King’s College London School of Management & Business (Undergraduate)

How does the study of Institutional Talk inform our understanding of Sales Work?

Module Title: Communication in Organization

Module Code:(e.g. 4SSMN134) 6SSMN350

Institutional talk emerged as part of Goffman and Garfinkel’s conversation analysis (CA) that

analyzed the sequential accomplishment of actions in interaction. It involves the pursuit of

interactional goals relevant to their institutional identities that are usually constrained and

associated with inferential frameworks particular to specific institutional context and hence

differs from ‘ordinary conversations’ (Drew and Heritage, 1992). In the context of sales work,

the strategic interaction and turns in talk inform how one utterance affects subsequent

actions of which influences sales activity. However, moving beyond early works of Drew and

Heritage, institutional talk is capable of occurring anywhere and ordinary conversations can

emerge within institutional contexts. Notably, recent works (see Heath and Luff, 2007;

Toerien and Kitzinger, 2007) has shown how bodily conduct and objects can also act as

integral tools to coordinate sequential task and accomplish interactional work. In this report, I

argue that institutional talk is useful in revealing patterns of talk in sales work, however we

should also consider other institutional interaction tools including bodily action and objects

affecting sales work. This study analyzes how the study of institutional talk and institutional

‘bodily conduct’ informs (1) rapport,  (2) sales objections and (3) price escalation

management within sales work.

Sequential organization of talk-in-interaction is crucial for understanding the organization of

social actions as details of talk gain meaning through arrangement of sequences that forms

part of wider action courses (Arminen, 2006). The notion of preference is derived from the

adjacency pair concept (Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (thereafter SSJ), 1974) where a

first-pair part (FFP) (i.e. question) warrants a next course of action, a second-pair part (SPP)

(i.e. answer). Interactants may exploit these sequential arrangements as resources to

suppress actions deemed uncooperative and disaffiliative, while systematically promote

those that are congenial (Clayman, 2002).

Such is seen in the study of institutional talk of rapport building that is often accomplished

through small talk. For example, in Clark, Drew and Pinch (2003) study of field-sales

encounter, affiliation is established between salespeople and prospects through a Question

(Salesperson) > Assessment (Prospect) > Agreement (Salesperson) sequence

arrangement. As Pomerantz (1984) asserts, nominal agreements are insufficient as it fosters

an issue of authenticity. Hence, when a salesperson produces a stronger second

reformulated, embellished or predictive assessment, it renders prospect’s non-affiliating

response inappropriate and elicits future positive sale through the obligation of prospect’s

tacit consent to verbal rapport. Similarly, in Mirivel’s (2010) study of consultation between

plastic surgeon and prospective clients, rapport is managed by the surgeon’s subsequent

utterance strengthening the client’s prior claim of ‘unqualified practitioners’ (assessment) and

acknowledges the seriousness of medical identity (agreement). Overall, reciprocating an

affiliative assessment while building on a prior speaker’s assessment can structurally

encourage/constrain affiliation from that prior speaker, therefore revealing positive economic

consequences of ‘small talk’.

In another respect, institutional talk can also insinuate the occurrence of sales acceptance or

resistance. Drawing upon SSJ’s (1974) notion of preference, the adjacency pair applies to

an offer (FPP) and acceptance (preferred SSP) or disagreement (dispreferred SPP); a

disagreement can be implicit or explicit. In a telephone sales-call study, Clark and Pinch

(2001) revealed implicit disagreement to be characterized by silences, minimal utterances,

and proposal related questions and are major obstacles to sale as they prefigure negative

post-offer responses. To tackle this, Mazeland (2004) suggest telemarketers to confiscate

the initiatory position in calls and dominate all FPPs in establishing obligations, preventing a

dispreferred response. A telemarketer’s next turn should also be closely tied to the

prospect’s previous turn to enable the telemarketer in formulating preferences for agreement

in the SPP (Pomerantz, 1984, Sacks, 1987). This ‘formulation’ can be strategically used to

set up an expectation of offer confirmation and is pivotal in bringing parties closer (Koester,

2014). In the event where a dispreferred response is furnished, accounts explaining

untoward behavior can be probed to bridge the gap between action and expectations (Firth,

1995).

The concepts of adjacency pairs and sequential organization in institutional talk are also

relevant in demonstrating how prices and economic choices are responsive to the

interactional organization of  prior actions. It shows how a price choice is presented will

affect the amount of investments paid. In Llewellyn’s (2015) study, when presenting lower

‘standard’ price choices (£8.00) and higher ‘gift aid’ price choices (£8.80) through two

different methods, Yes/No interrogative (YNI) and Alternative interrogative (AI), the former is

more effective in eliciting higher price payments, as rejection of the higher prices would

require declination. Contrastingly, the latter allows ‘cherry picking’ between options making

declination easier. By analyzing the correlation between prices paid and consumer choice

through interactional organization of adjacent actions, it informs how constraints of

preferences can be built into question design, representing an important context for the

bottom line.

While the above studies primarily focuses on the importance of institutional talk in informing

sales work, it discounts how bodily conduct and objects are crucial in accomplishing sales

work. I aim to illustrate that the above interaction tools can adopt an institutional character;

and with talk, it further contributes to our understanding of sales work for managing rapport,

objections and price escalations.

