Master Thesis
“IN THE BUYER WE TRUST”
BUYER’S TRUST BUILDING ACTIONS AND THE FORMATION
OF SOCIAL CONTRACTS: A SUPPLIER’S PERSPECTIVE
By
Jorian de Mots
MSc. Supply Chain Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
Date: 28th of August, 2019
Student number: 3522458
Email: j.j.de.mots@student.rug.nl
ABSTRACT
Purpose: Suppliers are known to require trust in the pre-contractual phase to believe they share
the same perception of social contracts with their buyers. However, how buyers build this trust remains unclear. This study therefore aims to improve understanding of how suppliers’ perceptions of social contracts are influenced by trust building actions undertaken by buyers in this phase.
Method: To gain a deep understanding of the link between trust building actions and social
contracts, exploratory interviews have been conducted with suppliers’ salespersons.
Findings: Both interpersonal and interfirm trust building actions create contexts in which suppliers
trust their buyers to share the same perception of the social contract. Several trusting contexts have been identified. Moreover, identical contexts can be created by various trust building actions, suggesting buyers can switch between actions to build the required trust.
Originality/contributions: This study is one of few studies on social contracts to explore how
trust in the social contract is built in the pre-contractual phase. Although this trust enables collaboration, it is hard to build in this phase since no repeated exchanges have occurred yet. The findings show how buyers build the suppliers’ trust in this phase and make suppliers believe they share the same perception of social contracts.
Keywords: social contract, supplier’s perspective, trust building actions, interpersonal trust,
interfirm trust, inter-organizational trust, buyer-supplier relationship.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ... 3
THEORY... 5
Trust in Buyer-Supplier Relationships ... 5
Trust Building Actions ... 5
Social Contracts in Buyer-Supplier Relationships ... 8
Research Framework ... 11 METHODS ... 13 Research Design ... 13 Research Context ... 13 Interviewee Selection ... 15 Data Collection ... 15 Data Analysis ... 16 RESULTS ... 21 Perceived Values ... 23 Perceived Norms ... 29 DISCUSSION ... 33 Perceived Values ... 33 Perceived Norms ... 36 CONCLUSION ... 39 Managerial Implications ... 39
Limitations and Future Research ... 40
REFERENCES ... 41
INTRODUCTION
In the pre-contractual phase of a buyer-supplier relationship, there are many uncertainties regarding the upcoming relationship (Dwyer, Schurr, & Sejo, 1987; Jap & Ganesan, 2000). It is in this phase that both parties establish output and behavior standards, serving as a foundation for further interactions, hence form a social contract (Heide, Wathne, & Rokkan, 2007; Li & Choi, 2009). A social contract is an unwritten and informal agreement which consists of the norms and values pertaining to a relationship (Eckerd & Hill, 2012). Trust is essential in forming social contracts, as the parties need to believe the other firm to actually adhere to the social contract (Eckerd & Hill, 2012; Li, Gupta, Zhang, & Sarathy, 2014). As such, a high level of trust can act as a buffer against uncertainties in this phase (Lai, Tian, & Huo, 2012). When both parties trust each other to adhere to the social contract, they perceive each other to be committed to common goals and feel safe to collaborate (Eckerd & Hill, 2012). In the pre-contractual phase, collaboration makes parties aim for a future mutual beneficial relationship (Jap & Anderson, 2007; Morgan & Hunt, 1994). However, as trust is mostly based upon repeated exchanges, which have not yet occurred in this phase, parties need to build trust in other ways (Jap & Ganesan, 2000; Kam & Lai, 2018; Poppo & Zenger, 2002). Because trust in social contracts is needed to enable collaboration, this study explores what trust building actions can be undertaken during the pre-contractual phase and how these influence the social contract.
However, no literature has found what actions build trust in the pre-contractual phase specifically (Heide et al., 2007; Li & Choi, 2009). Although both kinds of trust building actions are important, most literature has taken interpersonal trust as a proxy for interfirm trust (Zaheer et al., 1998; Zhang, Viswanathan, & Henke, 2011). Furthermore, it is unknown how buyers can build the supplier’s trust in the pre-contractual phase, since most literature focusses on how suppliers can build the buyer’s trust (Spina, Caniato, Luzzini, & Ronchi, 2013; Wu, Zhai, Zhang, & Liu, 2011). However, authors have shown that suppliers require different trust building actions than buyers (Nyaga, Whipple, & Lynch, 2010; Whipple, Frankel, & Daugherty, 2002). Hence, the influence of trust building actions on the social contract is likely to be different for suppliers. While social contracts require trust from both parties to exist in the pre-contractual phase (Eckerd & Hill, 2012; Li et al., 2014; Lövblad, Hyder, & Lönnstedt, 2012), little is known about how the trust required by suppliers is build (Spina et al., 2013; Wu et al., 2011). Therefore, this study will focus on the supplier’s perspective on the formation of social contracts during the pre-contractual phase. The following research question will be applied:
How can trust building actions of the buyer influence the supplier’s perception of the social contract in buyer-supplier relationships?
