Abstract
Gift exchange, and the economy associated with it, is not restricted only to those tribal cultures where it has mostly been studied, but can also appear as an element of contemporary market economies. Yet despite this, the practical functioning of gift relationships between business partners is an understudied area. By studying the giving of corporate Christmas gifts, this article contributes to closing this gap. Gifts are seen here as signifiers of hierarchy, position and intent, and although market economy reigns supreme in Western societies, important layers of social economies—such as gift economies—dictate the way in which we behave and read the market economy. Christmas gifts thus represent more than their economic value, and have a social value that is capable of connecting or separating business partners in very specific ways. An understanding of this is crucial for companies trying to manage their image and the signals they send to business partners.
Christmas is a time of gift-giving, where gifts exchanged with friends, family and loved ones increases retail sales dramatically (Carrier, 2004; Waldfogel, 1993). Although Christmas is a Christian holiday celebrated most keenly in Western countries, much of the global economy is affected by it. Countries with less of a tradition for celebrating Christmas also play a role in and are affected by the gift exchanges associated with it, as it dramatically increases import of goods into the (mostly Western) Christmas-celebrating countries (Thrift and Olds, 1996). Despite the far-reaching effects of Christmas, it remains primarily connected to a Western focus on the importance of giving gifts and showing care and appreciation for each other, and here gifts play a major role in the formations and maintenance of social and personal relationships (Camerer, 1988; Offer, 1997).
To understand the role gifts play in a Western contemporary context, economists and organization scholars have looked to anthropological studies of societies and communities where gift economies prevail (see for example Benthall, 2001; Carrier, 1991; Godelier, 1999; Laidlaw, 2000; Offer, 1997; Rehn, 2004; Sherry, 1983). References to these often archaic and ‘primitive’ gift economies should however not be seen as claims for similar economies in the West, but rather that prevailing norms of gift-giving might teach us something about the less transparent layers of Western contemporary economy. After all, gift-giving has long been investigated by anthropologists as an economic system; one that can inform us about how different forms of economic exchange work (Boas, 1897; Malinowski, 1922; Mauss, 1923/2002). The central phenomenon in gift economies (compared to the exchange of commodities in market economy) is the reciprocity that is created by giving a gift (Gouldner, 1960; Gregory, 1980). Instead of exchanging money for a commodity, the gift is exchanged in return for honour or status, something that leaves the receiver with an obligation to give back in order not to loose face (Rehn, 2004; Yang, 1989).
Gift economies are, therefore, not independent economic systems separated from the market economy. Instead, they interact with the market economy as a kind of interruption of the rationality of the latter (Reynolds and Skoro, 1996). To be more precise, although the market economy prevails in the Western society they continue to demonstrate layers of gift economy-behaviour (Godelier, 1999) and, therefore, understanding the meaning of gifts given is important in order to understand the social relations in the exchange of goods and services (Davis, 2000).
We embrace the argument of the importance of gift economies and will in this article investigate the meaning of Christmas gifts given among business partners in Denmark. Many Western companies take part in the Christmas gift exchange, something that is often taken for granted or seems commonsensical (Bruhn, 1996). However what does the giving of gifts mean? And in which ways do different types of gifts influence the relationship between business partners? Illustrated through the realized gift-giving behaviour among 1,006 independently owned Danish companies, and drawing on anthropological theories of gift economies, we examine what corporate Christmas gifts mean to business relationships.
The common perception in organization studies is that retail customers can be manipulated, while business-to-business relationships are much more rational, being based on sound economic calculation (Offer, 1997). We agree, however, with Offer in his critique of this common perception when he notes that building business-to-business relationships ‘involves a massive effort of interpersonal persuasion’ (Offer, 1997: 466). In fact, companies and their business partners have myriads of social relationships, which both parties try to control. Companies want to strengthen the relationship to create a feeling of obligation amongst their partners and clients, and due to the reciprocity created by giving gifts, this can be a very important component in the building of business relationships. And what better event to exploit this possibility than at Christmas? Corporate gifts are not just empty symbolic gifts, therefore, but important artifacts in promoting respect and trust with clients and business partners (Beltramini, 1996). Corporate Christmas giving can be seen as a form of impression management, where organizations try to control the image clients and business partners have of them with what they give (Fan, 2006). Giving gifts fosters business relations, presents the company, and is a way of expressing respect (Bruhn, 1996). In this way, business gift-giving becomes what Offer (1997) calls an economy of regard, something which should not be read as mere economic rationality. Instead, giving gifts to business partners is a way of paying attention and showing that this particular relationship is regarded as valuable. But regard creates obligations—due to social norms, we cannot ignore the one that shows us regard (Gouldner, 1960). With this is mind, we will in this article look further into the play of regard and obligations in gift-giving between companies.
