The first and most frequent mechanism in the second coping behavior; effective communication skill, was built upon several strategies which led to different directions but ended in the same goal, to control the situation so that the officers can work appropriately in accordance with the standard procedures. As suggested in the conceptual framework, officers tried to build effective communication with their clients by employing persuasive techniques, providing information and options that their clients can choose and even use sense of humor when appropriate. In spite of this, several stories also expose other kinds of strategies, such as avoiding debates/verbal disputes, adjusting the communication style to suit the clients (including adapting the local culture in order to blend in easily), and assertive communication style.
Persuasive communication has long been considered as one the most effective strategies to resolve disagreements and conflicts. (Teng et al., 2015). By means of reasoning, it incorporates verbal messages in the forms of arguments to subtly control or change the attitudes of the receivers. The impact is subtle because it is designed to influence not only the minds of
54
the receivers but also their heart. (Ajzen, 1992). By using persuasion, the officers aimed to de- escalate the conflicted situations and win back their power as well as the trust and cooperation of their clients. These following stories clarify how this mechanism helped the officer to gain control over the conflicted situation.
“It was when I went to my client’s business location in (…). I was met by the accounting manager. Even from the beginning, he was already defensive and threatened to harm if I insisted on delivering the SP2. Then I kept trying to persuade him to accept because it has to be delivered anyway. He was still aggressive. After a while, after I nicely asked him further, why he refused to accept it, it turned out that he experienced trauma with a tax officer whom he met before. The reason that he gave me was that the previous officer was acting arbitrarily. He didn’t give him (the client) a chance to give a response against the corrections in the assessment. He (the client) thought that I must have acted the same way. So, I explained to him, his rights and obligations, the rules, everything. (…) Thank God, he finally accepted (the explanations and the SP2).” (Respondent 1).
The story reveals how the conflict emerged due to misunderstanding and misperception of the client. However, by persuasively reasoning in a mild manner, the respondent effectively changed the attitude and seemingly, the perception, of his client. As a result, the respondent was able to resume his work accordingly. But, there was more than what meets the eye. The respondent combined his persuasive approach with another technique of communication skill, namely to offer information and options that the client could opt for in his case. By doing this, the officer not only sent his client the signal that he was indeed a “more approachable” officer but also helped to ease his clients from the feeling of cornered. This is a suitable approach for this case where the client’s hostility was a result of resentment due to previous unfairly treatment and lack of chances over what to do.
A similar situation also happened with another respondent. “(…) Actually, it wasn’t initially my case. I just continued the case from a colleague who was posted to another office.
55
I just heard the story from my other colleague that the case was stopped because the previous auditor experienced a trauma. (…) from what I heard, he was locked in his client’s office. Taken hostage or something. (…) Well, what can I say, it’s not that common, but you always hear stories like this (when posted) in the regions (referred to the regions outside the urban areas). (…) so, I learned what happened, and I formulated my own strategy. Because I have to finish this case anyway. When I finally met him in his office, I asked him nicely what his problem is. It gave him an impression that I wanted to make a fresh news start. (…) We closed the case nicely, even though he still disagreed with my corrections. (…) Clients become intimidating usually because they meet deadlock. But if we can give a good understanding, that there’s still a way, and maybe the deciding party (in the trials) is considered to be more independent, then usually the clients take it into consideration. So, I gave him information, “You have your rights to disagree, but we’re also entitled to defend our findings. Let’s meet in the courts if you’re willing.” (…) The problem with (the taxpayers in) the regions is that they usually have not been informed about taxes. They even came to know the taxes matters after being audited. So, it is also our duty to convey (the information)” (Respondent 4).
Corresponding to the previous story, the respondent employed not only the strategy of persuasive communication but also offering information that can be used as alternative of solutions for the clients. Both actions are part of the strategies to build effective communication with the clients. The client responded to the officer’s sympathetic and supportive gesture by awarding his cooperation to the process, even though he maintained his disagreement over the audit’s substance. Interestingly, the respondent was able to use the communication strategy because he has learned from the experience of his previous colleague. He presumably found out what went wrong in the previous audit and took the lessons from it. It is apparent that he was prepared before he arranged the meeting with his client to avoid the same mistake as his colleague’s. That being the case, this is another evidence that decision making is a complicated process which is hardly fabricated only by a single mechanism behind it.
