The influence of cultural adaptation on trust development in inter-culture buyer-supplier relationships: A buyer’s perspective

(1)

The influence of cultural adaptation on trust

development in inter-culture buyer-supplier

relationships: A buyer’s perspective

Master’s Thesis MSc. SCM University of Groningen,

Faculty of Economics and Business

Groningen June Author: Konstantinos Katafygiotis Student Number: 3778916

Email: kkatafygiotis@student.rug.nl Supervisor: dr. ir. N.J. Pulles

Co-assessor: dr. ir. T. Bortolotti Date: June 22nd₂₀₂₀

(2)

2

Acknowledgement

First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor dr. ir. N.J Pulles and co-assessor dr. ir. T. Bortolotti, for the guidance and valuable feedback as well as my friends Nota and George for their support. Last but not least, a big “thank you” to my family and Ntina who encouraged me during this challenging journey.

(3)

3

Abstract

Plenty of the extant research has emphasized on the trust development process that takes place among different business relationships. Increasingly, trust has been central in the field of OM and SCM, and many researchers have attempted to identify

potential steppingstones, with the aim of improving relationships’ performance. The fast pace toward globalized markets that characterizes the last few decades though, requires trust to be explored from new perspectives since it now serves as an essential component in the inter-culture relationships, due to the uncertainties and risks

embedded in the supply chains of cross national operating firms. Drawing on previous literature, this study examines the cultural adaptation process as the key mechanism that enables trust development. Understanding, adjusting and learning dimensions are used for the operationalization cultural adaptation. The findings of the cases that concern ten different BSRs, were analyzed by the means of a qualitative study. These findings yield some interesting insights. First, to the best of the author’s knowledge, supplier’s cultural adaptation has not been investigated as a factor that affects buyer’ trust. However, informants do not reveal a strong relationship between the two concepts and other factors were found to influence more their collaboration. Second, contrary to other studies, the focus is not on a specific dyad and suppliers from several cultural settings comprise the relationships were examined. Additionally, interesting insights emerge from the relationships in which buyers and suppliers share the same cultural background. The limitations of this study are also discussed.

Key words: cultural adaptation, trust development, inter-culture BSR

(5)

2

1 Introduction

Supply chain management (SCM) is inherently international, considering the great amount of goods and services transferred through global trade and their impact on nations’ economies (Prasad & Babbar, 2000). As a result, cross national relationships are formed (Triandis, 2006), indicating the importance of culture and its impact on the interaction between buyers and suppliers. In general, culture is defined as a set of shared values established in a society shaping individuals’ behavior (Schwartz, 2014). National culture narrows down this set within a specific nation, distinguished from other nationalities (Hofstede, 1980; Boscari et al., 2018). SCM research has

recognized the significance of national culture in buyer-supplier relationships (BSRs) (Metters et al., 2010; Flynn et al., 2013) and the impact of culture on BSR has been thoroughly studied in literature. Extant research on BSR characteristics has mainly focused on trust, commitment, frequency of communication and relationship duration (Rajagopal & Rajagopal, 2009; Chen & Paulraj 2004). However, the abovementioned and other characteristics may be subjected to national culture differences (Cannon et al., 2010). From a global supply chain perspective, scholars have concluded that cultural values influence individuals’ behaviors (Griffith & Myers, 2005). Huff & Kelley (2003) argue that culture related characteristics affect the way in which people tend to cooperate with each other. Since cultural differences and lack of a global vision act as barriers in effective management of international operations (Klassen & Whybark, 1994), a mechanism that enables inter-culture relationships is worth investigating.

According to Johnston et al. (2004) maintaining BSRs is considered a key challenge in operations management. Parties from both buyer and supplier side of the supply chain, as well as interactions between them, affect their relationship and subsequently its effectiveness (Ketchen Jr. & Hult, 2007). In their attempt to develop more effective relationships, a major issue of interest regards adaptations, which according to

Håkansson (1982; 18) “one or other party may make in either the elements exchanged

or the process of exchange.” Examples that go beyond adaptation in product or

financial agreements but rather focus on social relations and management processes, refer to cultural adaptation, which is “the dynamic process by which individuals, upon

relocating to a new, unfamiliar or changed socio-cultural environment, establish (or re-establish) and maintain a relatively stable, reciprocal and functional relationship with the environment” (Kim, 2001; 31). Furthermore, in every BSR, trust has a

fundamental role (Koh et al., 2012; Delbufalo, 2012). However, as economies move from local to national markets, transactions take place in longer social and geographic distances (Zucker, 1986), potentially influencing trust building between firms, due to uncertainties and risks embedded in their supply chains. Therefore, it would be interesting to investigate whether when this specific type of adaptation (i.e. cultural adaptation) occurs, leads to higher levels of trust.

Although adaptive behavior and culture have been separately discussed in literature, this thesis links these concepts as they could potentially influence each other. Since adaptability has been widely considered as a factor that affects operational

performance (Krathu et al., 2014), being adapted in a different national culture content may also prove beneficial. Jia & Rutherford (2010) suggested that firms have

(6)

3

to be adapted based on the local culture to be successful. Does the same apply when it comes to firms that operate cross-nationally though? In general, there exists the conjecture that people from specific national culture backgrounds may exhibit different levels in their tendency to adapt (Selmer, 2000; Lin, 2004). At the same time, cultural intelligence facilitates the understanding and the extension of cooperative norms in cross-cultural interactions (Awan et al., 2017). Cultural intelligence, which is defined as “a person’s capability for successful adaptation to

new cultural settings, that is, for unfamiliar settings attributable to cultural context”

(Earley & Ang, 2003; 9) refers to a successful cultural adaptation as it results in quick adjustments to new cultural settings (Awan et al., 2018) and both terms will be used interchangeably.

Jia & Rutherford (2010) have previously stressed the cultural adaptation process, as a means to mitigate supply chain relational risk. In their research, they interrelate the cultural adaptation process with the adaptation content (i.e. cultural differences) and also identify the causal relationship between cultural adaptation and partnership performance. However, the present study does not make the assumption that cultural differences exist in the BSRs examined, while also aims to provide empirical

evidence as a response to their call. Moreover, Jia & Lamming (2013) who studied cultural adaptation in Chinese-Western supply chain partnerships, they treated it as a form of inter-firm or dyadic learning and also combine it with a three-stage evolution process a relationship undergoes, during which several mutual benefits can be

obtained. Nevertheless, this study adopts a broader view since the focus does not concentrate on a particular stage of the relationship, while also differentiates in terms of the cultural settings investigated. Finally, although trust is being an important factor to consider in any business relationship, this study goes a step further as it distinguishes itself by investigating trust’s development through cultural adaptation, which has not yet received much attention in that context. Thus, in order to address this gap in literature, the following research question is formulated:

RQ: How does supplier’s cultural adaptation influence buyer’s trust development in

inter-culture buyer-supplier relationships?