The history of gift-giving theories
Anthropological theories about gift economies were made popular in 1923 by Marcel Mauss (1872–1950) when he published his seminal Essai sur le don: Forme et raison de l’échange dans les sociétés archaiques (Essay on the gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic societies). This essay, later simply referred to as The Gift, is still viewed today as seminal in gift-giving theory and Mauss remains widely cited in contemporary work on gift economies (Sigaud, 2002).
Mauss (1923/2002) sets out to examine why people, across many different continents and cultures, feel obliged to give, receive and give back. He provides several anthropological examples of this, where the kula and the potlatch are most famous and still used to understand contemporary giving. His writings on the kula-ring of gifts is based on Malinowski’s (1922) sociological descriptions of the Trobriand Islands, where gifts are exchanged in a circular fashion so that different objects (Mauss particularly notes arm shells and necklaces) are passed on from tribe to tribe. Different objects have different values and are exchanged accordingly. What motivates the original giver in the kula-ring is according to Godelier (1999: 91) ‘to send it as far as possible and to allow it to circulate as long as possible, so that it carries forth the name of the original giver and enhances it’. Gifts are therefore given in the return of honour and status. Mauss’ other example, the potlatch, is much more extreme as it is a gift-giving feast or festival where the participants try to ‘outgive’ each other.
The aim of a potlatch is to make it difficult for the receiver to give back an equivalent gift and the giver thereby forces the receiver into a subordinated position. Not being able to give back is losing face, which is why a potlatch tends to turn into a gift-competition and ultimately the destruction of wealth (Mauss, 1923/2002). It has even been said to hold similarity to warfare (Codere, 1950; Sahlins, 1972). In discussing the potlatch, Mauss rests on a variety of data, most noticeably from Franz Boas, who was among the first to ethnographically study so-called ‘primitive’ people and acknowledge their many similarities to Western societies (Boas, 1998).
Although the kula and the potlatch are different forms of gift-giving, they both assume that gifts are given not to obtain wealth or to ‘help’ those less fortunate, but rather to earn status and honour. One has to give, therefore, in order to obtain status among other people and to create awareness of oneself. This awareness creation is what Offer (1997) refers to when he shows how gifting is an economy of regard. The receiver then has to reciprocate in order not to lose face, and this reciprocation has to be with interests. You give more back than you receive. One is, however, also compelled to receive in order not to look like one refrains from reciprocating (Mauss, 1923/2002: 50–54). The gift must therefore always move and the circular movement of giving never ends (Hyde, 1979).
Reciprocity is one of our most basic moral norms and has an important role in both establishing and maintaining social systems where we owe obligations to each other (Gouldner, 1960). As a moral norm, reciprocity dictates that to be a respected human being you should give back to those who give to you. Giving, receiving and reciprocating are in this way all equally necessary for the economy of regard to function (Offer, 1997). With the economy of regard, Offer emphasizes the benefits that spring from the satisfaction people feel from being regarded or noticed. People generally like to be noticed for their efforts and the gift economy in this sense carries the signal of regard. As such, a gift is a signal of the intention of a future relationship (Camerer, 1988). In fact gifts are strategically used to establish or maintain specific relationships (Otnes et al., 1993).
A gift binds the actors in the transaction to each other. ‘Since gifts are parts of persons, they do not become totally independent of donors, and recipients never become their total owners, because recipients are still bound by obligations to the donors’ (Yang, 1989: 47). People tend to follow the decisions of a powerful person/organization because they are in their debt for past financial aids or because they might be expecting future favours. ‘To create political followers one distributes wealth and extends credits; to apply sanctions one withdraws or refuses credit’ (Orenstein, 1980: 75).
As Gouldner (1960) notes, however, this moral norm might also prevent us from entering into relationships where the other part cannot reciprocate. Similarly, Marcoux (2009) shows situations where relationships are avoided because people don’t want to be placed in a situation of reciprocity. Orenstein (1980) points to the existence of what he calls asymmetrical reciprocity, that is instances where it is socially approved not to reciprocate on the same scale as the initial gifts. This can be in the case of a great political leader, where either the followers never will be able to reciprocate the leader’s gifts of wealth or knowledge, or as in our case where bigger corporations are sending Christmas gifts to dependent sub-suppliers. As such, there are instances where one party refrains from entering into the exchange or where it is social acceptable not to give back. Nevertheless, considerations around reciprocity always remain.