56
Apart from persuading and providing information, another communication strategy used by the respondents to avert from their clients’ hostility is by retreating. One way to do this is by avoiding any debates or verbal confrontation with the clients. This strategy is proven useful in dealing with certain type of citizens who have better debating skills of whom the officers are likely to lose their control to, have they engaged in a verbal dispute. This experience was shared by a respondent whose client was an ex high-ranked tax official, acted as a consultant of a taxpayer. He used his tax-administration knowledge to intimidate the respondent by always blaming his procedures and looking around for any mistakes. “Every single word I said was always rebuked by him.” (Respondent 3). However, the respondent sensed that the client was intentionally using all opportunities to confront him because he wanted to slow the process down so that the audit will not be finished by the time the facility of national tax amnesty was launched. The 2016 Indonesian Tax Amnesty was a program aimed to improve tax compliance and revenue by offering tax incentives and immunity from persecution to citizens who were willing to declare and brought back their hidden assets offshore (thus indirectly admitting that they have committed tax avoidance). Since the (former) tax evaders only had to pay for relatively smaller amount of penalty, compared to the initial tax amount that they owed, this program became an attractive policy. (Maulia and Suzuki, 2017). According to the rules, any taxpayers who were eligible and applied for program will be granted a termination of tax audit have they been in the middle of the audit process during the tax amnesty period. (Ministry of Finance Regulation Number 118/PMK.03/2016 Art. 23 (1d)). However, the regulation was not enacted yet by the time of the respondent 3’s case took place. In fact, he was under the pressure of his superiors to complete all the audit cases before the starting of the tax amnesty’s period. Frustrated by the harsh treatment of his client and coupled with meeting his own target, the respondent decided to stop oral communication with his client and chose a written communication instead. “I already knew from my experience that I will not win an argument with this type of person. He’s a sort of trouble maker. So, whenever he tried to argue, I always said “Please give your response via letters instead.” I refused to
57
say anything else. Besides, that’s my religion told me, to leave any arguments and debates.” (Respondent 3). Resuming the remaining encounters with written communication, the respondent was finally able to close the audit before the tax amnesty program started even though the client still disagreed with the amount. Refusing to talk and choosing only a written communication style may seem like an unusual strategy to avoid a verbal dispute, but it was proven to be effective. In fact, it is the unexpected element of the strategy that might make it effective, as the relatively talkative client did not anticipate this kind of response and presumably perplexed to counter it.
Adjusting the communication style to better suit the clients is the next strategy in this subtheme. This is especially relevant in the cases where there is a background gap between the officers and the citizens, in terms of culture, education, and characteristics. Some clients who came from and live in specific areas where the officers were posted are generally well known for their relatively aggressive tendencies. This trait is often proven to be one of the sources of conflicts during the officer-citizen interactions. Other clients, especially the ones from the rural areas and less developed regions, are often less educated and received less information regarding taxation compared to the clients from the cities or metropolitan areas. It affects their perspectives on the taxation subject. According to one respondent, the taxpayers from these regions are usually regarded as “ignorant clients” (Respondent 11). They have less concern toward the tax matters because they are not aware of how tax affects their life. Instead, they only focus on their business without realizing that all public facilities that supports maintaining their business are in fact funded by their taxes. In addition, their ignorance is also supported by the citizens’ mistrust of the government. They do not believe that their tax money will be used for the country’s development and not corrupted by the government instead. This negative stigma is also enforced by the overstated news of a bribed tax official (Gayus case, as mentioned by respondent 13) in the media. These factors contribute to the roots of conflicts during the interactions. Ignorance caused the clients not to perform their tax administrations accordingly; lack of information leads them at a loss during the audits, especially when they
58
are unable to pay; lack of education brings challenges to the officers in terms of providing specific information to be easily understood by the clients; and the negative stigma prompts the clients to always thinks of the worst of the officers, that there is no such thing as “clean officer”. Combined together, all these factors give rise to frustration on the part of clients because they are reluctant to deal with the taxation matters, yet they are obliged to cope with it and facing the consequences have they been uncooperative. Therefore, the officers who are conflicted with this type of clients must adjust their way to communicate to better suit the clients in order to gain their trust and cooperation.