To answer this research question, a multiple case study was conducted, comprised of ten individual cases mainly emphasized on international SCM and inter-culture BSRs. This study contributes to literature in two ways. First, it incorporates cultural

adaptation as it seems to be an equally important element in the existing relationship-specific adaptations and which if undergone by firms may facilitate supply chain collaboration. Second, since trust has been widely considered as an intangible prerequisite for successful BSRs, investigating cultural adaptation as an enhancer of its development becomes a major issue of interest, while simultaneously adds value to the current research on this relationship (Pornpitakpan, 1997; Tretyak et al., 2013). Finally, given that cultural adaptation has been understudied in SCM literature, this study extends current research as it offers further insights that relate to management of cross-national BSRs.

This thesis is structured as follows. The next chapter reviews the preceding literature related with national culture, explains the cultural adaptation process and interlinks

(7)

4

national culture with trust in BSRs. Chapter 3 introduces this study’s methodology and then chapter 4 presents the results. Subsequently, it concludes by discussing the results in chapter 5. Finally, chapter 6 presents the limitations of this study and suggests future research directions.

2 Literature review

2.1 National culture

Culture has been defined in several ways in past research. According to Möller & Svahn (2004) culture is a complex, multifaceted concept. In international business literature, the most widely accepted definition of culture is “the collective

programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others” (Hofstede, 2011; 1). From the multiple facets of culture, national

culture and its important roles for organizations have received particular attention from researchers and practitioners alike (Harvey, 1997). National culture has been defined as “patterns of thinking, feeling and acting that have their roots in common

values and societal conventions” (Nakata and Sivakumar 2001; 257) or according to

Matsumoto & Juang (2008; 27) as the set of “attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors

shared by a group of people, but different for each individual, communicated from one generation to the next”. From these definitions emerges that actions and attitudes

in business relationships are formed based on how people think which in turn depends on their cultural background (Hofstede, 1980). However, expectations of the parties involved may differ in inter-cultural BSRs as well, since norms also differ due to differences in various cultural backgrounds (Voldnes et al., 2012).

In general, there is no consensus on the influence of national culture in operations management research (Metters, 2010; Naor et al., 2010; Netland & Aspelund, 2014) while the structured literature review conducted by Boscari et al. (2018) provides evidence on positive, negative as well as not significant impacts on operations management strategy, execution and improvement. However, mitigating potential negative effects caused by cultural differences is increasingly becoming a challenge for cross-national management (Janssens, 2001; Meschi & Roger, 1994). The

powerful effect of national culture on human behavior and business activities, which has also been acknowledged, makes it reasonable to consider that cultural differences between buyers and suppliers will be affected as well (Voldnes et al., 2012).

2.2 Culture in BSR

The role of national culture in cross-national BSRs has received some attention in SCM literature (Wagner et al., 2002; Whipple & Frankel, 2000). Cannon et al. (2010) argued that effective management of BSRs will be achieved if the suppliers’ cultural values as well as buyers’ different practices are known to each other. In doing so, wrong interpretations due to differences in culture, as well as managerial challenges can be avoided (Beugelsdijk et al., 2017). Such challenges could be an organization’s efforts in becoming more inclusive and potentially achieving higher productivity and competitive advantage through a more effective management of people (Mazur, 2010). Additionally, successful multicultural interactions require managers to acquire specific skills and teach others how to value cultural diversity (Mazur, 2010). In that way, respect for other cultures will be created and most importantly, benefits can be

(8)

5

gained by acting more similarly or by adopting strategies from culturally diversified groups.

Previous research on national culture in BSR has been mainly developed based on Hofstede & Bond’s (1984) dimensions or regarding the GLOBE model proposed by House et al. (2004). For example, Hewett et al. (2006) show that BSR is of higher importance in a culture characterized by high power distance. Cannon et al. (2010) found collectivism to be an important value for long-term orientation, based on

supplier firm’s trust. In addition, uncertainty (Ribbink & Grimm, 2014) and long-term orientation (Barkema & Vermeulen, 1997) caused by cultural differences affect the levels of trust on joint profits. Finally, from an economic perspective, Ketkar et al. (2012) advocate that masculinity/femininity dimension does not apply for buyer supplier interactions in global industries. Although a good conceptualization of national culture is offered by these dimensions they will not be used in this study since they do not reflect trust related issues that concern a BSR.

There is evidence that the misalignment caused by differences in national culture may lead to unwanted results for both buyers and suppliers (Cannon et al., 2010). Eckerd et al. (2016) point that the continuation of the relationship between buyers and

suppliers depends on the national culture, while Pagell et al. (2005) argue that cultural differences hinder their communication. This may occur since there is a higher

frequency as well as greater diversity of ways in communication between members given the fact that they share the same culture and perceive situations in the same manner (Earley & Mosakowski, 2000). Hence, the absence of effective

communication will probably inhibit information sharing and a shared understanding to be created (Ireland & Bruce, 2000). Nevertheless, similar barriers can occur in the absence of trust and hence impede a long-term BSR (Leonidou et al., 2006; Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Thus, a mechanism that might address the negative effects derived from these interrelated concepts, namely cultural differences and lack of trust have to be considered.

2.3 Cultural adaptation

Relationship-specific adaptations can be seen as investments in adaptations to specific needs and capabilities that might have value in the exchange relationships (Wilson & Mummalaneni, 1986). The focus of the adaptive behavior which is on the individual level depends on the other party’s behavior in a relationship and also indicates qualities of the relationship (Cannon & Perreault, 1999). Such adaptations usually reveal a tendency of calculative commitment in business relationships (Anderson & Weitz, 1992) but may also facilitate a trust building process (Hallen et al., 1991). The degree to which increased revenues, reduced costs or dependence creation can be achieved is attributed to the benefits gained from both partners in the relationship, caused by adapting behaviors (Cannon & Perreault, 1999).

Brennan et al. (2003; 1639) define dyadic adaptations as “behavioral or

organizational modifications at the individual, group or corporate level, carried out by one organization, which are designed to meet the specific needs of one other organization”. Cultural adaptation on the other hand, is defined as an effort to be

(9)

6

similarly with those members (Francis, 1991). It is evident in literature that cultural adaptation takes place when individuals achieve a certain level of compatibility, in other words when they actually fit in a new cultural setting (Lin, 2004).

