Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Saving Face: Reactions to Cultural Norm Violations in Business Request Emails

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This research examines reactions to relationship building statements (termed facework; e.g., I hope all is well) and message structure (placement of reasoning either before or after the request itself) in business emails presented to U.S. and Chinese employees.

Design/methodology/approach

Two studies manipulated the use of facework and message structure in samples of Chinese and American employees and measured reactions to the email. Study 1 sampled Chinese (n = 57) and U.S. (n = 56) employees within the same multinational firm. Study 2 employed multi-industry samples of Chinese (n = 99) and U.S. (n = 105) employees. Both studies also examined within-culture differences in self-construal as predictors of reactions to the messages.

Findings

Chinese employees reported greater desire to do business with the sender of an email that included facework and placed reasoning before the request, whereas U.S. employees were more irritated with this type of email (Study 1). However, when facework and message structure were manipulated independently (Study 2), Chinese employees preferred the messages with facework or reasoning before request only when the two strategies were not combined. Within-culture differences in independent and interdependent self-construal interacted with email condition in complex ways.

Implications

Results have implications for employees who use email to communicate cross-culturally and also point to within-culture differences in email preferences.

Originality/value

Despite the prevalent use of email for cross-cultural business communication, lack of understanding of cultural nuances may result in misunderstandings and breakdowns in communication. Results have implications for training employees who communicate cross-culturally.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Per the suggestion of an anonymous reviewer, we re-ran these analyses controlling for participant gender and also examining interactions between gender and the manipulation. No significant effects were found for gender, and gender had no moderating effects. We also tested for gender differences in InterSC and IndepSC, and there were no significant differences. These analyses are available from the first author.

  2. We thank our anonymous reviewers for these ideas.

References

  • Adair, W. L., Buchan, N., & Chen, X. P. (2009). Communication and social interaction style (CSIS): Reconceptualization and scale development. San Diego, CA: Association for International Business conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aoki, M., & Jinglian, W. (2012). The Chinese economy: a new transition. London: Palgrave McMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond, M. (2002). Reclaiming the individual from Hofstede’s ecological analysis–a 20-year odyssey: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128, 73–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness (Vol. 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchan, N. R., Adair, W. L., & Chen, X. P. (). Navigating 15 international negotiations: A communications and social interaction style (CSIS) Framework. In M. Benoliel (Ed.), Negotiation excellence: Successful deal making (pp. 277–298). London: World Scientific Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byron, K. (2008). Carrying too heavy a load? The communication and miscommunication of emotion by email. Academy of Management Review, 33, 309–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, H. C., & Holt, G. R. (1994). A Chinese perspective on face as inter-relational concern. In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The challenge of facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues (pp. 95–132). Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Y., & Hsu, Y. (1998). Requests on e-mail: a cross-cultural comparison. RELC Journal, 29, 121–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, E. (2006). The development of email literacy: From writing to peers to writing to authority figures. Language Learning and Technology, 10(2), 35–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, S. E., Hardin, E. E., & Gercek-Swing, B. (2011). The what, how, why, and where of self-construal. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(2), 142–179.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122(1), 5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez, D. R., Carlson, D. S., Stepina, L. P., & Nicholson, J. D. (1997). Hofstede’s country classification 25 years later. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(1), 43–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fujimoto, Y., Bahfen, N., Fermelis, J., & Chartel, H. (2007). The global village: Online cross-cultural communication and HRM. Cross-Cultural Management: An International Journal, 14(1), 7–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1967). On face-work. Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behavior.

  • Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K., & Heyman, S. (1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self construals, and individual values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Research, 22(4), 510–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M. S., Sharkey, W. F., & Singelis, T. M. (1994). The relationship between individuals’ self-construals and perceived importance of interactive constraints. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18(1), 117–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick, A. (1991). Information sequencing in Mandarin in letters of request. Anthropological Linguistics, 33(2), 183–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick, A. (1993). Information sequencing in modern standard Chinese. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 16, 27–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitayama, S., Park, H., Sevincer, A. T., Karasawa, M., & Uskul, A. K. (2009). A cultural task analysis of implicit independence: Comparing North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 236–255.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, K., Bhagat, R., Buchan, N., Erez, M., & Gibson, C. (2005). Culture and international business: Recent advances and their implications for future research. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(4), 357–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 420–430.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Neeley, T. (2012). Global business speaks English. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2012/05/global-business-speaks-english.