THEORY
Trust in Buyer-Supplier Relationships
In buyer-supplier relationships, trust building is important (Anderson & Narus, 1990; Dwyer et al., 1987). Trust reduces the supplier’s fear that the buyer will behave opportunistically (Bradach & Eccles, 1989), as the buyer is believed to fulfill the supplier’s needs by future actions (Anderson & Weitz, 1989). Furthermore, trust makes both parties perceive conflicts as functional and therefore willing to solve them because they do not fear retaliation (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). As such, a high level of trust in the relationship promotes cooperation (Fawcett, Jin, Fawcett, & Magnan, 2017; Morgan & Hunt, 1994) and facilitates coordination (Jap, 1999). Moreover, because of the low expectation of opportunistic behavior, trust can serve as a less costly alternative for formal (contractual) governance (Dyer, 1997; Gulati & Nickerson, 2008; Ring & Van De Ven, 1992) or complement formal governance to improve its effectiveness (Gulati & Nickerson, 2008; Poppo & Zenger, 2002). Hence, trust building increases the performance of a relationship (Dowell, Morrison, & Heffernan, 2015; Mohr & Spekman, 1994; Zaheer et al., 1998).
Trust Building Actions
trustworthiness, (2) accepting influence of the supplier, (3) preventing disappointments through communicating expectations, (4) boosting the supplier’s self-confidence influence trust and (5) preventing attribution of pursuing self-interest. Thus, buyers can take different approaches towards trust building.
Only actions applicable to the pre-contractual phase are included in this study. Moreover, of these actions, only those which are identified by a majority of the authors (at least three) are included and made bold in table 1, to further narrow the scope of this research. Table 1 shows an “X” symbol if the authors mention this action:
TABLE 1
Literature Review on Trust Building Actions
Sort of trust Category Trust building action Doney &
Cannon (1997) Smeltzer (1997) Selnes (1998) Sichtmann (2007) Six et al., (2010) Interpersonal Stimulation of attribution of trustworthiness (Six et al., 2010)
Show ability to fulfill promises* X X X
Being consistent and follow-through* X X X
Show mutual respect and honesty* X X X X
Show personal trustworthiness* X X X
Accept influence of the supplier* X X X
Prevent misattribution of self-interest* X X X
Show trustworthiness through other firms** X X Stimulation of
trusting behavior (Six et al., 2010)
Share ideas, technology and information* X X X
Use of open communication and listening* X X X X
Prevent disappointments* X X X X
Show and communicate good intentions*/** X X X
Bolster self-confidence of supplier X Interfirm Communication
Show and communicate good intentions*/** X X X
Timely sharing information* X X X
Communicating competence and reliability* X X X
Increase costs of cheating X
Show trustworthiness through other firms** X X
* Identified by at least three authors. ** Occurs both on interpersonal and interfirm level.
relationship by striving for mutual beneficial goals. Furthermore, table 1 shows that all identified interfirm trust building actions deal with communication, as the actions either deal with communicating the buyer firm’s attributes or with information sharing. Therefore, these actions are categorized as communication. Hence, buyers can take one approach towards interfirm trust building and two towards interpersonal trust building.
Stimulation of attribution of trustworthiness. This category consists of actions which show the
buyer representative’s non-opportunistic attitude, willingness to allow the supplier’s influence, honesty and reliability. Reliability is for example shown by personally following-through on what is said (Smeltzer, 1997). These actions aim to build the supplier’s trust in the buyer representative and thereby make suppliers perceive the buyer as willing to adhere to the social contract (Six et al., 2010). Authors have found six actions which can build this trust, which are stated in table 2.
Stimulation of trusting behavior. Alternately, stimulation of trusting behavior consists of actions
which show the buyer representative’s good intentions and willingness to communicate openly, for example by sharing ideas (Smeltzer, 1997). These actions build the supplier’s trust in the buyer representative. Based on this trust, stimulation of trusting behavior aims to stimulate the supplier to build trust in the relationship too by stimulating the supplier to strive for a mutual beneficial relationship (Six et al., 2010). Hence, it goes one step further than stimulation of attribution of trustworthiness, as the supplier is stimulated to build trust too (Six et al., 2010). Because of the high level of trust in the relationship, the supplier believes both parties will adhere to the social contract (Eckerd & Hill, 2012; Li et al., 2014). Authors have found four actions which can stimulate trusting behavior, which are stated in table 2.
Communication. The above mentioned categories contain actions which build trust in the buyer
TABLE 2
Conceptualization of Trust Building Actions
Sort of trust Variable Definition Classification Sources
Interpersonal Stimulation of attribution of trustworthiness (Six et al., 2010) Buyer representative’s actions which build the supplier’s trust in the buyer’s representative (Six et al., 2010)
Show ability to fulfill promises
a,b&d Be consistent and follow-through
Show mutual respect and honesty a,b,d&e Show personal trustworthiness
a,b&e Prevent misattribution of self-interest
Accept influence of the supplier b,c&e
Stimulation of trusting behavior (Six et al., 2010)
Buyer representative’s actions which stimulate the supplier to build a trusting relationship by striving for mutual beneficial goals (Six et al., 2010)
Show and communicate good intentions
a,b&d
Share ideas, technology and information
b,c&e
Use open communication and listening a,b,c&e Prevent disappointments a,b,d&e
Interfirm Communication
Buyer firm’s actions which build the supplier’s trust in the buyer’s firm through communication (Anderson & Narus, 1990; Selnes, 1998)
Communicate good intentions a,b&d (Timely) sharing information a,b&c Communicate competence and
reliability a,c&d
Note: a= Doney and Cannon (1997), b= Smeltzer (1997), c= Selnes (1998), d= Sichtmann (2007), e= Six
et al. (2010)
The influence of interfirm and interpersonal trust changes over the buyer-supplier relationship (Jap & Ganesan, 2000). In the pre-contractual phase, interpersonal trust is more important, because of the lack of shown credibility. However, interfirm trust (such as credibility) still plays a role in the pre-contractual phase as parties will conduct interactions in this phase as well (Dowell et al., 2015). Hence, although their influence could differ per stage of the relationship (Jap & Ganesan, 2000), both kinds of trust could influence the perceived social contract (Ashnai, Henneberg, Naudé, & Francescucci, 2016).