Therefore, cultural adaptation can be seen as an effort to embrace foreignness of the partners of another culture, by changing communication styles and adjusting to practices, behavioral norms and beliefs of another culture (Francis, 1991;

Pornpitakpan, 1999) in order to understand how each partner is doing business as well as the nature of management practices being used. In other words, adaptive behavior is activated to address the cultural distance and lead to improvements in

communication between members of a foreign culture (Francis, 1991). Besides, apart from only acknowledging cultural differences there is also a need to manage and benefit from them.

Three cultural adaptation levels have been proposed (Walsh, 1973). The first is that one partner needs to understand the other’s foreign culture on its own terms,

indicating that cultural dissimilarities are accepted (Lin, 2004). The second refers to the level of adjustment required that smooths cross-cultural interactions, instead of changing cultural assumptions of the partners. The third and most important level of adaptation is characterized by the learning process undergone from one partner through its effort to include foreign culture’s elements into its own. Experiential learning, a term introduced by Kolb (1984) refers to learning through interactions. However, since learning is insufficient without actively adjusting to each other’s culture, incorporating different cultural characteristics into one’s own is of high importance (Tretyak et al., 2013). This will result in really accepting those different elements and hence learn both theoretically and from experience. Since literature indicates the interrelatedness of the above mentioned terms, this study adopts Lin’s (2004) proposed dimensions in order to operationalize the concept of cultural adaptation. These dimensions are presented in the following table.

Table 1: Operationalization of Cultural adaptation

Concept Dimensions Definition Source

Cultural adaptation

Understand

Indicates that cultural

dissimilarities are accepted (Lin, 2004).

Walsh (1973); Lin (2004)

Adjust Smooths cross-cultural interactions (Lin, 2004). Walsh (1973); Lin (2004); Tretyak et al. (2013) Learn

Include foreign culture’s elements into one’s own (Lin, 2004).

Walsh (1973); Kolb (1984); Lin (2004)

(10)

7 2.4 Positive effects of cultural adaptation

Benefits for buyers and suppliers can be gained if only both partners are able to understand the culture of their counterparts (Fawcett et al., 2008) and through the alignment of their cultures (Barringer & Harrison, 2000). Cultural adaptation may be of high significance to collaborative relationships since it directly affects the quality of communication and intercultural trust. This is because individuals from different cultures may interpret differently the same situation based on their cultural knowledge and beliefs (Chua et al., 2012). According to Cronin & Weingart (2007), a situation that is differently interpreted might increase conflicts due to misunderstandings, hindering collaboration. Van Dyne et al. (2008) point out that cultural intelligence enables the adoption of different cultural values and norms while just acknowledging traditional practices will not facilitate a collaborative relationship. For example, if buying firms use specific local cultural practices in doing business, this may increase disagreements with suppliers and hence inhibit collaboration ties (Bai et al., 2016). However, consistent with Chua et al. (2012), in the presence of cultural intelligence which allows exploration of cultural knowledge opportunities, disagreements will be mitigated as suppliers will try to understand buyers’ cultural knowledge, resulting in effective cross-cultural collaboration. Moreover, Imai & Gelfand (2010) argue that individuals characterized by high cultural intelligence are more likely to insist on and put effort into establishing an accurate understanding toward unfamiliar cultural settings, translated by Awan et al. (2018) into having higher adapting skills. In addition, cooperative behaviors can be enhanced, engaging partners in more effective intercultural negotiations (Imai & Gelfand, 2010). Thus, confidence about their abilities in adapting increases (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008) indicating that they behave in the right way to achieve collaboration. Chua et al. (2012) also conclude that there is a positive relationship between cultural intelligence and collaboration across cultures, indicating that differences can be mitigated and mutual benefits can be obtained. Cultural intelligence, if existing in the buyer-supplier dyad, matters in predicting the success of intercultural negotiation tasks (Imai & Gelfand, 2010). This can be explained since if only one side is willing to reveal its preferences, a win-win

situation cannot be achieved, leading to unsuccessful collaboration of the dyad (Chua et al., 2012). Moreover, they continue that if practices such as regular meetings and information regarding improvements are adopted by suppliers, these will be perceived by buyers as efforts to obtain benefits from the intercultural setting being involved. While the above examined cases indicate ways through which collaboration in BSR can be achieved, literature frequently neglects more obvious factors with which cultural adaptation allows for collaborative BSRs. The main reason presented in this paper, which motivates cultural adaptation, especially in an inter-cultural setting is discussed in the following section.

2.5 Trust in BSR

Although a great variety of conditions required for the success of long-term BSRs, researchers have identified trust as the most directly linked factor (Smith et al., 1995). According to Morgan & Hunt (1994) trust is considered as a critical factor that affects every relational exchange. In general, BSR related literature is positively associated with trust. For instance, Kaufmann & Carter (2006) found that higher levels of trust

(11)

8

result in longer relationships, while Zaheer et al. (1998) who studied the nature of trust in buyer-supplier dyads, conclude that inter-organizational trust being present, an enhanced supplier performance can be achieved, negotiation costs can be reduced, and conflict levels can be lowered, increasing BSR performance. Similarly, lack of trust is considered as “the greatest obstacle to advanced supply chain collaboration” (Ueltschy et al., 2007; 15). Trust is usually defined as a willingness to take risks (Mayer et al., 1995) since according to Spekman et al. (1998; 634) it relates to “one’s

belief that one’s supply chain partner will act in a consistent manner and do what he/she says he/she will do.” There is a growing body of literature that has examined

trust based on social exchange theory (Muthusamy et al., 2007; Lin & Wang, 2008), while within transaction cost economics context, trust has been seen as a factor that mitigates the concerns of an opportunistic behavior (Morgan & Hunt, 1994).

Nonetheless, cultural background may have an effect on partners’ ability to trust and influence them in building trustful relationships. Voldnes et al. (2012) advocate that the way in which trust is perceived and achieved, may be affected by cultural differences. Thus, it may be even more important to consider trust in cross-national relationships, where according to Voldness et al. (2012; 1083) “the legal entities

governed by one partner's state may not be valid for the other partner and trust is the only way to secure the business relationship.” Additionally, Hallén et al. (1994) state

that adaptation acts as a mechanism that facilitates the trust building action and also serves as a means to expand and solidify the relationship, in its early and mature phase respectively. The results of Voldnes & Grønhaug (2015), offer an overview of the adaptations made by Russian buyers and Norwegian sellers. For instance, trust and personal network related adaptations revealed that buyers adapt to the “Western” drinking culture as they were willing to drink less during business meetings. On the other hand, sellers focus on building personal trust and relationships as well as

engaging in more informal business conduct by combining business and pleasure (i.e., dinner and drinking before business). Accordingly, for the purposes of this study, cultural adaptation is considered as a means to achieve trust development in inter-culture settings with the aim of achieving collaborative BSRs.

