Competitiveness in global industries increasingly requires the ability to develop trusting relationships. This requires organizations, and the individuals they are comprised of, to be both trustworthy and trusting. An important question is whether societal culture influences the tendency of individuals and organizations to trust. Based largely on Yamagishi's (1994, 1998a, b) theories explaining trust, commitment, and in-group bias in collectivist cultures, this study examines potential differences in levels of trust between individualist and collectivist cultures. Survey data was collected from 1,282 mid-level managers from large banks in Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, China, Malaysia, and the United States. We first study differences in how individuals from individualist and collectivist societies trust ingroups versus out-groups. This provides an important foundation for hypotheses regarding differences in individual propensities to trust and two measures of organizational trust: internal trust (trust within the organization) and external trust (an organization's trust for suppliers, customers, etc.). Findings show higher levels of propensity to trust and organizational external trust in the United States than in Asia.

Purpose -This study seeks to explain a buyer's response to a seller's violation of trust. Four negative responses (decline in trust, negative emotions, negative word-of-mouth (WOM) and reduction in repurchase intentions) and four explanatory variables (magnitude of violation, integrity versus capability-based cause of failure, perceived likelihood of repeated violations and stage of trust prior to the violation) were identified. The study develops and tests hypotheses regarding the possible influence of the explanatory variables on each of the four negative responses. Design/methodology/approach -An experiment was conducted in which business professionals were given one of 16 scenarios, varied by levels of the four explanatory variables, describing a violation of trust in a business-to-business service situation. Respondents were asked questions regarding their probable response. Four-way ANCOVA was used to analyze the results. Findings -The study finds that stage of trust and perceived likelihood of repeated violation had significant main effects on decline in trust, negative WOM and repurchase intentions. Integrity-based attribution influenced decline in trust, but magnitude of violation had no main effects. Three significant interactions were found. Research limitations/implications -Findings show the importance of first impressions and reputation. Care should be taken to assure customers that violations will not be repeated. A major limitation was that scenarios cannot induce the same intensity of thought and emotion that real situations do. Originality/value -Despite extensive literature in service failure and recovery, this is perhaps the first study to rigorously examine and seek to explain a buyer's response to a seller's violation of trust.

Research has established that for surviving brands, market pioneers have a higher average market share than later entrants. By moving first, market pioneers often develop sustainable market share advantages. Longer leadtime, which is the time between entries, should increase these pioneer advantages. Using two leadtime measures, this prediction is supported across 34 categories of frequently purchased consumer goods. Increasing the years of competitive rivalry should help a later entrant slowly reduct the pioneer's market share advantage. After more than two decades in the market, second entants have eliminated the pioneer's market share advantage, but third and later entrants continue to trail the pioneer.new products, pioneering advantage, order of entry effect

No abstract

No abstract