The evolution of interorganizational trust in cross‐sector collaborations: Two comparative cases from China

Abstract

This study views interorganizational trust as a dynamic process and examines it in two cross-sector collaborations in community development. Based on in-depth case study, we conceptualize the evolution of interorganizational trust into four distinct stages: initial propensity, boundary spanning, diffusion and normalization. The findings show that sustainable cross-sector collaboration requires the full evolution of interorganizational trust. The findings also highlight the importance of internal motivation and the participation of third parties. In addition, while formal rules contribute to rational trust, informal rules arising from interactive experiences can complement formal rules and promote emotional trust. K E Y W O R D Sinterorganizational trust, cross-sector collaboration

Effects of different kinds of trust and leadership on outputs of collaborative processes: the case of personal social services in Israel

“…However, we found trust had no effect on the other outputs, going against the literature. Some suggest that in certain cases, collaborative efforts may persist in the absence of trust (Cabral and Krane, 2018;Getha-Taylor et al, 2019), while others note the changing nature of trust in these processes (Chen, 2010;Tu and Xu, 2020). Developing a theoretical perspective that includes diverse kinds of trust as both a precondition to collaboration and a resource being developed in collaboration could create a more nuanced understanding of the role of trust.…”

“…While trust and leadership are central facilitators of collaborative efforts (Joseph and Winston, 2005; Leach and Sabatier, 2005; Chen, 2010; Tu and Xu, 2020), more investigation of their effect is needed (Ospina, 2017; Hallinger and Heck, 2010; Getha-Taylor et al , 2019). Trust promotes learning and the sharing of knowledge, increases the willingness to listen to others and to cooperate to reach outcomes, reduces transaction costs and enables innovation (Ansell, 2012; Emerson and Nabatchi, 2015; Innes and Booher, 2010; Ansell and Gash, 2008; Bouckaert, 2012; Brown and Calnan, 2011; Klijn et al , 2010; Lee, 2008; Tu and Xu, 2020). When collaborating participants from different organizations have high levels of trust, there is a greater possibility of a positive outcome (Cepiku 2014; Chen, 2010; Klijn et al , 2010).…”

“…When collaborating participants from different organizations have high levels of trust, there is a greater possibility of a positive outcome (Cepiku 2014; Chen, 2010; Klijn et al , 2010). Numerous studies have explored how trust is displayed in collaborative arrangements (Getha-Taylor et al , 2019; Leach and Sabatier, 2005; Ran and Qi, 2019; Höglund et al , 2019; Tu and Xu, 2020). For example, Cepiku (2014) referred to the contribution of the initial level of trust to network performance.…”

“…For example, Cepiku (2014) referred to the contribution of the initial level of trust to network performance. Tu and Xu (2020) noted the progress of trust in collaborative efforts from initial propensity for collaboration to boundary spanning, diffusion and normalization.…”

“…Trust is a complex term, but generally speaking, it refers to the expectation that people will treat one another in an honest and non-threatening way, making people willing to take risks and be vulnerable (Klijn et al , 2010; Luo, 2005; Tu and Xu, 2020). There are different kinds of trust (Getha-Taylor et al , 2019; Williams, 2002), several of which are relevant here (see Table 1).…”