3 Methodology

3.1 Research design

This thesis aims to discover how supplier’s cultural adaptation influences buyer’s trust development in inter-culture BSRs. Differences in experiences, expectations, beliefs, and behaviors may widely vary between buyers and suppliers, especially in cross-national cultures. Therefore, an exploratory study research design was used due to its effectiveness to gain insights and further understand this concept since limited knowledge exists (Churchill, 1992). Being a relatively new research area in the field of SCM, a case study is the most appropriate design. This is consistent with Yin (2014) who states that a case study approach fits better in “how” and “why” questions. Moreover, since the purpose of this study deals with cross-national relationships, results drawn from various combined cases were preferred over

examining only two cultural settings within different industries. Thus, a multiple case study was conducted, which means that more than one business (or multiple cases

(12)

9

within one business) were studied, which according to Karlsson (2016) allows for more generalizable conclusions due to the higher amount of data obtained. In that way, comparable insights added to the generalizability of the findings. In addition, given that insights derived from multiple cultural backgrounds indicating multiple sources of evidences, a multiple case study design becomes relevant (Yin, 2009). Since cultural adaptation takes place when cultural differences exist which in turn emerge from two partners’ cultural backgrounds, a relationship is needed to investigate this concept. Thus, the unit of analysis is determined as the “buyer-supplier relationship” while trust will serve as the main mechanism between cultural adaptation and collaborative BSR. However, buying firms that are currently involved in the international arena were only selected. As these firms deal with cross-national suppliers, the acquired information resulted in valuable insights on how suppliers’ cultural adaptation, if experienced, affected their inter-cultural collaboration through the buyers’ trust development process. Additionally, buyers’ perspectives led to insightful findings as they were able to provide information with increasing focus on the BSR of their firms (Claycomb & Frankwick, 2010).

3.2 Research setting

This study emphasizes on international cross-cultural BSRs. Therefore, a basic criterion is that the selected firms should have multiple cross-national supply chain relationships. Previous research has investigated inter-culture BSRs from only one side of the dyad (Leonidou et al., 2011). On the other hand, Griffith et al. (2006) argue that this approach prevents authors from identifying if the relationship is differently perceived by the unexamined side. Although the unit of analysis in this study is the BSR, information from both sides is not necessary. Hence, buyers were solely asked in the different cases presented as regards to the levels of trust developed toward their suppliers, caused by the suppliers’ cultural adaptation. While the

examination of both sides in a BSR is not usually being attempted due to the excessively high research costs, the main reason for adopting only the buyer’s perspective is to avoid the low response rates accompanied with matched respondent pairs (Claycomb & Frankwick, 2010). Initially, relationships consisted of different cultural settings were preferred in order to reach comparable results. However, interesting insights were obtained by examining relationships that share the same national culture and two such cases were also included. Additionally, while firms from a specific industry would not allow for generalizable results, the sample is comprised of three interviews with the operational buyers of a Dutch firm that

operates in two different locations in the Netherlands and the senior buyer of a Greek firm that operates in Greece. Consequently, only two types of industry were involved, which may serve as a limitation in the current study.

3.3 Case selection

As already mentioned, this research examines the BSR of firms regarding the international character of their supply chains. As a result, the cases were selected based on buyers and suppliers from different countries, which potentially indicates their involvement in a cultural adaptation process. The assessment criteria used for the cultural adaptation process refer to the understanding, adjusting and learning levels.

(13)

10

Furthermore, cases were selected based on a common understanding of values, norms and beliefs which means that both buyers and suppliers share an understanding of the values, norms and beliefs but do not share all of them. Ten cases are thereby

presented in Table 2, representing BSRs between two buyers of a Dutch firm as well as one buyer of a Greek firm and their respective suppliers, whose cultural

background varies among seven different countries.

Table 2: Case selection

Case Nationality of supplier National culture of buying firm Buyer Function Number of employees Industry Interview duration (min) Language A Chinese

Dutch Buyer 1 Operational

buyer 2000 + Material analysis sector 42:44 English B American C Dutch D Chinese

Dutch Buyer 2 Operational

buyer 2000+ Material analysis sector 47:37 English E German F Dutch G Chinese

Greek Buyer 3 Senior

buyer 50+ Accessories , Footwear, Apparel etc. 43:51 English H Indian I Egypt J Italian 3.4 Data collection

Primary data were collected to answer the research question posed in this study. There are several ways in collecting primary data such as surveys and observations (Ghauri & Grønhau, 2010). Here, the data were gathered by means of qualitative

semi-structured interviews with the buyers of the chosen firms, during the period April-June 2020. The interviews were conducted via Video conference (Skype software). Their purpose were to generate answers regarding how the interviewees perceive and respond to the cultural adaptation after explaining the cultural adaptation process which enables the latter’s operationalization. Interviewees were required to have an experience with inter-cultural relationships which was necessary regarding the concept of cultural adaptation.They were identified and approached via personal contact and had at least one year of experience in dealing with cross-national suppliers, which allowed them to provide meaningful insights (Voss et al., 2002). Before interviews were conducted, the interview questions and a short introduction of this research ware sent to them in order to be prepared, which enables the author to retrieve high quality data.

Cases that did not reflect closely related cultural characteristics to the interviewees were preferred, so as to allow for contrasting results. In that way, insights were gained about how the relationship between them was affected and if the desired outcomes were reached, by asking them to describe the process of cultural adaptation and if this

(14)

11

process resulted in higher levels of trust. In doing so, a structure was formed to analyze the findings of the interviews. The questions for the semi-structured interviews were detailed and pre-specified (Tellis, 1997) and an interview protocol was developed to ensure reliability of the case studies (Appendix A). According to Yin (1994), a case study protocol should include the overview of the project, field procedures, questions and guide for the project. Therefore, the questions guided interviewees to share their experience on cultural adaptation. Along with the interview protocol, a consent form (Appendix B) was sent to them and before the interview began, it was made sure that interviewees had read it and were asked if they had any questions or instances regarding the interview. This allowed to make use of the data obtained by recording the interviews, which increased the reliability. All three interviews were conducted in English and clarifications were given in Greek when needed, to avoid misinterpretations. Finally, the interviews were transcribed, enabling the coding analysis of the data.