The difference between gift and commodity is essential (Komter, 2001). A gift exchange establishes a bond between people based on affect, whereas a commodity exchange leaves no necessary emotional connection (Hyde, 1979: 56). In a gift exchange the reciprocity can be delayed, but in an exchange of commodities the pay either happens at once or you pay an interest for the delay (Offer, 1997). A gift has worth, whereas a commodity has economic value (Hyde, 1979). A piece of economically worthless clay given by a child or a garden flower given by a lover can still have worth as gifts although they have no economic value—a gift has worth because of the relation it creates. Or as Hyde succinctly puts it: ‘gifts have become associated with community and with being obliged to others, while commodities are associated with alienation and freedom (Hyde, 1979: 66–67). Gregory (1980) argues that gift and commodity exchange creates two wholly different kinds of relationships. Gift exchange is an exchange of inalienable objects and thus establishes a qualitative relationship because of the reciprocal dependence most inalienable gifts make. Commodity exchange, on the other hand, is exchange of alienable objects, which creates a quantitative relationship of reciprocal independence.
As a critique of Gregory’s arguably somewhat rigid classification of the gift/commodity divide, Carrier (1995) argues, however, that the distinction between gift and commodity is an expression of ideal types and that it is necessary to approach gifts and commodities analytically. Laidlaw (2000) supports this view, but extends the critique of Gregory as he claims that Gregory has misunderstood Mauss in his strict division between inalienable gifts and alienable commodities.
To take Mauss’s careful exploitation of the paradox of the gift, and to replace it as Gregory does, with a definition of the gift as necessarily reciprocal, is to deprive us off Mauss’s central insight. For Mauss, friend-making gift exchange is not opposed to, but is an embryonic form of, commodity exchange, and its principles are still to be found, though attenuated, in modern commerce. (Laidlaw, 2000: 628)
Laidlaw claims that although commodities and gifts only exist as ideal types, there are both examples of almost pure commodities and almost pure gifts. Laidlaw’s point is that even though it is impossible to single out the precise elements of the free gift, it can be present, if even only for a moment.
The concept of the free gift has greatly interested gift-giving theorists. Among these Derrida (1992, 1995) has discussed the conditions for the free gift. In Given Time Derrida (1992) defines four qualities for such a phenomenon: 1) there cannot be any form of reciprocity; 2) the gift must not be given back or given again; 3) neither the receiver nor the giver must have any memory of a gift given and lastly 4) it cannot appear as a gift as the moment it is recognized, it is also annulled. In a later book, The Gift of Death, Derrida (1995), elaborates on this and suggests the gift of death as one of the only possible forms a pure gift can take. Derrida in this sense reads Mauss like Gregory did, but by doing so almost renders the free gift an impossible ideal. Indeed, it has been difficult to show the existence of the completely free or pure gift (Derrida, 1992, 1995). Yet instead of disproving the existence of the free gift, we would argue that this only stresses the important lesson from Mauss—that the gift is never either entirely free, or reciprocal.
Gift-giving in business studies
In the 1970s gift-giving was introduced to the field of consumer research particularly by Bagozzi (1974, 1975) and Belk (1976, 1979), which was followed by a great deal of interest in the subject. In fact, Otnes and Beltramini (1996: 3) call gift-giving ‘one of the primary exemplars of symbolic consumer behaviour in postindustrial societies’. Sherry (1983) was among the first in this field to emphasize the importance of the anthropological roots of gift-giving, and took consumer research ‘out of its experimental settings’ to studying ‘natives’, that is consumers in their natural setting, shopping.
Besides a rather large research community within consumer research (cf. Belk, 1996; Beltramini, 1996; Lowrey et al., 1996; Otnes and Beltramini, 1996; Otnes et al., 1993; Ruth et al., 1999), very few business scholars have researched gift-giving. As an exception Godelier (1999: 14), who for example discusses ‘game show charities’, where givers are encouraged to give still more through announcing the individuals, towns, communities or companies, who have given the most. Similarly, Rehn (2001, 2004) shows how an internet community of hackers compete in freely giving away ripped games and programs, whereby status and honour is earned. By discussing ‘Blat’—Russia’s economy of favours—Rehn and Taalas (2004) show how entrepreneurship is not a purely market economy phenomenon. Later Jensen (2008) studied an office hotel, where the different companies where encouraged to share knowledge and commercial contacts. Muhr and Lemmergaard (2009) draw on Derrida and show how the selfless leadership performed by certain teachers’ sacrifices in school shootings approach Derrida’s ideal of the pure gift—the gift of death. Dunne and Spoelstra (2010) discuss the gift of leadership as debt. All these authors draw similarities between the studied communities and so-called primitive gift economy behaviour and on this ground argue that we can still find gift economies—or fragments thereof—in contemporary market economies.
