No abstract

This paper focuses on the development of trust in temporary inter-organizational relations. One specific form of such relations is public construction projects established by competitive tendering. In this context, previous studies have suggested that the shadow of the future only moderates behavior to a limited extent and trust may seem hard to come by. The present in-depth case study adds to the theorizing of trust dynamics by demonstrating that reciprocal norms at the industry level, as well as reciprocal norms developing during project execution, contribute to the development of trust. The study connects trust, reciprocity, and actions, giving insight into the interplay between trust and reciprocity, the interplay between reciprocal norms at the industry level and the project level, and the role of small and large actions in the trust process.

It is widely held that collaborative project delivery models, such as partnering, represent a key means of improving construction project performance. Institutionalizing these models in practice, however, is not straightforward. We suggest that the (in)ability to establish new routines may be one reason for the variance in partnering outcomes. Based on a study of a partnering project, we develop a model of how partnering is institutionalized through the establishment of routines, enabled through common understanding and truces between the partners' interests. The model illustrates how such routines develop through a balance between top-down structural interventions and emergent social learning processes.

No abstract

To ensure cooperation, parties in inter‐organizational relationships (IORs) draw upon both control and trust. Yet, how control–trust dynamics change as IORs evolve remains unclear. This study illuminates the interplay between control–trust dynamics and IOR dynamics by unpacking how control and trust refer to and create one another through action–reaction cycles. We find that conflicting enactments of vulnerability and risk caused by critical incidents lead to tensions between the parties (IOR dynamics) regarding how and when they rely on control and trust. Consequently, coping practices are applied to redefine the controlling and trusting domain and mediate between the multiple and temporal domains to ensure that control and trust refer to and create one another to (re)form positive expectations. The study's main implication is that it makes little sense to study control‐trust dynamics in IORs, like other relational phenomena, in isolation and at a single point in time.