3.5 Data analysis

The process of the data analysis concerns carefully reading the interviews, theoretical reflection on specific topics of interest and interpretation them (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). The interview transcripts were analyzed by using Microsoft Excel software in order to provide consistent results and visibility along the coding process of the findings. Data coding was performed gradually and by analyzing the cases separately. The first step was to reduce the data by attributing first-order codes to the quotes derived from the interviews (Yin, 2011), which would enable answering the research question while simultaneously considering the three dimensions of cultural

adaptation. The second step was to develop second-order categories in order to categorize the more general first-order codes. Then, the second-order categories with similar effect on the buyer-supplier relationship were assigned and grouped in the same third-order themes. These themes are related to the effect of cultural adaptation on trust as well as other effects caused by cultural adaptation and also to the trust development due to cultural adaptation or due to other reasons. A summarized version of the coding principle is presented in Table 3 and a detailed description of the coding process is illustrated in Appendix C, for each of the three dimensions, namely

understanding, adjusting and learning. Afterwards, for each case the specific dimension of cultural adaptation was marked, based on the coding logic used in Appendix C. Finally, Table 4 derives from the coding process, which illustrates which of the suppliers’ cultural adaptation levels were achieved and their effect on buyers’ trust development, which will help later in answering our research question.

Table 3: Excerpt of Coding based on Cultural Adaptation

Second order Dimensions First-order code

Mutual understanding

Understanding

‘[…] have in mind the cultural differences of each other’ [Case A] ‘[…] both parties are aware that we come from different cultures’ [Case D] ‘[…] they always try before change into Dutch’ [Case F]

‘Chinese suppliers are very familiar with each country's culture […]’ [Case G] ‘Of course, we have also to follow some of the suppliers’ rules […]’ [Case H] ‘[…] understand as they share the same culture.’ [Case C]

(15)

12

Table 4: Excerpt of Coding based on Trust

Second order Trust First order

Supplier’s adaptation

Increase trust

‘It’s both ways and goes both ways, if we are also willing to adapt to their culture so will they and then the relationship becomes stronger and we bond on a friendly level, not only on a supplier level. The more they try to adapt the more or the closer the relationship is with them.’

[Case A]

‘We respected completely all the difficulties China faced with COVID-19 […] (and when they did the same) this strengthened the trust between the two sides.’ [Case G]

‘With the older suppliers it is much easier. They have already adopted our procedures and all things are more automated so they have already gained our trust […]’ [Case G]

Our trust is affected when they try to understand our culture and our difficulties, and collaboration becomes easier when they give us solutions’ [Case G]

Way of doing business

Increase trust

‘If they show that they are willing to put efforts in doing business with us and improving it, I have no reason not to trust them.’ [Case D, E, F]

‘German suppliers "go the extra mile" […] shows that they put effort into their planning and try to keep their commitment to their customers.’ [Case E]

Decrease trust

‘Pakistan suppliers are completely untrustworthy, they never keep the schedules, they always promise, they give an initial price and then change their minds.’ [Case G, H, I, J]

Relationship duration

Increase trust

‘With most of our suppliers we've been working for several years so that loyalty is appreciated from both sides.’ [Case D,E,F]

‘With the older suppliers it is much easier. They have already adopted our procedures and all things are more automated so they have already gained our trust […]’ [Case G]

Supplier’s lack of attention

Decrease trust

‘A lot of Dutch suppliers cause a lot of problems so even there are no big cultural differences they should reconsider some things.’[Case C]

Keep promises Increase trust

‘[…] keeping promises to the deliveries is also a reason.’ [Case G, H, I]

Visit suppliers / phone calls

No effect ‘Visit suppliers similar to Chinese but Americans do not care that much for a personal/friendly relationship because for them it is simply business.’ [Case B]

Increase trust

‘[…] we speak on the phone at least once a week, and exchange several emails. […] we’ve had the opportunity to visit them twice each to their offices, also to meet each other which helped a lot the relationship I believe.’[Case F]

‘After some calls you know the other and how he works and trust is built and improved over time.’ [Case C]

Easier understanding

‘They do understand but they do not adjust.’ [Case B] ‘Understanding and trying to find common ground’ [Case E] ‘Our culture is more or less the same (with Italians) so we have a good understanding’ [Case J]

Inability to understand

‘There is not much difference in how we are treated compared to other peoples’

[Case I] Inability to adjust

Adjusting

‘They try to adjust to our system […]’, ‘[…] it’s not that they do not have the system, it's a cultural thing’, ‘[…] otherwise we have to adapt more to them’ [Case

A]

‘They do understand but they do not adjust’ [Case B]

‘[…] they need more time in order to make things clear’ [Case H]

No need to adjust

‘[…] they also do not need to adjust.’ [Case C]

Willingness to adjust

‘The culture is very similar […], I do appreciate though that they are often more precise and organized than the Dutch’ [Case E]

‘Asian suppliers change their name to an English name […]’, ‘[…] somebody that speaks the native language and they could help with the communication […]’ [Case

D]

‘[…] they were very willing to give me that information […]’ [Case F]

Mutual adjustments ‘[…] both sides appreciate each other's efforts.’ [Case F]

Ability to adjust ‘[…] can easily adapt to each countries’ specificities’ [Case G] Resistance to learn

Learning

‘[…] they do not want to learn’ [Case A]

‘[…] but they do not want to learn.’, ‘[…] you don't do your best’ [Case C] ‘[…] they want to do things in their own way […]’ [Case I]

No need to learn

‘I don’t think that’s the culture that causes the biggest differences but the daily way of working that you are used to […]’ [Case D]

Willingness to learn

‘[…] the more business you do with one supplier the more willing he is to get in line with your culture’ [Case B]

‘We have come to an agreement that they will include our reference in the documentation which makes our life easier’ [Case F]

(16)

13

‘See the factories, meet the managers, go out and taste their food, share experiences, describe each other's difficulties, try to find solutions to each other which helps to understand better their culture and needs and the same is true for them.’ [Case G, H, J]

Decrease trust

‘[…] it's not easy to visit these countries, most areas are not so friendly for visiting.’ [Case I]

In the following table, some of the cultural differences revealed among the cases are summarized, as well as their consequence in the relationship, and the action taken by the supplier in order to either mitigate or increase this effect. Although some insights derive from Table 5, the actions taken are potential cultural adaptation practices, since they have not been checked based on the dimensions of cultural adaptation. For this reason, a more detailed investigation is needed for each case to capture the level of adaptation, when specific levels are met.

Table 5: Culture related differences

Cultural differences Consequence Supplier’s action (Adaptation) Case

Date format Delivery delays - A & D

Language distance Difficulty in expressing ideas Intermediate person (translator) D Language distance Difficulty to address them Change their names (Chinese to

English)

D Communication / Business

etiquette

Keep relationships formal - E

Way of doing business (Organized)

Trust increases - E

Business etiquette (Working hours)

Things are done faster Take work at home A

Public holidays Problems in business Quick adjustments to schedule A & G

Technology Mistakes in business - A

Common understanding Improve interpersonal relationships

Adjust to schedule, send masks due to COVID-19

G Way of doing business (No

organized)

Trust decreases - H

Religion Refuse to do the order - H

Table 6: Validity and Reliability of research (YIN, 2009)

Criterion Implementation

Construct validity

Operationalized constructs are extensively researched, which is the basis for their measurement function. Interview protocol is updated throughout the data gathering phase to ensure validity of the interview questions.

