicate with their partners regarding the dispute but did not receive the desired response. In their letters, many of them complained that they had not received a response to repeated attempts to get in touch with their business partners. Others reported having no success in reaching a satisfactory agreement. As explained, these business professionals did not have at that time access to alternative methods to solve the problem. As a result, they were experiencing high levels of frustration and strain.
The idea of Mischel (1977), that is, “strong situation,” as discussed and applied in Neyer and Harzing’s (2008) study (i.e. situations in which everyone interprets the circumstances similarly, etc.) when adapted holds a potential explanatory relevance to the case discussed in this study. In our case, it is not that the research subjects assigned a similar symbolic meaning to certain conditions. Rather, certain conditions invoked similar perceptions and emotional responses among the participants. These perceptions and emotional responses drove the participants to manifest similar communication behavior. As for the conditions that constituted the particular “strong situation,” these are (a) participants had limited financial resources, and the dispute involved a meaningful loss for them; (b) participants had limited experience and knowledge of international trade; and (c) participants failed to solve the problem and had no alternative agency to solve the problem. Whether all these conditions indeed constitute an “objective reality” seems beside the point. What seems to be relevant is the subjective experience of the research subjects with regard to the situation. Our data show that they interpreted and experienced these conditions in a similar way: They expressed anger and frustration and most likely also strain. These emotional states, it would seem, invoked similar communication (and persuasion) behavior. Contextual conditions can also explain the surprising low level of use of persuasion tactics such as appealing to procedure, appealing to law, and appealing to business standards. These data can be explained in the light of the fact that the subjects were operating at an early stage of business relationships between the two states; the parties had limited experience and knowledge of the standards of international trade practice that they could refer to.
This study contributes to international management research, and particularly to intercultural communication research, by demonstrating that contextual conditions do cause different populations to communicate similarly despite clear evidence of cultural and communicative differences between them. In other words, it contributes to intercultural communication research by recognizing the particular elements of a “strong situation” such as crises that create strains in which culture did not matter. Future research should explore further the impact of “strong situations” on the communicative behavior of culturally diverse populations, including their use of language. Additionally, in the light of communication adaptation theory, we suggest the detailed exploration of the degree of convergence in participants’ persuasion and communication behavior over time, as the subjects communicate more with each other.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.