Despite the interest in gift-giving more generally, the study of business-to-business gifts remains sparse (for exceptions see Bruhn, 1996; Fan, 2006). Despite the call of Beltramini (1996) for more research on the study of business gifts, gift-giving within or among organizations still constitutes a very small field, mostly concerned with charity giving or bribery issues. Here, researchers have investigated charity and philanthropy among business and business owners (cf. Benthall, 2001; Campbell et al., 1999), as well as bribery issues in gift-giving among companies and suppliers or customers as a morally problematic issue (Cooper et al., 1997; Lennerfors, 2010; Preuss, 2000; Turner et al., 1994). In the corporate world, gifts and bribes are not far apart and often difficult to distinguish (Lemmergaard, 1997), but it makes a significant difference how the gesture is understood. A gift given with the purpose to influence is a bribe (Fritzsche, 2005), and bribes are immoral as well as illegal in most countries, whereas gifts are a sign of care (Rose-Ackerman, 1999). However, this definition is problematic if we take Mauss’ claim about gifts as a total social fact seriously. All gifts carry influence. This is also why it has been difficult for researchers to decide on a definition of a bribe (Shaw and Barry, 2004). This has naturally to do with the many shapes corporate gifts can take; from pens, logoed t-shirts etc., at one end of the spectrum, up to dinners, wine, theatre tickets etc., at the other.
The boundaries to what a gift is have generally been difficult to define. Gift-giving does, for example, not always lead to the reciprocity of return or giving again, but also to quarrels, humiliation, jealousy and conflicts (Davis, 2000: 10). Davis not only shows reciprocity, but also how gifts ‘go wrong’ and where the giver is not reciprocated but humiliated or ridiculed instead. Giving the right gift is therefore important in order to send the desired signal and because of the fear often felt about giving inappropriate or meaningless gifts, anxiety in gift-giving stands in stark contrast to the otherwise festive occasions at which gifts are usually given (Wooten, 2000). In fact, Christmas gifts are often viewed as the most stressful part of Christmas and negatively correlated to happiness (Kasser and Sheldon, 2002) because of the expectations embedded in giving and receiving gifts. Christmas gift-giving is thus a particular situation where gift-giving risks turning into an institutionalized act robbed of symbolic value (see for example Baudrillard, 1993). In this article, we do not treat Christmas gifts as completely devoid of social meaning, even though they are part of an institutionalized machine. Nevertheless, Baudrillard’s point is important in order to constantly remind us of the dynamic between absence and presence in gift-giving (Papson, 1986). Gifts manifest the social, but can just as well do so by signifying absence and insignificance than presence and regard. Here, we will look more closely to how Christmas gift-giving between organizations can be seen as both an intersubjective personal gesture and an objectified taken-for-granted act run by big organizations producing mass-constructed solutions.
As Christmas brings together work and private life in ways no other event does (Rosen, 1988), Christmas is a perfect event to study how these personal and objective mechanisms become intertwined. Although investigating an organization’s Christmas party and not organizational gift-giving, Rosen’s article is relevant to our analysis as he identifies four ways Christmas gets embedded in organizational life. These are: 1) that organizational Christmas celebrations have an explicit purpose;. 2) Christmas is also an opportunity to make visible an ideology, i.e. to show the organization as amiable and moral; 3) through Christmas rituals this ideology can be communicated in less conscious statements and 4) it is thus a way to structure and present ‘how people think about social life’ (Rosen, 1988: 479).
We will now illustrate this intertwining of intersubjective personal gestures and objectified taken-for-granted acts through the practical case of corporate Christmas gifts. Corporate Christmas gifts are often assumed to be minor and even pointless gestures. However, if we take economic anthropology seriously, we learn that corporate Christmas gifts are anything but, and we will now illustrate how specific Christmas gifts can be seen as sending strong signals regarding business relations and intent.