Internal validity Within and cross-case analysis allowed for identification of patterns.

External validity

Cultural differences identified in the relationship of each case allow for theoretical replication.

(17)

14

Reliability

Follow case study protocol, transcribe and share interviews with interviewees, ensure consent and anonymity from interviewees for the best data to be obtained

4 Results

The results of this thesis are presented as follows: First, section 4.1 provides a within case analysis. In this section, the findings of the qualitative interviews were used in order to identify potential effects of suppliers’ cultural adaptation on the buyers’ trust development, by analyzing ten different cases. Then, a discussion on the dimensions of cultural adaptation is offered. Second, section 4.2 presents a cross-case analysis in order to identify commonalities and differences among these cases. Cases are grouped based on the effect of suppliers’ cultural adaptation on buyers’ trust development and patterns (i.e. mechanisms that exceed the individual cases) will allow to answer the research question. Finally, other reasons that affect buyers’ trust development are presented.

4.1 Within case analysis

Case A: This interview was conducted with the operational buyer of the Dutch company and regards a relationship with a Chinese supplier. The relationship is characterized as trustworthy and also reveals a relation between cultural adaptation and trust. As regards to the understanding dimension, the operational buyer believes that both sides should consider the differences in culture and as he mentioned

“Problems can be mitigated if both sides have in mind the cultural differences of each

other.” This indicates that a mutual understanding is required for a more collaborative

relationship to be achieved. However, he explains that “Suppliers to whom we are a

big client are willing to do everything for us otherwise we have to adapt more to them” which means that sometimes, the need to adjust depends on the extent to which

they do business with each other. Regarding the adjusting dimension, the operational buyer mentioned that “They try to adjust to our system where "delivered" refers to the

arrival of the product to us and not when it leaves their offices and goes to the transporter”. On the other hand, he stated that “They are trying to do everything by hand which takes a lot of time and many mistakes can be done than an automated system, it’s not that they do not have the system, it's a cultural thing.” Therefore,

while Chinese are willing to adjust to Dutch culture which would positively affect the relationship, they are probably unable to do so due to their cultural characteristics, leading to opposite results. As far as the learning dimension concerned, the buyer informed that Chinese “[…] do not want to learn from us unless it is absolutely

necessary” which means that they exhibit resistance to learn and which in turn

negatively affects their relationship. Finally, buyer’s trust is positively affected by mutual adaptation and its importance is described again “It’s both ways and goes both

ways.” Nevertheless, when buyer was asked if there are any other reasons that impede

trust development, he mentioned that “They also try to do a lot of things together like

multitasking but most of the time that isn't good because more faults are made.”

However, as he mentioned, trust is not negatively affected in the absence of

adaptation. Finally, he stressed the importance of the outcomes: “Results also play a

(18)

15

Case B: The second relationship investigated refers to the operational buyer of the Dutch company and his American supplier. In general, this is a trustworthy

relationship but lower levels of cultural adaptation characterize this case as well as its effect on trust development. This can be explained since similarities with the Dutch culture either do not require the understanding dimension to take place or it is much easier to be achieved: “With American suppliers we are more similar, even if they

start their day when we finish ours, there is a balance between work and personal life.” In terms of the adjusting dimension, the buyer explained that “American suppliers try really hard, are goal driven, more organized and hard-workers, and 99% deliver with no problems.” but also mentioned that “They do understand but they do not adjust.” This does not necessarily show their inability to adjust but the fact that

they have strict rules in their contracts may not allow them to make adjustments. The buyer also mentioned that “[…] the more business you do with one supplier the more

willing he is to adjust and get in line with your culture.” Therefore, the relationship

will be positively affected by the supplier’s willingness to learn which is subjected to the amount of business someone has with a specific supplier. This amount however, does not depend on their cultural backgrounds. Adaptation is not a determinant in this case: “[…] it mostly depends on the company you are dealing with.” and there is not a big need to adapt since they do business in a way that keeps buyer satisfied, which does not affect their collaboration. The relevance of the outcomes for trust

development is also stressed by this buyer and indicates that trust might be affected either positively or negatively but no priority is given to cultural adaptation.

Case C: The third discussion with the operational buyer of the Dutch company concerns a relationship with a Dutch supplier. Lower levels of trust characterize this case and if cultural adaptation occurred at some extent, trust might be positively affected. As expected, there is common understanding in this relationship since the two partners share the same culture. The buyer confirms it: “Dutch suppliers do

understand as they share the same culture.” As regards the adjusting dimension, the

buyer pointed for this supplier that “[…] they also do not need to adjust since

transportation time is not that long.” Since transportation of items when dealing with

foreign suppliers takes much longer time, it affects their final delivery performance. More specifically, he mentioned that “[…] it takes one day to have it delivered from

everywhere in Netherlands.” Nevertheless, in terms of the learning dimension, buyer

said that “[…] they do not want to learn and change even they know that they must

change to avoid inefficiencies.” As he explained: “[…] it is a cultural thing if you think that although you have everything, you don't do your best in order for that thing to work properly.” And this is closely related with the following statement: “A lot of Dutch suppliers cause a lot of problems so even there are no big cultural differences they should reconsider some things.” Thus, resistance to learn may be explained by

either Dutch suppliers’ lack of attention or their inability to learn. This is an

interesting insight considering that these partners are sharing the same culture. It is also important for the supplier since although an in depth adaptation is not required by his side, it may well affect buyer’s trust. As in the previous cases, outcomes play a role and only cultural adaptation itself does not allow for the buyer’s trust

development.

Case D: This relationship was described by the operational buyer of the Dutch company and regards a Chinese supplier. There are issues that may arise but the relationship is generally characterized by high levels of trust. Although that case reported on cultural adaptation, according to buyer, adapting culturally is not of major

(19)

16

importance for increasing her trust. The buyer stated that “The culture plays a role but

in our case both parties are aware that we come from different cultures” which

indicates a mutual understanding. As regards the adjusting level, buyer said that “Asian suppliers change their name to an English name […]”. Additionally, she informed that “If you do business in a country very different culturally, you would

have somebody that speaks the native language and they could help with the

communication […]” These statements demonstrate willingness/need to adjust which

further positively affect their relationship. In other words, cooperation between Asia and Europe can be positively influenced by supplier’s adjustment. However, as she explained: “[…] you don’t take it for granted and don’t expect that the other person

will understand anything you say straightaway, so it’s much easier to accept it and move and try to find a way to work together.” This proves that the relationship is

characterized by both the understanding and adjusting dimension. But when buyer was asked if the relationship is subjected to small rather large cultural differences, she replied: “I don’t think that’s the culture that causes the biggest differences but the

daily way of working that you are used to.” indicating that there is no big need to

actually adapt to each other’s culture, but the learning dimension is inherently

approached by both sides without impeding their collaboration. As far as buyer’s trust development concerned, other reasons than cultural adaptation seem to be critical. As she described “If they show that they are willing to put efforts in doing business with

us and improving it, I have no reason not to trust them.” Similarly she revealed that

“With most of our suppliers we've been working for several years so that loyalty is

appreciated from both sides” which shows that the duration of the relationship is

another reason that affects trust.