Adapting to the communication style of the local culture is one of the ways to do this strategy. One example of this works is provided in the following story. During a discussion meeting in a tax office, a client who came from a particular region characterized with relatively aggressive tendencies got upset and punched a table because he dissented from the respondent’s assessment. The client’s ignorance also worsened the situation because he refused to accept the respondent’s advice. At that time, the responded decided to back off from the confrontation, but he prepared another approach for the next meeting. “I learned that people in that region traditionally socialize by having coffee together in local stalls. So, I invited him over coffee for the next meeting in a local stall. I know this might be against the procedures, but this is my strategy to get closer to my client to gain their compliance. Most people there don’t have higher education, so I can’t use the standard procedures to approach them. I tried to convey my explanations using terms that he can understand. When he seemed more relaxed and understood well, I know that this is going to work.” (Respondent 14). Upon learning from his failed attempt using the formal communication style, the respondent planned a new approach to avoid another conflict with his client by adapting the habit of the local culture. He was aware that it might deviate from his organization’s norms to have an official meeting outside the office or the client’s business residences, but he saw it as a more suitable tactic for his case. By approaching his client using the local habit and providing simplified explanations to be more easily understood, the respondent tried to fit in to secure his client’s cooperation.
59
So far, the stories have revealed how conflicted encounters between officers and their clients are resolved using “smooth-talking” styles of communication. These types of communication were performed to reduce the level of conflicts as minimum as possible by subtly obtaining the clients’ trust and cooperation, thus providing chances to the officers to regain their control over the interaction and resuming their works in accordance with the standard procedures. Yet, some cases suggest that assertive communication can also work to address such conflicts. Being assertive is different from aggressive, as the former can express opinions in a fair and respectful manner, while the latter shows disrespect toward other’s opinions. By showing the courage to stand up for their own arguments and refusing to be intimidated, officers put themselves in an equal position with their clients, thus giving a prospect to win back their control over the interactions.
One respondent told a similar story with Respondent 7 when the client threatened him by showing him off with a gun. Yet, his response was different from his colleague who decided to retreat. According to him, the client had conveyed his disagreement over correction that the officer could not deduct due to the presence of solid proof. The client did not accept the assessment and threatened to report him to the President, Minister and Parliament, but the officer refused to respond. Then when the officer visited his client to deliver the SPHP as a closure of the audit, his client did want to receive it and instead took out a pistol and put it on a table. The officer was shocked and afraid, but he managed to remain calm and firmly said, “My presence here is an official duty, I bring my assignment letter to deliver this SPHP to you. If I don’t go back, I will be sought (by my colleagues). This will be the first place they look for because they knew I was assigned (to deliver the letter) to this place. It's up to you. You still have your rights (to object or appeal). I only deliver the letter." (Respondent 15). The respondent not only assertively brought some sense into the conversation by telling his client that any physical harm is pointless but also gave the signal that he could not be easily intimidated by the threat. According to the respondent, he had learned from his previous experiences that once he remains calm and firm in a conflicted situation, his opponent will
60
think twice to keep on with their aggressiveness. He was evidently frightened like what he admitted, but experiences have helped him not to show his fear and not to let the threat defeated him. The effort was fruitful. Afterwards, it was unclear whether the client thought about what the officer said, or he interpreted the signal well, or he was just bluffing after all, but he finally agreed to receive the letter.
4.5.2 Self-interest
Out of five stories which point out self-interest as the driver behind the respondents’ decisions to move away from their clients, two of them confirm the hypothesis that officers are likely to neglect their client’s intimidation to deviate from the rules because they want to avoid the risks associated with future scrutiny by BPK (The State’s Audit Board). Even though they are aware that the chances of their performance being audited by the state’s watchdog is random, but they likely found that the consequences of the scrutiny for their future career outweigh the threats put by their clients to them at the current situations. The fear of the risk of future’s scrutiny encouraged them to resist their clients’ intimidation and continue working in accordance with the rules.
The following story illustrates how an officer’s behavior was driven by this type of self- interest. During the audit process, a client was represented by a retiree of high-ranked tax official who, at that time, was also served as a politician from a ruling party. The client, who disagreed with the corrections made by the respondent, made use of his knowledge about taxation which he gained from his tenure as tax officer along with his political power to intimidate the respondent. The knowledge, however, was not really useful according to the respondent. “The rules are constantly changing, as they follow the changes in the business world. The reasoning he (the client) used to back up his argument was no longer compatible because there were new regulations applied to such cases. But he refused to listen when I explained it to him. I think it’s sort of post-power syndrome. I mean it seemed like he was offended when I tried to “teach” him”, like who am I to him? I’m just a middle-ranked officer
61
at that time while his last position was above mine.” (Respondent 5). According to the respondent, the client came to his office almost every day, consistently trying to provoke him in verbal disputes and threaten him. He even fell ill afterwards, presumably because he was mentally exhausted from facing the intimidation. Yet, he kept his initial decisions since he was afraid of the risk of scrutiny. “If I work according to the rules and something happens, the office will take the responsibility. But if I work against the rules and suddenly, let’s say, the