Methodology
Our illustrative example is based on the results of an internet survey conducted in the weeks 45 and 46 of 2008 among the 2,000 members of a panel for Danish independent business owners. The connection to the panel was established as one of the authors of this article was asked to be an external expert. She has therefore been involved in the process both when it comes to formulating the questions and gathering the data. The purpose of the survey was to investigate the extent to—and motivation for—giving and receiving corporate Christmas gifts. The survey asked questions concerning the commonality of corporate Christmas gifts, the awareness of the impressions that corporate Christmas gifts might engender, and the perceived importance of corporate Christmas gifts to business relations.
One thousand and six company owners responded to the survey; a response rate just exceeding 50%. In total, around 38% of the respondents reported giving Christmas gifts. The more employees a company had, the more likely it was that the company exchanged Christmas gifts with business partners. Thus, over half of the firms (53%) with more than five employees gave Christmas gifts. Since the sample consisted of only independently owned companies, they were generally fairly small. Only 12.9 % of the companies had a revenue above 10 million (1,33 million €). The relatively high response rate together with the fact that most respondents were responsible or at least involved in the gifting decisions makes the survey a good illustration of the gift behaviours among Danish independently owned companies, but there are also limitations to the dataset.
One is the fact that only 38 % of the companies actually gave Christmas gifts in 2008. This, we believe, had to do with the small size of these independently owned companies. As noted by Orenstein (1980), in some instances it is socially acceptable not to give, e.g. when there is a size or a power discrepancy. If the sample had consisted of larger (for example listed) companies it is likely that this percentage would have been higher. As a result of this we will mainly concentrate on those who did give and investigate the reasons for this. Another limitation is that the data is based on descriptive statistics, barring the use of more complex statistical analyses. Instead, we will emphasize the descriptions of gift-giving in the dataset.
The third limitation is the quantitative nature of the data. The benefit of quantitative data is that we can identify broad tendencies and draw conclusions based on large datasets, which would not be accessible with qualitative data. With the quantitative dataset, however, we can only show the presence of certain behaviours, not investigate into the reasons for, or meanings underpinning, such behaviours. As mentioned earlier, the literature on corporate gift-giving in organization studies is very limited, thus our study can be seen as introducing an academic discussion by identifying certain overall tendencies. To better understand these however, we call upon future research to investigate more qualitatively into the reasons for giving, the reactions when receiving and the possibly complex nature of this relationship.
Analysis
The purpose of this article is to analyse the gift-giving behaviour among the companies in our dataset. To do so we have divided the analysis into four parts. These are 1) Christmas gifts given; 2) considerations about the signal of the gift; 3) types of Christmas gifts and 4) opinions about the gifts received.
Christmas gifts given
Only 38% of the respondents in the survey report that they give Christmas gifts to their business partners. Assumedly this is an effect of the relatively small size of the companies in the dataset. However, 57% of the respondents reported receiving Christmas gifts from their business partners. This strengthens our view that many of them might be too small to invest in Christmas gifts. By receiving from their assumedly larger business partners, they engage in what Orenstein (1980) calls asymmetrical reciprocity. Thus, although they do not all give gifts, the majority of them take part in Christmas gift exchange either as receiver, giver or both. Interestingly, 23% still report that they did not receive Christmas gifts from certain business partners although they expected to. This is interesting in relation to the dynamics of reciprocity, particularly as it points to the fact that many more expect to receive gifts than plan to give them. This again feeds into the fact that they are independent small companies, who appear powerless in comparison to their presumably larger business partners. It is in this way very much a potlatch situation, where the ‘big chief’ is expected to give his wealth to the less fortunate in the community. Thus we sense a feeling of neglect because the ‘big chief’—i.e. the larger business partner—did not show their greatness by giving to their subjects in the community. As a result, the community seems to express some disappointment; not so much over not receiving gifts as such, but over not being noticed and acknowledged. In Offer’s (1997) terms they are disappointed because they have not been sent regards.
When asked whether the companies give to all their business partners, only one-third confirmed this to be the case. This makes it normal practice among the respondents to consider who to enter into a gift exchange relationship with and who not to include. The survey unfortunately says nothing about the reasoning behind this. However, from a theoretical point of view this decision depends on the importance of the business relation and the signal the company wants to send. As we earlier quoted Orenstein: ‘To create political followers one distributes wealth and extends credits; to apply sanctions one withdraws or refuses credit’ (Orenstein, 1980: 75). He might have meant this in relation to more politically sensitive scenarios, but the same is true for smaller scale gift exchanges—they are, as Mauss pointed out, always political. The decision not to give is a signal as much as the one to give is. And since 57% of the companies received Christmas gifts whereas only 38% gave them, many of the companies (despite the potential size difference between the companies in the dataset and their business partners) are in a situation of unpaid reciprocity.
Sometimes not engaging in gift exchange can, however, be the preferred solution, in order not to end up in the social indebtedness implicit in gift-giving and in order not to tackle guidelines of acceptance and giving (Bruhn, 1996). In consumer research, Marcoux (2009) shows how some people prefer buying services of the market instead of engaging in the reciprocity of gift-giving and to avoid potential embarrassment and dependence. This, however, is a sensitive decision especially if a business partner decides to give when you do not. Just as ‘the big chief’s’ decision not to give was read as neglect, the companies in the dataset could get similar responses to their choice of not giving. In both cases, as not giving is a sign of neglect, it often has greater consequences than expected.
Considerations about the signal of the gift
When asked about whether they think about appearing ‘wasteful’ or ‘stingy’ in their gift-giving, it is interesting to note that 63% of the companies are being careful about not sending a signal of wastefulness whereas only 23% are worried about seeming stingy. This is interesting in relation to Mauss’ notion regarding gift competitions where especially the potlatch is about constantly giving more back than was given to you. Similarly, Offer (1997) points to a status competition of generosity and Rehn (2004) discusses rival generosity. In our dataset more company owners are concerned with not seeming wasteful. The signal of the gift is thus not only placing reciprocity on the receiver, it also puts the giver’s reputation at stake. The precaution about wastefulness is however likely to be connected to Scandinavian culture, where the ‘Jante law’ as a social norm dictates that you generally have to be careful about not being too proud of yourself, your accomplishments or your wealth. The Jante law in this way creates a negative attitude towards success and excessive giving (Gustavsson, 1995; Smith et al., 2003). Gift competitions might therefore have a different impact in cultures where excessive giving is seen as admirable and not as in a Danish context as wasteful and braggadocio. In the Scandinavian culture sending regards, but doing so in a humble way, is considered important.
The appearance of a care not to appear wasteful could once again, however, also be due to the dataset consisting of smaller companies. As underlings, they may not feel the need to worry in the same way about being perceived as lacking generosity in relation to the larger companies they do business with. Conversely, seeming wasteful could be an unwelcome signal to send to a larger business partner, who is expecting careful rational management of resources from you. Taking future business relationships into account it might, therefore, be logical that a much larger part of the respondents worry would be possibly appearing wasteful, rather than appearing ungenerous.
To the more general question about why they give Christmas gifts 75% answer that it is to nurture business relationships, 17% answer ‘because of tradition’, and only 2% explain it to be out of duty. The figure of 75% is not surprising as it corresponds well with earlier findings where most corporate gifts are given to build relationships with business partners (Fan, 2006). The 17% given out of tradition and especially the 2% given out of duty are more interesting as they could be seen as routine gifts and therefore imperfect. Belk (1996) argues that gifts given routinely are imperfect gifts because they do not signal the same kind of relationship intentions as gifts given more spontaneously. Since Christmas is a routine event, a Christmas gift is never a great surprise and can in fact be seen as stressful and negatively correlated to happiness (Kasser and Sheldon, 2002). However, there are several things the giver can do to personalize the exchange more. Especially if the reason for giving is ‘tradition’ or ‘duty’, personalization of the gift is important in order to be able to send the wanted signal of regard (Offer, 1997). In the following we will discuss this in more detail, as we look at what types of gifts the companies in the dataset give to their business partners.
Types of Christmas gifts
When it comes to the types of gifts given we see that 26% of the respondents personalize the Christmas gifts they give. This number tells us that although only 38% of the respondents give Christmas gifts, a quarter of these make the extra effort to personalize the gift. This makes sense in relation to the above finding that most of them do not want to seem wasteful. To optimize the gift, small players who don’t want to be seen as wasteful can instead pay attention to the personalization of the gift. On the other hand, the bigger business partners, who cannot offer this level of attention, possibly because of the larger amount of relationships, can instead better indicate their regard by being wasteful in the original, potlatching sense of the word.
Only 4% take an opposing course and give gift certificates, which are the type of gift that most resembles the impersonal character of money. This is interesting as gift theories are stressing their contradictory signal. Although it has been shown how much we economically ‘lose’ by not giving money for Christmas (Waldfogel, 1993), money is socially seen as unacceptable and inappropriate as a gift (Carmichael and MacLeod, 1997). Although money is on the top of both men and women’s wish lists (Fan, 2006: 7), the retail boom at Christmas is a sign of the reluctance to use money directly in gift exchange (Offer, 1997: 454). A gift needs to be personal to send a signal of care. Money gifts are therefore impersonal and resemble wages more than gifts.
A vast majority (66%) gives a traditional Christmas gift like a box of wine or a gift basket. Giving something useful can be seen as an ‘easy solution’. For example, a gift basket with groceries can very easily be perceived as impersonal and uninventive and not show the intended regard for the business partner. However, a basket of groceries can also be personalized to send a specific signal. A ‘fair trade basket’ is therefore not only a useful gift, but also send a signal of social responsibility. Another way could be to send only ecologically grown products or products made by a particular people or region, which the company ‘supports’. The gift basket can in this way be made to resemble a charity donation. Only 3%, however, give actual charity donations as Christmas gifts. Although it has been shown that the use value is not the most important part of a gift in order to create a relation, many still seem to stress this. Charity donations are not useful for the recipient, but very specific signal of responsibility. Charity gifts might therefore only be given to particularly close business partners or given by companies in industries, which are dealing with charity in one way or another. A charity donation is a way of showing both yours and the receiver’s superiority and therefore a way to direct the ‘generosity competition’ at an outside party. By giving a charity donation, you signal that the receiver does not need the materiality of the gift. A charity donation is therefore both a sign of paying attention and sending regard, but it is doing so in a respectful manner where the receiver’s superior position is highlighted—you are both ‘big chiefs’ taking the positions as generous givers.
A gift, in stark contrast to money, is personal, and is seen as a personal gesture and a signal of care. A personalized gift also creates face, that is, the choices behind the gift suggest something about who the giver is. Personal preferences, individuality and originality are therefore important when it comes to business-to-business giving (Bruhn, 1996). Still, corporate gifts cannot be too personal as these can very quickly be perceived as inappropriate. Corporate gifts can for example not be jewelry, lingerie or fragrances (Fan, 2006) as these are considered to belong far more to the private sphere. Corporate Christmas gifts therefore need to be balanced and chosen to send only the desired signal about the giver. The large number of ‘traditional’ gifts in the dataset might therefore point towards the fact that the gift itself is less significant; it is the giving that is most important. Many of the gifts are purposefully chosen to be traditional or ‘low profile’, perhaps so as not to offend anyone or so as to not place anyone in an unwanted position of reciprocity.
Opinions of gifts received
Only 10% think they receive well-chosen or useful gifts, 8% would rather be without and 7% think it is a waste of time and money. Still, 47% think of Christmas gifts as a nice tradition and 57% think of it as a good occasion to remember/appreciate partners. This would support the assumption that the respondents remember the act of giving more than the gift itself. The perfect gift is therefore one that is perhaps not too ostentatious, but which ensures a sense of regarded or respect.
Furthermore, the data also point to the fact that the respondents think more about the gifts they give than those they receive. Only 15% have an opinion about the usability of the gift, and still a vast majority believes that Christmas is an appropriate occasion to remember or appreciate each other. This points to the fact that the signal and the bond, which the gift creates, are more important than the gift itself. The gift itself might be forgotten quickly, but as Rehn (2004: 373) notes, while it might be forgotten, honour remains. Gifts often have little use value, but even though the gift itself is useless, the gift-economy is not—the meaning of the gift is instead dependent on the social relationship (Komter, 2001), and the gift can strengthen relationships by increasing trust and cooperation (Carmichael and MacLeod, 1997). Thus the gift, as Hyde (1979: 13) points out based on Malinowski (1922), has far more value than that simply stemming from practical use.
This becomes particularly important for gifts exchanged between corporations at Christmas. As noted earlier, both Christmas gifts and corporate gifts are at risk of being perceived at routine and thus impersonal gifts—and routine gifts do not give regard or make the giver look honourable. On the contrary, they can seem ridiculous and insignificant, especially due to the regulation that limits how much can be spend on corporate Christmas gifts. The corporate Christmas present must thus have significant symbolic value to leave a lasting impression valuable to future business.
Concluding discussion
As Mauss stated, economic transactions constitute only one element of the system of total services (Mauss, 1923/2002: 7). Even in the assumedly market-driven exchange between companies, a flourishing and important gift-economy remains; and especially so in the corporate gift-exchange at Christmas. It is often assumed that people’s relationships tend to fall into one of two categories: either an impersonal market relationship with strangers or a personal and intimate relationship with friends and family (Komter, 2001). Christmas is an occasion where companies can attempt to break down this boundary. At Christmas, work transgresses into the private world through the work managers or company owners carry out to celebrate this festive event (Rosen, 1988) or to find the perfect gift for their employees (Carrier, 1995).
In this article, we argue that corporate gift exchange between business partners at Christmas is a similar attempt to cross over to the private world of family and kinship by trying to simulate a personal relationship by giving gifts. The gifts are given to create personal connections and bonds between business relations. The gift is not just a thing or an inefficient gift. It represents more (or less) value than its use value; is has social and cultural meaning (Komter, 2001). Through gifts we define who we are to others and what our common relationship means to us. The meaning to the gifts thus arises through the relationship the receiver have with the giver. A gift has considerable effect on a relationship because of its emotional character. However, it can both strengthen and affirm a relationship as well as cause negative emotions and thus weaken a relationship (Ruth et al., 1999).
Several theorists (e.g. Davis, 2000; Godelier, 1999; Offer, 1997; Rehn, 2004; Reynolds and Skoro, 1996) have shown how the gift economy—so widely examined and discussed in the beginning of last century—is not only something which takes place in ‘primitive’ tribes. It also remains an effective and contemporary element of the market economy. The practical functioning of the gift relationships between business partners still represents an understudied area, however. Through the annual Christmas gift, companies have an opportunity to play a part in another kind of economy, the gift economy, which infuses all elements of our society. The norm to reciprocate is always present in some form. It is, as Mauss observed, a total social fact that organizations—if they understand its importance—can benefit from. This analysis shows that Christmas gift-giving is important for companies to demonstrate necessary levels of status and honour or, by paying their regards, sufficient respect and attention to significant organizational partners. It is, however, somewhat more complex n that it is also important not to place the receiver in a position of impossible reciprocity. How the gifts are given send important messages, therefore, about status with gifts appropriately aligned to the corresponding positions the giver and receiver have within the social hierarchy.
Our dataset has the added value of displaying the subject’s position in the giving and receiving relationship. By being small independent companies, normally with larger business partners, the respondents exhibited classical gift-giving behaviour. Being subject to larger business partners they expected to receive more than they felt obliged to give and even felt neglected and bypassed in situations where they didn’t receive gifts from certain companies. They were also aware of their hierarchical position, which was reflected in their gift behaviour where they seemed more interested in sending an image of considered reliability and than one of power and wealth.
On this note, we might want to remember what Mauss (1923/2002: 95) said: ‘To give is to show one’s superiority, to be more, to be higher in rank, magister. To accept without giving in return, or without giving more back, is to become client or servant, to become small, to fall lower, minister’. The giver therefore has to be very careful about not promoting asymmetrical relationships. As Stephen (2000) pointed out, some givers only triumph and gifts can wound. The gift very easily becomes an act of subjection as it places the recipient in a position of reciprocity. Offer (1997: 455) cites an Alaskan Inuk to have said ‘with gifts you make slaves’. Although corporate giving undoubtedly is motivated by the desire to create a feeling of obligation to respond, it is rarely in a company’s interest to leave an important business partner feeling wounded or humiliated. Giving requires, therefore, a very delicate balance as the gift—and especially the Christmas gift in this context—not only sends regard, but also works as an element of control. Depending on what is given or not, the gift sends very different signals; signals that are important to future relationship.
The perfect business Christmas gifts are therefore given to appear caring, thoughtful and generous without appearing either wasteful or stingy. The gift should signal that the giver has spent time on choosing it and that the receiver is important, but it shouldn’t leave the impression of arrogance or placing the receiver in a subordinate position. Giving also depends on hierarchical positions. All in all the act of giving corporate Christmas gifts therefore offers the opportunity to be much more than the gift itself.
Corporate Christmas gift-giving is not, therefore, the end of the social (Baudrillard, 1993) Nonetheless, bearing in mind Baudrillard’s point about the ambivalent relationship between presence and absence in social exchange, it emphasises the ambivalence of the gifting relationship and reminds one of the lure of routinization and institutionalization that corporate Christmas gift-giving easily can fall into. By resisting this routinization without losing some sense of humility the gift might be forgotten, but the giving is not. Most personal interactions are driven by the desire for attention and regard, and the company in a similar way gives by sending its regards. The corporate Christmas gift is much more than just a thing; it is the very stuff of a necessary and continuous social relationship.