Case E: The buyer also described her relationship with a German supplier. Although that case reported on cultural adaptation and the relationship functions well, trust already exists and can be increased due to other reasons than adapting culturally. According to buyer’s opinion, “Understanding and trying to find common ground and

alignment in some way is the best way to have a good cooperation […]”. However,

she continues that “[…] when I try I also expect from them to do something for me in

return when I need it” indicating the importance of mutual understanding for good

cooperation, which is not always the case in their interactions. Positive effects of supplier’s adjustment can be reflected by the following: “Every two weeks they send

us the list we asked for […]” and “With German suppliers, the culture is very similar with the Dutch so I don’t see that much difference, I do appreciate though that they are often more precise and organized than the Dutch” which both reveal a willingness

to adjust. Another interesting insight derived from the interview, related to the learning dimension is that “[…] German suppliers "go the extra mile" ” which indicates that they not only have adopted practices and Dutch culture’s elements but also do business based on what they believe that would be beneficial for their cooperation. Other reasons than cultural adaptation however are important for the buyer: “By working together closely and seeing that they do care and they do strive to

improve in what they do with us […]” and “With most of our suppliers we've been working for several years so that loyalty is appreciated from both sides” which all

demonstrate other reasons for increasing trust. What is important for the buyer, is that the German supplier “[…] give us more information than needed which shows that

they put effort into their planning and try to keep their commitment to their

customers”. The above indicates that the buyer appreciates her partner’s efforts which

(20)

17

Case F: The operational buyer also described the relationship with a Dutch supplier. While cultural adaptation was not actually needed for the relationship, both sides adopt practices to enable their interactions. While trust characterizes this case, adaptation was not found to be the most important factor for further trust

development. As regards to the understanding level, she mentioned that in terms of language “[…] they always try before change into Dutch”. This is because even she works in a Dutch company, she is originally from Greece and some issues related to language differences usually emerge. This proves that mutual understanding exists in the relationship and the fact that buyer also changes the English language to Dutch reveals that this is a consequence of cultural adaptation, despite the fact that both firms operate in the Netherlands. A positive effect on the relationship is derived from the following: “[…] they were very willing to give me that information […] I wasn't

used to being that open in sharing information with a buyer.” However, since the two

companies share the same culture, this might not be a reason of cultural adaptation but helps the collaboration between them and shows supplier’s willingness to adjust. Mutual adjustments regarding the language distance are also described by the buyer: “[…] and my Dutch are also limited” and “[…] both sides appreciate each other's

efforts” and “[…] so we try to meet halfway”. When doing business, Dutch supplier

has learned by the buyer who made it clear: “We have come to an agreement that they

will include our reference in the documentation which makes our life easier.” As in

the above cases, other reasons for trust development were considered by this buyer as more important than cultural adaptation.

Case G: The following relationship with a Chinese supplier was described by the senior buyer of a Greek company. This case reported on adaptation and also cultural adaptation as well as other reasons can definitely play a role in gaining buyer’s trust. As the buyer told: “Chinese suppliers are very familiar with each country's culture,

[…]”. The above indicates that understanding has been developed by Chinese supplier

which means that cultural dissimilarities have been acknowledged. Furthermore, supplier’s ability to adjust is revealed: “[…] they can easily adapt to each countries’

specificities.” which positively affects their collaboration. He continues that “They (suppliers) develop their professional working and they understand our country’s culture but of course it is really important to keep understanding.” This reflects that

there is a need to adjust and is also a reason for cultural adaptation. In other words, continuous understanding will make business and the interactions between them easier. Other positive effects on the relationship can be caused due to mutual

adjustments. In addition, a need to adjust emerges since problems in the relationship would arise if partners did not help each other with the difficulties their nations had to deal with. As the buyer stated: “Priority can be given to us and they can put our

orders in the top of the production line or they could give us some credit on the payment when necessary” and “[…] when the COVID-19 arrived at Europe they supported us, they sent us masks, they also gave us very big credits in the payments”.

Considering the next statement: “We respected completely all the difficulties China

faced with COVID-19 […] this strengthened the trust between the two sides.” it

becomes obvious that trust was affected. Furthermore, according to the buyer: “[…]

keeping promises to the deliveries is also a reason”, while when asked about any

really large difference between him and his suppliers’ [G, H, I, J] cultures, he responded that “There are not so big cultural differences in order to not trust them.” The above indicates that other reasons seem to be also critical for gaining buyer’s trust. While they might be related to a nation’s culture, after the interview he admitted

(21)

18

that if business is going well, cultural differences may be overseen. However, he stated his personal opinion regarding all his suppliers: “I strongly believe that the

knowledge of the foreign culture always strengthen the collaboration, the understanding is better, the business is better.” which reveals the importance of

understanding, which is the first level of cultural adaptation. It should be noted that in the beginning of the discussion, the buyer explained that for all his partners [G, H, I, J] “there is a matter of trust and things should be done to gain their trust and to trust

them also.

Case H: This case refers to the relationship of the Greek senior buyer with an Indian supplier. According to the buyer, this is not a trustworthy relationship and Indian suppliers are preferred in order to take advantage of the good prices in specific items and also split the risk of doing business with other countries. While cultural

adaptation affects the relationship, other reasons that affect buyer’s trust were reported. The buyer stated that “Of course we have also to follow some of the

suppliers’ rules […] so there is an agreement between the two sides before starting the collaboration.” This reveals the consequences of cultural adaptation and the

mutual understanding required in order to continue doing business, since differences between the two countries may impede collaboration due to each other’s regulations or cultural constraints. The buyer pointed out the importance of continuous

adjustment by the supplier’s side which will positively affect the relationship. In terms of the learning dimension, he was clear: “With the older suppliers it is much

easier, they have already adopted our procedures and everything is more automated”

which reflects the easiness to learn caused by a long-term relationship. As already mentioned “[…] keeping promises to the deliveries is also a reason” for buyer’s trust development. However, he compared all cases with Pakistanis suppliers and none of them had a huge cultural difference in order to prevent him to do business with them. An interesting insight derives from the following: “We placed an order of "Peppa

pig" and Indian suppliers refused to do the order because the pig is a religion symbol for them. But with Indian suppliers if you are trustworthy it does not mean that they will deliver on time.” which indicates that supplier’s consistency plays a role in

buyer’s trust but mutuality is also of major importance.