Drawing upon Toerien and Kitzinger’s (2007) study of interactions in a beauty salon, rapport

between the therapist and client is illustrated through the therapist’s hand movements and

talk. The therapist is presented with an interactionally complex talk of eliciting an eye-

covered client’s assistance to the task at hand without interrupting the conversation. In

attempting a shoulder touch to orientate client’s attention, a two-time retraction of therapist’s

hand suggests agenda abortion in favour of the topic talk. As small talk serves to foster

relationship between two parties, the relational task of not coming off as rude is preceded

before the physical task of actual paid work. The retracted hand is therefore understood as a

response made based on the assessment of the client’s continued talk. The conflict is then

dealt by producing minimal agreement to client’s prior talk followed by a directive when the

client’s turn is complete. The joint sequences of talk and action are therefore critical in

revealing how rapport is maintained and how a closing talk turn is strategically produced,

avoiding interactional ‘friction’.

While the previous case exemplifies how talk and action jointly produce work, we now

examine how actions can implicitly inform rejection and how talk is supplemented to reverse

such intentions. In Llewellyn and Burrow’s (2008) study of streetwise sales, magazine

purchase occurred from the result of some ‘change of state’ (Heritage, 1984b) gleaned by

the vendor’s intervention. In initiating an offer, the vendor does not receive a verbal response

but rejection is implied as the passer-by continues walking. However, in recognizing the

passer-by’s deliberation through his bodily conduct of ‘peering in’ at the magazine, the

vendor crafts a sequentially relevant response that eventually extracted a sale. Interestingly,

had the vendor not actively responded, a sale would pass. Hence, “gaze can embody

economic intentions” and sales accomplishment is achieved not by talk, but based on the

vendor’s “professional seeing” of the embodied conduct of others (Hindmarsh and Pilnick,

2007).

The way ‘institutional objects’ are handled and accompanied with talk also reveals how price

escalation of goods are achieved and is evident in Heath and Luff’s (2007) study on

auctions. Price escalation is determined by the knock of the gavel and verbal utterance of

bid price. More interestingly, the auctioneer encourages higher bids from the audience by

either delaying the movement of gavel (action) or to subject under-bidder to repeat (verbal)

invitations through ‘victimizing’ and making him vulnerable to bidding higher prices. Hence, it

reflects that objects take on an institutional character which informs the organisation of work,

and is applicable in many institutional settings such as surgical tools in surgeries, and

mechanical tools in repair shops.

In conclusion, the study of institutional talk reveals the organization of actions in sales

interactions. Through the sequential organization of actions, meaning, composition and

hidden rationality of social actions are unveiled hence providing a better understanding of

sales work; i.e. extracting agreement from prospects or establishing affiliation to generate

alignment of sales position. This is managed when participants are embedded in an

adjacency organization and are automatically constrained to act within a specific and

systematic context. Therefore, they can be thought to be implicitly but strategically

manipulated to benefit the person initiating the sequence pair. While this report has

examined multiple examples of how institutional talk establish rapport, pre-empt and prevent

objections and encourage price escalation on the sale of goods, it is not exhaustive of the

other benefits institutional talk can provide in understanding sales work.

Additionally, as recent works has shown, bodily conduct and objects can collaboratively

shape how sales work is accomplished and are crucial in coordinating sequential tasks.

These tools adopt an institutional character depending on the occasion of use and the way it

is embedded in activities. Hence, while institutional talk is useful in establishing sales work

patterns, the incorporation of other institutional and interactional tools may further aid sales

work understanding.

(1492 words)

References

Arminen, I., 2005. Institutional interaction. Studies of talk at work. Burlington S, 115.

Brown, P. and Levinson, S.C., 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol.

4). Cambridge University Press.

Clark, C. and Pinch, T., 2001. Recontextualising Sales Resistance: A Response to Hunt and

Bashaw. Industrial Marketing Management, 30(8), pp.637-643.

Clark, C., Drew, P. and Pinch, T., 2003. Managing prospect affiliation and rapport in real-life

sales encounters. Discourse Studies, 5(1), pp.5-31.

Clayman, S., 2002. Sequence and solidarity. Group cohesion, trust and solidarity, 19,

pp.229-253.

Drew, P. and Heritage, J., 1992. Analyzing talk at work: An introduction.

Firth, A., 1995. ‘Accounts’ in negotiation discourse: A single-case analysis.Journal of

Pragmatics, 23(2), pp.199-226.

Heath, C. and Luff, P., 2007. Ordering competition: the interactional accomplishment of the

sale of art and antiques at auction. The British journal of sociology, 58(1), pp.63-85.

Heritage, J., 1984. A change-of state token and asqects of its sequential

piacement. Structure of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, pp.299-345.

Hindmarsh, J. and Pilnick, A., 2007. Knowing bodies at work: embodiment and ephemeral

teamwork in anaesthesia. Organization studies, 28(9), pp.1395-1416.

Llewellyn, N., 2015. Microstructures of economic action: talk, interaction and the bottom

line. The British journal of sociology, 66(3), pp.486-511.

Llewellyn, N. and Burrow, R., 2008. Streetwise sales and the social order of city streets. The

British journal of sociology, 59(3), pp.561-583.

Mazeland, H., 2004. Responding to the double implication of telemarketers’ opinion

queries. Discourse Studies, 6(1), pp.95-115.

Mirivel, J.C., 2010. Communicative conduct in commercial medicine: initial consultations

between plastic surgeons and prospective clients. Qualitative health research, 20(6), pp.788-

804.

Pomerantz, A., 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of

preferred/dispreferred turn shaped. Structures of Social Action, pp.57-101

Sacks, H., 1987. On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. Talk and social organization, 54, p.69.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A. and Jefferson, G., 1974. A simplest systematics for the

organization of turn-taking for conversation. language, pp.696-735.

Toerien, M. and Kitzinger, C., 2007. Emotional labour in action: Navigating multiple involvements in the beauty salon. Sociology, 41(4), pp.645-662.