Social Contracts in Buyer-Supplier Relationships
the pre-contractual phase (Broekhuis & Scholten, 2018; Li & Choi, 2009). Although social contracts are shared between buyers and suppliers (Dunfee et al., 1999), this study only looks at suppliers. Therefore, only the (supplier’s) perception of a social contract is researched. Thus, perceived social contracts are defined as: informal and unwritten agreements, which consist of the norms and values perceived by partners in a buyer-supplier relationship (Eckerd & Hill, 2012; Edwards & Karau, 2007). Trust building allows suppliers to work towards mutually beneficial goals, because they perceive the buyer as willing to act the same and without opportunism (Jap, 1999; Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Hence, trust building makes suppliers believe both parties share the same perception of the social contract (Eckerd & Hill, 2012). This belief offers legitimation of activities within a relationship, such as monitoring by the buyer (Dunfee et al., 1999; Heide et al., 2007).
Two elements of social contracts can be derived from the definition above: perceived values and norms. These are used by most authors in their definition of social contracts (Dunfee, 1991; Eckerd & Hill, 2012; Edwards & Karau, 2007; Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Wallenburg & Schäffler, 2014, 2016). These elements encompass perceived beliefs and prescriptions regarding behavior (Dunfee et al., 1999; Heide et al., 2007; Windsor, 2018). Alternatively, Broekhuis and Scholten (2018) identified three variables of social contracts: perceived flexibility, perceived cooperative attitude and leading party. However, these variables are social contact outcomes (Broekhuis & Scholten, 2018) rather than elements of the social contract, which is out of the scope of this study. Therefore, perceived norms and values will be used as variables of the social contract.
Perceived values. Perceived values relate to shared beliefs and attitudes about goals and shared
extra-role behavior (Huang, Hsiung, & Lu, 2015; Kashyap & Sivadas, 2012). Values on in-role behavior mean that the supplier perceives both parties as willing to meet the other’s requirements which are not yet specified in a contract (Kashyap & Sivadas, 2012). For example, the supplier is willing to propose a design for a buyer, as it believes the buyer is willing to provide the necessary information. Values on extra-role behavior mean the supplier perceives the buyer to share understanding of what additional effort (beyond requirements) is needed to reach the (perceived) shared goal, either by one party or by both (Kashyap & Sivadas, 2012; Wuyts, 2007). For example, both parties want to quickly finish the design required for a contract. The supplier is willing to expedite the design by prioritizing the buyer’s request, as it believes the buyer will assist the supplier in doing so by reacting to questions quickly. Once the supplier believes both parties share the same perception of values, they will become internalized. Therefore, creating prescriptions on behavior, which is referred to as norms (Kashyap & Sivadas, 2012; Wiener, 1988).
Perceived norms. Perceived norms relate to prescriptions and informal rules of behavior towards
TABLE 3
Conceptualization of Perceived Social Contracts
Variable Definition Classification Source
Perceived values
Perceived shared beliefs & attitudes about goals and shared understanding of in-role & extra-role behavior (Dunfee, 1991; Kashyap & Sivadas, 2012; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987)
Shared beliefs and attitudes towards goals
Morgan & Hunt (1994) Schwartz & Bilsky (1987)
Shared perception of in-role behavior
Kashyap & Sivadas (2012)
Shared perception of extra-role behavior
Kashyap & Sivadas (2012) Wuyts (2007) Perceived norms Perceived prescriptions of behavior towards perceived shared goals (Eckerd & Hill, 2012; Heide & John, 1992; Stanko et al., 2007)
Shared perception of relational norms regarding information sharing
Heide & John (1992) Shared perception of relational
norms regarding solidarity Shared perception of relational norms regarding flexibility Shared perception of relational norms regarding reciprocity
Kaufmann & Stern (1988)
Macneil (1980)
Research Framework
repeated interactions which have not yet occurred (Dwyer et al., 1987; Kam & Lai, 2018), this increases the importance of trust building actions in this phase.
Therefore, it is expected that suppliers perceive both parties share understanding of social contracts if the buyer engages in trust building actions in the pre-contractual phase. Furthermore, it is expected that both interpersonal and interfirm trust building actions enable this perception. To research these expectations, this study will focus on what actions undertaken by the buyer build the supplier’s trust in the pre-contractual phase and how these influence the norms and values as perceived by the supplier. The following research question is applied: How can trust building actions of the buyer influence the supplier’s perception of the social contract in buyer-supplier relationships?
METHODS
Research Design
Social contracts have not been studied much (Broekhuis & Scholten, 2018; Eckerd & Hill, 2012), especially not from a supplier’s perspective (Spina et al., 2013; Wu et al., 2011). As such, little is known about how the perceived social contract is influenced by trust building actions. Therefore, this research uses a qualitative exploratory research setting. Moreover, semi-structured exploratory interviews are used to gain insight, for two reasons. First, this method allows to research novel themes and develop propositions, which can guide future (quantitative) research to confirm/refute the propositions (Whipple & Russell, 2007). Second, trust is by definition subjective (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998). Therefore, it needs to be researched in its natural setting as this allows to research how interviewees perceive the influence of trust building actions on social contracts (Norum, 2008). Semi-structured exploratory interviews allow to study this natural setting (Hancock & Algozzine, 2006; Yin, 2009).