Case I: With the Egyptian supplier things are a bit different. This relationship is characterized as trustworthy and the difficulties are usually overcome, but not due to adaptation. More specifically, the buyer reported that “The Egyptian suppliers are

very hard to communicate, they give us very expensive prices and the factories with the necessary certifications are very few.” The fact that premium products are bought

and higher prices are paid, explains that none of these statements was grouped in the understanding dimension, in the sense that cultural differences are overseen. In addition, he continues that “Egyptians are the most difficult suppliers […] they want

to do things in their own way and I think that this is one of their culture

characteristics, they are not so open to accept our way of doing business.” The above

indicates a resistance to learn and is actually a big cultural difference according to buyer, who said that “[…] we are always open and give second chances of course, but

the suppliers are not unlimited, you always have to give a second chance.”

Nevertheless, the quote: “After receiving an order from the supplier, we complete

supplier evaluation sheets” means that supplier has the opportunity to understand and

adjust to the buyer’s way of doing business. While this case did not report on cultural adaptation, the relationship functions relatively well, due to other reasons such as suppliers’ ability to handle the volume of orders placed to them despite the high prices

(22)

19 demanded.

Case J:This case refers to the relationship of the senior buyer of the Greek company with an Italian supplier. This relationship is trustworthy and despite the fact that Italians have the most expensive prices, they understand better compared to all of the suppliers. However, this case did not report on cultural adaptation. Small cultural differences are reflected from the relationship: “Our culture is more or less the same

so we have a good understanding.” In terms of adjusting, the following statement is of

particular interest: “[…] the price is more expensive and usually where you pay more

you get more.” This means that cultural adaptation may be the result of doing business

where economic factors act as motives. For that case, the buyer did not provide information relevant to the learning dimension. Finally, the fact that trust is more easily developed with the Italian supplier may be explained by the following: “[…]

the quantities and the volume of the products that we placed to them is very easy to handle.” which is also another reason that enhances the development of trust.

The above analysis provides some interesting insights regarding each of the dimensions. First of all, it can be observed that in the majority of the cases the

understanding level is achieved. That was also true in the case of the Greek buyer who works for a Dutch company that operates in the Netherlands and her Dutch supplier (case [F]) indicating the importance of the national culture of the individuals that comprise the organization, and its effect on the organizational culture, which has been studied in literature (Gerhart, 2009). In addition, most of the cases reported on mutual adaptation. Mutual understanding would allow buyers and their suppliers to do business by avoiding issues related to either regulations or other cultural constraints (cases [B], [C], [H], [I]). This is in line with Hallén et al. (1991) who argue that mutual adaptations of some degree, are required for the development and continued existence of a relationship. Furthermore, the understanding level was easier to be observed by the buyers, independent from the commonalities or dissimilarities they have with their suppliers. For example, the balance between work and personal life illustrated between similar cultures does not impede the partners from understanding other cultural differences (cases [B], [C]). Hence, continuous understanding is

required in order for the two parties to build collaborative relationships regardless the fact that many cross-national suppliers have already understood the differences that exist among their nations (case [G]). Finally, understanding allows the cultural adaptation process to take place, which means that accepting dissimilarities in culture is a good starting point, without underestimating the other two dimensions.

Nevertheless, the lower levels of the learning dimension, which is the one that essentially captures the degree to which adaptation occurs (Lin, 2004), indicate that suppliers tend to adapt only partially.

Second, the adjusting level was observed by the buyers in four out of the ten

relationships examined in total (cases [D], [E], [F] and [G]). It should be mentioned however, that since some of the cases share either the same or similar cultural backgrounds (cases [C], [F] and [K]), it was expected that such kind of adjustments may not be required. For instance, case [C] shows that adjustments are not necessary since buyers and suppliers are located in the same country and as a result, no big issues that affect delivery performance can emerge. Case [A] on the other hand, refers to technology related adjustments that could have been made by suppliers. While somebody would expect that Asian countries are more familiar with the development of the technology, in that case it is not true. The fact that they lag behind in

(23)

20

technology as regards to the way of doing business or updating information, is a factor that makes the buyer not to trust them since more mistakes could be done. Other adjustment related actions can be observed in terms of the language distance that characterizes two of the cases (cases [D] and [F]). Intermediate persons can facilitate the communication between partners from different countries. In that way, barriers can be overcome and suggestions can be made to smooth the interactions, as now both parties can express themselves in the right manner. Not surprisingly, many the cases also reported on mutual adjustments, which according to Leonidou et al. (2011) are considered to act in favor for both sides in a working relationship. Last but not least, the results indicate that the adjustment dimension can be affected by the amount of business a firm has with a specific supplier (cases [A] and [B]). If a supplier is doing most of their business with a specific firm, then it is more likely to adjust the way of doing business based on this firm. Accordingly, a possible unilateral adaptation may be explained by the asymmetric power-dependence balance. The effect of power relations between partners on the adaptive behavior has been previously examined, where the partner with less power tends to adapt to the more powerful one (Brennan et al., 2003; Hagberg-Andersson & Grønhaug, 2010).

Third, as far as the learning dimension concerned, only case [F] reported on it. Some buyers advocate that suppliers are willing to learn if only it is necessary. Moreover, a resistance to learn has been experienced even by relationships where partners belong in the same cultural settings. Although it could be said that the learning dimension is inherently approached by adopting each other’s practices and by embracing some of each other’s cultural characteristics, it is only achieved to a small extent. This might also be the reason that while cases reported on cultural adaptation, suppliers did not focus on that dimension, which in turn did not allow for buyers’ trust to be developed. Table 7 summarizes the above discussion in combination with the findings from the data analysis. It has been grouped by case, indicating which of the three dimensions are met and whether trust has been developed or not. Based on that table, cases are differentiated based on the level of adaptation. More specifically, in the majority of the cases the understanding dimension is satisfied and almost half of the cases

reported on the adjusting dimension. Moreover, trust has been developed in two cases: [A] where only understanding occurs, and [G] where understanding and adjusting occur. However, although other cases satisfy the same dimensions, they did not lead to trust development. Since only case [F] satisfies all three dimensions but no effect found on trust, it would be wise to examine adaptation based on the extent to which it occurs, namely high and low adaptation. This step toward answering the research question is presented in 4.2.

Table 7: Cultural Adaptation on Trust Development

Case Understanding Adjust Learning Trust

A  

B 

C

D  

The influence of cultural adaptation on trust development in inter-culture buyer-supplier relationships: A buyer’s perspective