Rejoinder

This rejoinder responds to a commentary (Horak et al., Reference Horak, Abosag, Hutchings, Alsarhan, Ali, Al-Twal, Weir, ALHussan and AL-Husan2023) on our article ‘De-Linking from Western Epistemologies: Using Guanxi-Type Relationships to Attract and Retain Hotel Guests in the Middle East' (2022). We thank the authors for engaging with our work and are grateful to the editor for the chance to respond. Firstly, we do not accept the central assertion that we imposed the Chinese concept of guanxi on a Middle Eastern context. Some aspects of guanxi extend beyond China, and we consider it part of our role as researchers to explore universal behavioral aspects that transcend specific cultural settings. While we described guanxi to introduce the variables, we drew a clear distinction between guanxi itself and guanxi-type relationships, and provided on page 859 an explicit statement about what we meant by the term ‘guanxi-type relationships’, i.e. the networks of interpersonal ties found in the Middle East. While this distinction could have been more clearly emphasized in places, we consider that the article as a whole made it abundantly clear.

Moreover, wasta cannot be considered a suitable generic term for our study. While our own detailed knowledge of wasta is evidenced in prior work by some of the same authors (e.g. Shaalan, Tourky, Barnes, Jayawardhena, & Elshaer, Reference Shaalan, Tourky, Barnes, Jayawardhena and Elshaer2021), the term is culturally inappropriate in some of the 17 countries studied on this occasion (i.e., Iran and Turkey) and excludes other networks such as Et-Moone (Abosag & Lee, Reference Abosag and Lee2013) and ma'arifa (Yahiaoui & Zoubir, Reference Yahiaoui, Zoubir, Budhwar and Mellahi2006). Indeed, Abosag and Naudé's (Reference Abosag and Naudé2014) study, cited by the authors to back their criticism that we had not focused on wasta, is itself about Et-Moone rather than wasta, and compares Et-Moone to guanxi. Given this nuanced picture, we felt that the inclusive term ‘guanxi-type relationships’ permitted exploration of diverse networks without creating regional cross-cultural complexities. While discussing this reasoning, and mentioning wasta and other local networks, would have been a beneficial addition to avoid any confusion over our aims, we do not agree that the discussion of Arab culture in parts of the article could reasonably be construed as describing people from Turkey and Iran as Arab, as the research setting was clearly defined as the Middle East.

We also reject the assertions that ‘face’ is a solely Chinese construct and that Abosag and Naudé (Reference Abosag and Naudé2014) did not include it because it is a very Chinese concept. Abosag and Naudé (Reference Abosag and Naudé2014) did not state this and found ‘social reputation’ to be statistically significant in Saudi Arabian as well as Chinese samples. We understand that ‘social reputation’ represents ‘face’, which has been described as the public image of a person's or one's own prestige and reputation (Tsang, Reference Tsang1998) and as social status attained by playing recognized social roles in a community (Li, Zhou, Zhou, & Yang, Reference Li, Zhou, Zhou and Yang2019). Other scholars see face as an important part of Arab culture (e.g. Abuznaid, Reference Abuznaid2006; Berger, Herstein, McCarthy, & Puffer, Reference Berger, Herstein, McCarthy and Puffer2019), especially since collective cultures are sensitive about losing face (Al-Omari, Reference Al-Omari2003, Reference Al-Omari2009; Barakat, Reference Barakat1993). In addition, we refute the statement that ‘the term “guanxi-type relationships” has not been utilized in previous research studies nor have the authors cited any study using this specific term’. In fact, we cited ‘Exploring guanxi-type relationships in the Arab world’ by Shaalan, Weir, Reast, Johnson, and Tourky (Reference Shaalan, Weir, Reast, Johnson and Tourky2014).

Regrettably, it is also inaccurate to claim we did not conduct face or content validity for the items. We conducted a lengthy pre-test and pilot test of the questionnaire to ensure face and content validity, as supported by prior scholars (e.g. Blair & Presser, Reference Blair and Presser1992; Churchill, Reference Churchill1995; Reynolds & Diamantopoulos, Reference Reynolds and Diamantopoulos1998; Zikmund, Reference Zikmund2000). This process is briefly noted on page 873.

Finally, regarding the concerns that our research design may encourage inappropriate exploration of foreign concepts, we appreciate the flattering suggestion of a global impact, but emphasize we were investigating diverse networks across 17 countries, not one network in one country. Where only one network exists, of course this is an appropriate research focus (e.g. Shaalan et al., Reference Shaalan, Tourky, Barnes, Jayawardhena and Elshaer2021); complex cross-cultural research may require a different approach.

We again thank the commentators for their interest in our work to expand knowledge of interpersonal ties and relationship marketing.