We find that market or social exchange preferences can be found at a cultural level. For instance, my work with fellow Americans is often most eagerly engaged when I immediately place in a printed agenda or bullet-pointed plan of action in front of us. I recall many business relationships that initially are “all business” (market exchange). A dinner out on the town (social exchange) only occurs after a productive workday. Trust is based on demonstrated competence (Bergquist, Betwee, and Meuel, 1995).
Conversely, I find that it is “rude” in my work with Asian clients to begin by talking about the work to be done (market exchange). One starts with a lengthy “getting-to-know-you” conversation over a cup of tea, at a lengthy banquet, or while touring a temple or public garden. I find that when trust is established via a social exchange. Trust is established based on clarity regarding sustained intentions (Bergquist, Betwee, and Meuel, 1995). Emphasis is placed on “habits of the heart” (Bellah, and others, 1985)—contrasting with habits of the mind expected in a culture focused on market exchange. Firm work-based alliances can be formed based on the trust in intentions. Clear intentions are critical in a social exchange culture.
An emphasis on social exchange was vividly and poignantly displayed in one of my long-term business relationships. An Asian colleague provided substantial financial support to the graduate school where I served as President. The loaned money was “insured” by only a handshake between us. In turn, I would agree to provide teaching and consulting services for my colleague at a moment’s notice. I immediately permitted him to translate several of my books into his Asian language. Without hesitation, I permitted him to feature me in his promotional materials. Market and social exchange were fully integrated. Our relationship was transactional, but based on a foundation of powerful, mutual trust.
The distinctions drawn between transactional and autotelic relationships, and between market and social exchange, are important to acknowledge when considering control and Worth. Those of us who lean towards transactional relationships and market exchanges are inclined to focus on controlling these interactions. We want to know the parameters of the relationship and the extent to which we have any control over these parameters.
We are “worthy” in a transactional relationship to the extent that we influence what occurs in the market exchange. In some cultures, deliberations (bartering) are extensive. The outcomes of these deliberations help to define the level of one’s success and ultimately the value (Worth) of this relationship. Ironically, if one chooses NOT to barter, this is a sign that the other person is not “worthy” of being in this transactional relationship. A long, complex barter is often considered evidence of both parties to the barter being Worthy.
Bartering is prevalent in premodern societies where craftsmanship is valued (“worthy”) and high-quality service is desired (“worthwhile”) (Bergquist, 1993). Individual items are produced (rather than there being mass assembly-line production). Service to other people is tailored to their needs (often based on close neighborly knowledge of this person and their needs). The small country store that provides everything reigns supreme–for the large mall and virtual marketplace are yet to come.