  • Oetzel, J. G., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2003). Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: A cross-cultural empirical test of the Face Negotiation Theory. Communication Research, 30(6), 599–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta analyses. Psychology Bulletin, 128, 3–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M. F., Thomason, S. J., Althouse, N., Athanassiou, N., Curri, G., Konopaske, R., et al. (2010). Social structures and personal values that predict e-mail use: An international comparative study. Journal of Global Information Management, 18(2), 57–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (1991). Topic confusion in East–West discourse. World Englishes, 10(2), 113–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (1994). Face parameters in East-West discourse. In In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The challenge of facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues (pp. 133–157). Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singelis, T. M., & Brown, W. J. (1995). Culture, self, and collectivist communication: Linking culture to individual behavior. Human Communication Research, 21, 354–389.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). Identity negotiation theory: Crossing cultural boundaries. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 211–233). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, M. (2006). Hofstede’s cultural dimensions 30 years later: A study of Taiwan and the United States. Intercultural Communication Studies, 15(1), 33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y. (1995). Indirectness in Chinese requesting. In C. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as native and target language (pp. 69–118). Honolulu: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank Richard Griffith and Jessica Wildman for their helpful suggestions related to this research and manuscript preparation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Florida Institute of Technology, 150 W. University Blvd., Melbourne, FL, 32901, USA

    Erin M. Richard

  2. Korn Ferry, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Michael McFadden

Authors
  1. Erin M. Richard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael McFadden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erin M. Richard.

Appendices

Appendix A: Pilot study coding scheme

Messages were coded similarly to the process used by Chang and Hsu (1998) and Kirkpatrick (1991). Raters were instructed to identify whether each of the components below was included in the message structure along with the order in which they were found in each request email. These operational definitions were validated previously in studies involving both Chinese and American participants (Chen 2006; Chang and Hsu 1998; Kirkpatrick 1991).

  • Facework Statements: Statements expressing good will towards the receiver and reinforcing and maintaining the social identity of the sender and/or upholding and supporting the receivers.

  • Reason Statements: Statements describing the cause, context, and consequences for the request.

  • Request Statements: Statements expressing the sender’s expectation of the recipient with regard to prospective action.

Appendix B: Structure of study 1 email messages

Component

Deductive style email

Inductive style email

Facework statement

(Excluded)

I hope all is well.

Reasoning

(After request) I have learned that Razzle Dazzle has been recently presented at all the major product shows and the acceptance by the buyers has been very strong worldwide. I believe the product could end up being a very strong item for your company in terms of generating sales. Hopefully you can meet and discuss further.

(Before request) I have learned that Razzle Dazzle has been recently presented at all the major product shows and the acceptance by the buyers has been very strong worldwide. I believe the product could end up being a very strong item for your company in terms of generating sales. Hopefully you can meet and discuss further.

Request

I think you should reconsider your original decision to exclude Razzle Dazzle from your product line at this time.

I think you should reconsider your original decision to exclude Razzle Dazzle from your product line at this time.

Appendix C: Study 2 email messages

Deductive structure, including facework

Deductive structure, excluding facework

Inductive structure, including facework

Inductive structure, excluding facework

I hope all is well. I think you should reconsider your original decision to exclude Razzle Dazzle from your product line at this time. I have learned that Razzle Dazzle has been recently presented at all the major product shows and the acceptance by the buyers has been very strong worldwide. I believe the product could end up being a very strong item for your company in terms of generating sales. Hopefully you can meet and discuss further.

I think you should reconsider your original decision to exclude Razzle Dazzle from your product line at this time. I have learned that Razzle Dazzle has been recently presented at all the major product shows and the acceptance by the buyers has been very strong worldwide. I believe the product could end up being a very strong item for your company in terms of generating sales. Hopefully you can meet and discuss further.

I hope all is well. I have learned that Razzle Dazzle has been recently presented at all the major product shows and the acceptance by the buyers has been very strong worldwide. I believe the product could end up being a very strong item for your company in terms of generating sales. Hopefully you can meet and discuss further. I think you should reconsider your original decision to exclude Razzle Dazzle from your product line at this time.

I have learned that Razzle Dazzle has been recently presented at all the major product shows and the acceptance by the buyers has been very strong worldwide. I believe the product could end up being a very strong item for your company in terms of generating sales. Hopefully you can meet and discuss further. I think you should reconsider your original decision to exclude Razzle Dazzle from your product line at this time.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Richard, E.M., McFadden, M. Saving Face: Reactions to Cultural Norm Violations in Business Request Emails. J Bus Psychol 31, 307–321 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9414-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9414-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation