Temporal dynamics of trust in ongoing inter-organizational relationships

Abstract

This paper reports the results of a qualitative study undertaken to understand the nature of trust and its consequences for both suppliers and buyers in short term (relatively new) and long term (older/more mature) relationships in inter-organizational contexts. Scholars have recently pointed out the importance of research that investigates the temporal characteristics and dynamics of trust in inter-organizational studies. Our paper responds to this call by indentifying the changing nature of the level of trust as the buyer-supplier relationship matures. Our findings contribute to sparse and conflicting previous research on the relationship between length of partnership and perceptions of trust, types of dark side consequences of trusting relationships, and reasons buyers and suppliers continue or terminate low/no-trust associations. Specifically, we illustrate that buyers and suppliers draw on substantially different metaphors for understanding the nature of trust in long and short term exchange relationships. Suppliers see marked differences in trust with long term versus short term exchange partners, while buyers see little or no difference. Suppliers and buyers also appear to have different conceptions of how trust is nested (or not) within the broader economic and/or personal relationship. Through our inductive model, we elaborate several types of betrayal and disappointment, distinguish several factors that lead suppliers and buyers to stay in relationships with partners they don't trust, and identify key issues that topple untrusting relationships into terminated relationships.

Betrayal in buyer–seller relationships: Exploring its causes, symptoms, forms, effects, and therapies

“…This exploitation may be expressed in various ways, such as asking for better purchasing/sales terms from a partner who is facing financial difficulties, committing less resources than agreed due to an overdependence of the partner, and intentionally shirking responsibilities because of possessing more power in the relationship. Taking advantage of the other party in the relationship is even more evident when the victim: (i) trusted the betrayer more than it should have, (ii) had only few other attractive alternatives, and (iii) had already made substantial investments in the relationship, which were difficult to transfer to other relationships (Ekici, 2013).…”

Betrayal intention in exporter-importer working relationships: Drivers, outcomes, and moderating effects

“…Finally, the fact that dark side aspects of business relationships have not received as much research attention as those on the bright side, calls for more research on such issues as deception, cheating, and threatening. In addition, while we found that certain predictor variables (e.g., high trust, strong communication, long-term orientation, social bonding) prevent betrayal intentions in buyer-seller relationships, hints in the literature warn of the dark side consequences of trust (e.g., Ekici, 2013), communication (e.g., Gligor and Esmark, 2015), long-term orientation (e.g., Saini, 2010), and social bonding (e.g., Mitrega and Zolkiewski, 2012). This indicates that 'the other side of the coin' also deserves investigation, and it would be interesting to identify under what conditions (e.g., inert relationships or very close relationships) these seemingly 'positive' constructs may give rise (instead of reducing)…”

“…A final line of research deals with the issue of betrayal, although only a few studies focused on it per se. For example, Ekici (2013) reveals that as the buyer-supplier relationship develops, the increasing vulnerability of one party to the other makes the former susceptible to betrayal episodes. Betrayals, which have been conceptualized as trust violations and psychological/normative contract breaches in industrial buyer-seller relationships, are reported to lead to adverse emotional (e.g., lower satisfaction), behavioral (e.g., intention to terminate the relationship), and performance-related (e.g., lower relationship performance) outcomes (e.g., Griffith and Zhao, 2015;Lusch et al, 2011).…”

“…Although the issue of betrayal has received some attention in intra-organizational studies (see, for example, works by Elangovan and Shapiro, 1998;Morrison and Robinson, 1997;and Robinson and Morrison, 2000), from an inter-organizational perspective this was only peripherally tackled it (e.g., Eckerd et al, 2013;Ekici, 2013;Wang and Huff, 2007).…”

Metodyczne aspekty badania zaufania w naukach o zarządzaniu

“…Badania nad relacjami międzyorganizacyjnymi prowadzone w ostatnich latach jednoznacznie wskazują, że koniecznym elementem relacji biznesowych jest zaufanie, co sprawia, że znaczna grupa badaczy koncentruje się na problematyce tworzenia, podtrzymywania i rozwoju relacji międzyorganiza-cyjnych opartych na zaufaniu [Zang i Cohen 2008, Koopetycja… 2014. Ostatnio zainteresowania badaczy koncentrują się także na aspektach procesu zaufania [Ekici 2013], a także komponentów zaufania, w tym elementów poznawczych i afektywnych [Schoorman, Mayer i Davis 2007].…”