The unit of analysis (UoA) is ‘the supplier’. This UoA allows to explore not only the supplier’s perception of a social contract, but also how suppliers believe their buyers should conduct actions to build the supplier’s trust in this perception.
Research Context
2012). Hence, it is assumed that buyers in these industries conduct trust building actions, which allows to study their influence on the perceived social contract. Thus, these industries are suitable for answering the research question.
Both small and large suppliers are researched. Small suppliers often have contact with a single buyer representative. Contradictory, large suppliers are often in contact with departments and not with a single buyer representative (Murthy & Paul, 2017; Zhang et al., 2011). Therefore, researching both allows to identify trust building actions both carried out by a single representative (interpersonal) or by buyer firms as a whole (interfirm), see data analysis for further explanation. Thus, researching both small suppliers (<250 FTE) and large suppliers (>250 FTE) allows to research the influence of both interpersonal and interfirm trust building actions on the perceived social contract. Data on the number of employees is obtained by ORBIS. Table 4 shows an overview of the anonymized interviews and companies, where for example A2 indicates the second interview at company A:
TABLE 4
Overview of Interviews and Companies Company/ -interview Interviewee function Interview length (minutes:seconds)
Industry Company activities Firm size
A1 Sales manager 63:40
Retail Selling safety
equipment to retailers. Small A2 Account manager 48:49 B1 Project manager 45:10 Manu-facturing Producing
merchandise for firms.
B2 Project manager 40:39 B3 Project manager 38:11 C1 Sales manager 37:20 Food/drink Producing consumer foods. Large
D1* Sales manager 75:38 Producing consumer
foods.
E1 General manager 54:24 Selling consumer
drinks. Small
E2 Account manager 50:30
F1 Account manager 71:00
Chemical Producing industrial materials. Large F2 Market manager 57:53 G1 Sales engineer 51:32 Manu-facturing Producing building components.
H1 Account manager 65:57 Producing packaging
machines for retailers.
I1 Account manager 44:13 Retail Producing bikes. Small
Interviewee Selection
The interviewees are selected based on four criteria. (1) The interviewees are all salespeople, as this allows to explore the supplier’s perspective. (2) The interviewees are involved in the whole pre-contractual phase, as such they can provide insight into all influences present in this phase. Furthermore, this is important since trust building actions are likely to take place over this whole phase and possibly differ per certain stage e.g. exploration and negotiation stage (Jap & Ganesan, 2000). (3) All interviewees have at least five years work experience in the researched company, so the interviewees could provide insights specific to the supplier. (4) The interviewees all have a leading role in the sale. Because of this role, the interviewees can make decisions on their own and can adapt the social contract if they perceive the buyer as trustworthy. Interviewees were identified through the researchers’ networks and recommendations of participants.
Data Collection
The data is collected by means of 14 exploratory semi-structured interviews with salespeople from 9 different companies during March, April and May 2019. Such interviews allow for exploration by standardized questions which can be elaborated upon when explaining backgrounds of phenomena arising during the interviews, allowing to gain in-depth understanding of those phenomena (Blumberg, Cooper, & Schindler, 2014). The reliability was increased because interview protocols were used during each interviews (Yin, 2009). This protocol was developed based on the existing theory and contained questions and a checklist with all (sub)variables derived from the theory, to make sure topics were covered. Moreover, a pilot interview was held before the actual interviews. Based on this, some questions were rephrased to increase the possibility to gain in-depth insight. Both trust and social contracts depend on a person’s perception (Lövblad et al., 2012; Rousseau et al., 1998). Exploratory semi-structured interviews with the supplier’s employees allow to improve understanding of the supplier’s perception (Blumberg et al., 2014; Jüttner, Peck, & Christopher, 2003). Furthermore, because of the perceived nature, data is not likely to be stored in archival data or company’s information systems. Therefore, interviews with supplier’s employees are suitable as data sources.
data would be used for. To confirm this, the interviewee had to sign a form of consent (see appendix B) before the interview was held. Before the start of the interview, interviewees were asked for permission to record the interview. One interviewee denied being recorded, therefore extensive notes were taken during the interview to gather the data. Based on the interviewee’s preference, the interviews were conducted in three settings: face-to-face, over the phone and via skype. Most interviews were held by two people, where one asked the questions and the other took notes and checked if all topics were covered. However, due to scheduling problems, not all interviews were held by two people. Furthermore, most interviews were held in English, but several interviews were conducted in Dutch or German because the interviewees felt they could better express themselves by doing so. The interview started with questions like “How would you describe your role and responsibilities within the organization?” to gain insight in the context. Hereafter, interviewees were asked to consider one specific sale. Questions such as “can you please recall in detail how the sale evolved from the first contact with the buyer to the actual contract signing? How did trust evolve?” and “What actions build your trust in the buyer?” allowed to explore trust building. Lastly, questions like “Did you feel like you had shared goals in the relationship? Why?” and “Did you feel like you and the buyer had the same perception of how to behave? Could you explain the origin of this perception?” allowed to explore the influence of trust building actions on the perceived social contract. All interviews were transcribed, and if needed translated to English to allow for coding. In these transcriptions, all data was incorporated. Furthermore, the transcriptions were verified by sending them to the interviewees and allowing revisions.
Data Analysis
buyer representative or the buyer’s firm. The sale the interviewee referred to was studied to see with whom contact took place during the pre-contractual phase. In line with Zaheer et al. (1998), actions in sales in which was referred to a single person, by e.g. stating “I was speaking to the owner of the company” were considered interpersonal. While actions in sales in which was referred to a firm, by e.g. stating “During the complete phase…you are in touch with the legal department” were considered interfirm. Table 6 shows which interviews are interpersonal or interfirm, appendix D shows the relevant quotes. (3) If the actions corresponded with table 2, interpersonal actions were labelled with an interpersonal second-order code, while interfirm actions were labelled with an interfirm second-order code. For example, (interpersonal) quotes as: “they often said eg. what do you think you should do, we trust you… they will follow up that advice with only minor changes” are coded as accept influence of the supplier, because the buyer’s representative showed its willingness to involve the supplier in decision making. While (interfirm) quotes as: “They also grant us the business, they don't always try to get the very lowest price.” are coded as communicate good intentions, as the buyer’s firm showed in their communication they were willing to be flexible towards the supplier, hence had good intentions. (4) If the actions did not correspond with table 2, an inductive code was created. For example, quotes as “But for the ones like that that require a bit more manual labor whether it’s like agreements to a contract, I think it is something worth it.” are labelled as show little additional effort is needed for demands, because the buyer showed it does not need much additional effort in terms of design. Moreover, this code is categorized as stimulation of trusting behavior (variable) because it stimulated the supplier to strive for a mutual beneficial relationship. These inductive codes are presented in table 5, appendix C shows an extensive table.
TABLE 5
Summary of New Discovered Trust Building Actions Sort of trust Variable Inductive codes
Interpersonal Stimulation of trusting behavior
Show little additional effort is needed for demands Create a ‘click’ between both parties
Communicating demands that can be met by the supplier
Show flexible attitude
TABLE 6
Interpersonal and interfirm interviews
Interpersonal interviews Interfirm interviews
Furthermore, the first-order codes were labelled with both a perceived social contract classification and variable based on table 3. This allowed to analyse the influence of the trust building action on the perceived social contract. For example, quotes as “A value customer is willing to have a long-term contract…but is also willing to do more things with you. They are willing to have discussions with you, not only regarding product and price…for a value customer, we could go one extra mile” are labelled as perceived values (variable) and shared perception of extra-role behavior (classification). This was done because both parties shared understanding of what additional effort was required. While quotes as “I will never say 100% of what I know because that gives all my cards… I only share when I know that something is coming back… It’s a game. One threw something on the table, the other time the other threw something else on the table” are labelled as perceived norms (variable) and relational norms regarding information sharing (classification), as it relates to shared informal rules on information sharing. Shared perception of relational norms regarding solidarity is not mentioned in the interviews and therefore excluded from the research.
TABLE 7
Overview Validity and Reliability Assurance Criterion Assured by:
Construct validity
• Operationalization of constructs is based on extensive literature review. • Questions were adapted after pilot interview.
Internal validity
• Patterns are identified by analyzing interviews across and within. • Rival explanations are addressed.
External validity
• Generalizability is increased by researching suppliers across four industries and both small and big suppliers.
Reliability
• An interview protocol was used and adhered to.
• Interviews were recorded and literally transcribed, transcriptions are reviewed by respondents.
• Multiple interviewers were present.
TABLE 8
RESULTS
The findings show all three trust building actions influenced perceived values and norms. This happened as all actions made suppliers believe they shared the perception of values and norms with their buyers, hence all enabled a shared perception of the social contract. How this enabling happened (mechanism) differed per trust building action and per classification of perceived values and norms. For example, stimulation of attribution of trustworthiness enabled a shared perception of extra-role behavior by making the supplier feel safe going beyond expectations. However, communication enabled a shared perception of in-role behavior by creating a perceived common attitude. In the paragraphs, it will be discussed how these mechanisms enabled a shared perception of social contracts and how buyers created this mechanism (for example how they created ‘perceived common attitude’).
Perceived Values
Overall, the findings show that interpersonal and interfirm trust building actions influenced perceived values via several mechanisms, for all interviews except C1,,E2 and F1. This happened in five ways. (1) All trust building actions influenced perceived values by making the supplier feel safe going beyond expectations. (2) Both interpersonal trust building actions influenced perceived values by creating perceived safety to meet expectations. (3) Stimulation of trusting behavior and communication influenced perceived values by creating perceived common attitude or making the supplier believe both had a shared goal. (4) Communication did so by creating perceived reciprocity. (5) Stimulation of attribution of trustworthiness influenced perceived values by making the supplier believe both had the required capabilities or shared a common understanding of the goal. In the following paragraphs it will be discussed what shared perceptions these actions enabled, how the mechanisms were created and how these mechanisms enabled a shared perception. The tables show an overview of the findings with the mechanisms (Italic text) and how buyers created these mechanisms (non-Italic text).
Stimulation of attribution of trustworthiness
It was found that a shared perception of extra-role behavior was enabled at interview I1. The buyer representative showed the ability to fulfill promises by personally focusing on new opportunities during negotiations. Therefore, the supplier believed the buyer understood what additional effort was required and felt safe treating the offer for the buyer with priority. Hence, enabling a shared perception: “This client had an entrepreneurial spirit…can think about where new opportunities lie... you always look at who delivers the most and treat them with priority” (I1).
was capable of paying and therefore capable of adhering to future contracts. Therefore, the supplier believed their effort would be rewarded (by payments), enabling a shared perception.
Lastly, at interviews A2 and I1, shared beliefs and attitudes towards goals were enabled. At A2 and I1, the buyer representative accepted the supplier’s influence in decision making regarding proposals. This made the supplier believe both teamed up and had a common understanding of the goal: “we worked together on how…we were going to offer this solution to the government”. At I1 only, the buyer representative showed the ability to fulfill promises by showing an ‘entrepreneurial spirit’, by personally looking for new opportunities for the upcoming relationship. Therefore, the supplier believed the buyer had the capabilities required for a long-term relationship and both shared an attitude towards the relationship. Table 9 shows an overview of the findings:
TABLE 9
Overview Mechanisms Stimulation of Attribution of Trustworthiness and Shared Values Trust building action Mechanism Shared
perception of Show ability to fulfill
promises
Perceived safety to go beyond expectations by focusing
on new opportunities,(I1) ➔
Extra-role behavior Accept influence of the
supplier,(B1) Perceived safety to meet expectations by not providing
too much critique,(B1) or by showing ability to pay,(E1) ➔ In-role behavior Show ability to fulfill
promises,(E1)
Accept influence of the supplier
Perceived common understanding of the goal by
involving supplier in decision making,(A2,,I1) ➔ Beliefs and attitudes towards goals Show ability to fulfill
promises
Perceived required capabilities by both by showing
entrepreneurial spirit,(I1) ➔
Stimulation of trusting behavior
had to perform for these designs, which made the supplier feel safe performing this: “for the ones like that that require a bit more manual labor…it is something worth it” (B2). Third, also at B2, by communicating demands that can be met by the supplier. The buyer representative showed understanding that her designs proposed in the pre-contractual phase required changes based on available resources. Thereby, the buyer representative showed understanding of what additional effort was required. Thus, the supplier felt safe putting additional effort in designs, which enabled the shared perception.
Furthermore, a shared perception of in-role behavior was enabled by three actions at interviews B1 and B2. First, at B2, the buyer representative communicated demands that could be met by the supplier from the beginning on. She did this by proposing useful designs in the pre-contractual phase. Therefore, the supplier felt safe designing a product (meeting requirements) as they felt they could deliver something the buyer would pay for: “she had like a really cool design to begin with… I knew that our team was capable of producing it… I genuinely like had faith…pay us upon receipt of goods (B2)”. Second, at B1, the buyer representative showed good intentions as the supplier believed they were provided sufficient input for designs before a contract was signed. This made the supplier feel safe proposing new designs (meeting requirements), because they believed the buyer was willing to do their part. Hence, enabling a shared perception: “what stops me putting effort … if they do not give an answer they do not seem to be committed (B1)”. Third, also at B1, the buyer representative used open communicating and listening by responding clearly to questions regarding offered designs. This made the supplier believe both had a positive common attitude towards the relationship and were willing to meet requirements concerning communication. Therefore, enabling a shared perception.
created as the buyer representative showed willingness to strive for a strong personal and mutually beneficial future relationship or showed both parties’ cultures matched: “Q: What gave you the thought that it was worth it? R: There was a sort of 'click'…there is also a certain culture that matches that of our company” (I1). Therefore, these actions enabled a shared perception: “it is important to illustrate for both parties that the success of the other's business goals is also beneficial to their own business goals (D1)”. The second mechanism was making the supplier perceive a shared goal, which was done by two actions. First, at D1, the buyer representative showed a flexible attitude by showing openness to discussion during negotiations: “When adapting contract terms, it is not always possible to pursue a common goal through standardized processes” (D1). Second, at B1, the buyer representative showed good intentions by creating a positive relationship in the pre-contractual design process. Therefore, the supplier believed the buyer shared their goal (expectations of the final product): “trust comes from our abilities of…making something that will please them… That comes from… a positive relationship with the client throughout the process…you would want them to be happy with your product.” (B1). Table 10 shows an overview of the findings:
TABLE 10
Overview Mechanisms Stimulation of Trusting Behavior and Shared Values Trust building action Mechanism Shared perception of Show and communicate good
intentions
Perceived common attitude by showing
responsiveness,(B1) ➔
Extra-role behavior Show little additional effort is
needed for demands Perceived safety to meet/go beyond
expectations by communicating demands
the supplier can meet,(B2)
➔ Communicating demands that
can be met by the supplier ➔
In-role behavior Show and communicate good
intentions
Perceived safety to meet expectations by
showing involvement by providing input,(B1)
➔ Use open communication and
listening
Perceived common attitude by showing
responsiveness,(B1) ➔
Use open communication and listening,(A2)
Perceived common attitude by showing
openness to supplier,(A2), by communicating collaborative vision (I1,,D1), by striving for personal relationship,(A1) or showing matching cultures,(I1)
➔
Beliefs and attitudes towards goals Show and communicate good
intentions,(I1,,D1)
Create a 'click' between both parties,(A1,,I1)
Show and communicate good intentions,(B1)
Perceived shared goal by creating positive
relationship,(B1) or by showing openness to discussion,(D1)
Communication
Similar to the interpersonal trust building actions, communication (interfirm) enabled a shared perception of all values. Shared beliefs and attitudes towards goals were enabled as buyers communicated good intentions in three ways at interviews H1 and G1. First, at H1, the buyer’s departments invited the supplier into financial negotiations. Second, at G1, the buyer and their consultants showed a partner was needed for future cooperation: “they wanted to cooperate with a very professional company that could give him the expertise and professionalism needed…Company G presented the professionalism… I believe that this was from the beginning the intention of the customer.” (G1). Because of these two actions, the suppliers believed both were pursuing a shared goal, thereby enabling the shared perception. Third, also at H1, by asking detailed questions during negotiations. This made the supplier trust the buyer to have a common attitude and thereby perceive goals as shared: “is he really interested in your machine… How detailed the questions…are, you get trust.” (H1). Communicating competence and reliability also enabled shared beliefs and attitudes towards goals. At G1, the buyer and their consultants showed their trustworthiness before concluding a contract by not changing what was informally agreed upon. Therefore, the supplier believed both had a common attitude towards such agreements.
believed both parties had a common attitude and were willing to meet requirements of information sharing: “we really share a lot…it is critical to understand the industry… they open to you… we are able actually to understand how we can add value to the customers” (F2).
Lastly, at interview F2, a shared perception of extra-role behavior was enabled as the buyer showed willingness to perform additional effort in the form of striving for a future long-term relationship. Hence, they showed understanding of what additional effort was required. Therefore, the supplier felt safe going beyond expectations: “A value customer is willing to have a long-term contract… but is also willing to do more things with you … for a value customer, we could go one extra mile.” (F2). Table 11 shows an overview of the findings. Except for perceived reciprocity which enables a shared perception of in-role behavior, the mechanisms created by communication can also be created by interpersonal trust building actions.
TABLE 11
Overview Mechanisms Communication and Perceived Values
Trust building action Mechanism Shared perception of
Communicate good intentions
Perceived shared goal by cooperating during
negotiations (H1,,G1)
➔
Beliefs and attitudes towards goals
Perceived common attitude by showing
trustworthiness (H1,,G1) Communicate competence
and reliability Perceived reciprocity by showing professionalism (B3)
➔ In-role behavior Communicate competence
and reliability,(G1) Perceived common attitude by communicating clear demands (G1) or by sharing required information (B3,,F2)
(Timely) sharing information,(B3,,F2)
Communicate good intentions Perceived safety to go beyond expectations by
showing long-term attitude (F2) ➔
Perceived Norms
Overall, the findings show that both interpersonal and interfirm trust building actions influenced perceived norms via several mechanisms, for all interviews except A1,,A2,,F2 and H1. All trust building actions influenced perceived norms by creating a perceived common understanding of flexibility. Furthermore, both stimulation of trusting behavior and communication influenced perceived norms by making the supplier trust the buyer to reciprocate or to have a common attitude. In the following paragraphs it will be discussed what shared perceptions these actions enabled, how the mechanisms were created and how these mechanisms enabled a shared perception. The tables show an overview of the findings with the mechanisms (Italic text) and how buyers created these mechanisms (non-Italic text).
Stimulation of Attribution of Trustworthiness
The findings show that a shared perception of relational norms regarding flexibility was enabled at interview B1. The buyer representative showed they accepted the supplier’s influence, by showing willingness to adapt to advice on designs proposed in the pre-contractual phase. Therefore, the supplier believed both shared understanding of the required flexibility on designs, enabling a shared perception: “people who are very picky and give a lot of feedback are also not the best clients for us. Because, we ultimately cannot deliver on what they are doing and want … good people… are also being open to our suggestions and our advice” (B1). Table 12 shows an overview:
TABLE 12
Overview Mechanisms Stimulation of Attribution of Trustworthiness and Perceived Norms Trust building action Mechanism Shared perception of Accept influence of the
supplier
Perceived common understanding of flexibility by
showing flexibility by not being fastidious (B1) ➔
Relational norms regarding flexibility Stimulation of Trusting Behavior
hence the supplier believed the buyer was willing to implement norms. Therefore, the supplier believed both had a common understanding of (future) flexibility, enabling a shared perception.
Furthermore, a shared perception of relational norms regarding information sharing was enabled in three ways at interviews C1,,D1 and E1. First, at C1, the buyer’s managing director shared general
TABLE 13
Overview Mechanisms Stimulation of Trusting Behavior and Perceived Norms
Trust building action Mechanism Shared perception of Use open communication
and listening
Perceived common attitude by open communication
-(I1) ➔ Relational norms
regarding flexibility Show and communicate
good intentions
Perceived common understanding of flexibility by
creating common value-(D1)
Share ideas, technology and information
Perceived reciprocity by sharing general information
(C1) or sharing useful information,(D1,,E1) ➔ Relational norms regarding information sharing
Perceived common attitude by sharing information
required for understanding sale,(D1)
Perceived reciprocity by showing cooperative stand
-(B2,,B1) ➔
Relational norms regarding reciprocity
Communication
Similar to interpersonal trust building actions, communication (interfirm) enabled a shared perception of all relational norms. It was found that communicating good intentions enabled a shared perception of relational norms regarding flexibility in two ways at interview E2. First, the buyer was willing to refuse offers from competitors if the supplier adapted their prices. This made the supplier feel both were willing to make adaptations and believed their flexibility (lowering prices) would be reciprocated as the buyer would make a purchase. Therefore, this action enabled a shared perception: “our customer…says: the competitor does it for example 2.15… if you drop to 2.15, I prefer to take it from you…If this works financially for me then I am doing this for sure” (E2). Second, the buyer showed willingness to grant the supplier sales, while not being the cheapest, as the buyer was mentioned on other features. Therefore, the supplier believed both had a common understanding of (future) flexibility.: “they don't always try to get the very lowest price. We are not always with everything the cheapest, so we need to score on information, be flexible and have personal contact.” (E2).
Furthermore, (timely) sharing information enabled a shared perception of relational norms regarding information sharing at interviews B3,,F1 and G1. This happened in three ways. First, at F1, the buyer’s
supplier was only willing to share information if they knew this would be reciprocated, which the buyer’s department showed by sharing general information before a sale was made. Therefore, the supplier perceived reciprocity: “I will never say 100% of what I know… It’s a game. One threw something on the table, the other time the other threw something else on the table” (F1). This perceived reciprocity is also created at G1, where the buyer and their consultants showed competence and reliability by providing feedback. Therefore, the supplier believed the buyer would share feedback if the supplier did so. Hence, perceived reciprocity enabled a shared perception: “there was no written rule… it was clearly due to the initial positive feedback that we had from the customer. Then we decided to keep such a behavior” (G1).
Lastly, at interview B3, a shared perception of relational norms regarding reciprocity was enabled. The buyer communicated competence and reliability by showing professionalism. Therefore, the supplier trusted the buyer to adhere to future contracts by paying and thereby reciprocate the supplier’s efforts on products: “If we give them a nice product with good quality they will give us the money…we know they also have deadlines and they do not goof around” (B3). Table 14 shows an overview of the findings. The mechanism perceived reciprocity which enables a shared perception of relational norms regarding flexibility is only created by communication. The other mechanisms can also be created by interpersonal trust building actions.
TABLE 14
Overview Mechanisms Communication and Perceived Norms
Trust building action Mechanism Shared perception of
Communicate good intentions
Perceived reciprocity by showing flexibility in
behavior,(E2) ➔ Relational norms regarding flexibility
Perceived common understanding of flexibility
by granting the supplier business,(E2) ➔ (Timely) sharing information
Perceived common attitude by sharing
information needed by suppliers to meet demand and deadlines timely (F1,B3)
➔
Relational norms regarding
information sharing (Timely) sharing information,(F1)
Perceived reciprocity by sharing general
information (F1,,G1) ➔
Communicate competence and reliability,(G1)
Communicate competence and reliability
Perceived reciprocity by showing professional
behavior,(B3) ➔
DISCUSSION
This study looked to the influence of trust building actions on the perceived social contract, whereas earlier research focused on either trust building actions (e.g. Six et al., 2010) or the role of trust at social contracts (e.g. Eckerd & Hill, 2012). The findings acknowledge trust building is required for social contracts to exist (Eckerd & Hill, 2012; Li et al., 2014; Lövblad et al., 2012) and this research adds this also holds in the pre-contractual phase. The trust building actions influence the perceived social contract by creating trusting contexts (for example perceived shared goal). In these contexts, the supplier trusts the buyer to share the same perception of the social contract (Huang et al., 2015; Kashyap & Sivadas, 2012; Li et al., 2014; Lövblad et al., 2012). For this research, perceived social contracts are divided into perceived values and norms. Perceived values exist of three elements: shared beliefs and attitudes towards goals, shared perception of in-role and shared perception of extra-role behavior. Perceived norms also exist of three elements: shared perception of relational norms regarding flexibility, information sharing and reciprocity. This study identified how the trusting contexts are created and how they enabled a shared perception of each element.
Three trust building actions have been included in this research: stimulation of attribution of trustworthiness (interpersonal), stimulation of trusting behavior (interpersonal) and communication (interfirm). In the following paragraphs the influence of these trust building actions will be discussed in light of the existing literature, for perceived values, perceived norms and their elements separately.
Perceived Values
Acknowledging Huang et al. (2015) and Kashyap and Sivadas (2012), all trust building actions enable a shared perception of values. Nevertheless, this study identified that several trusting contexts, such as perceived reciprocity, are specifically created by either interpersonal or interfirm trust building actions. Yet, there are also trusting contexts which can be created by both interpersonal and interfirm actions.
Shared beliefs and attitudes towards goals. Shared beliefs and attitudes towards goals are enabled
that can be created by a specific trust building action. For example, only stimulation of trusting behavior can enable shared beliefs and attitudes by making the supplier perceive both have a shared goal (trusting context). This acknowledges previous authors who found that both interpersonal trust (for example Six et al., 2010) and interfirm trust (for example Doney & Cannon, 1997) are multidimensional. Hence, trust building actions can enable shared beliefs and attitudes towards goals through unique, but also generic trusting contexts.
Only stimulation of attribution of trustworthiness enables shared beliefs and attitudes towards goals by creating a perceived common understanding of the goal, or by making the supplier believe both parties have the required capabilities. This happens as the buyer involves the supplier in decision making or shows a long-term vision. This finding adds to Kashyap and Sivadas (2012) by showing how buyers enable this shared perception.
Both stimulation of trusting behavior and communication enable shared beliefs and attitudes towards goals by making suppliers believe both have a shared goal. This happens as the buyer, during negotiations, shows a flexible attitude or creates a positive relationship. Furthermore, these trust building actions also enable this shared perception by a perceived common attitude, as buyers show commitment, willingness to collaborate and/or a personal ‘click’. These findings add to Huang et al. (2015) how interpersonal and interfirm trust building actions create perceived common goals and attitudes. Therefore, the following is proposed:
P1a. Stimulation of attribution of trustworthiness enables shared beliefs and attitudes towards goals by making the supplier belief both have a common understanding of the goal and/or by making the supplier believe both have the required capabilities.
P1b. Stimulation of trusting behavior and communication enable shared beliefs and attitudes towards goals by making the supplier believe both have a shared goal and/or making the supplier believe both have a common attitude.
Shared perception of in-role and extra-role behavior. All trust building actions enable a shared
happens as buyers can convince suppliers both on personal and firm level they share understanding of what additional effort is required. Furthermore, stimulation of trusting behavior enables this shared perception by creating a perceived common attitude. These findings extend Wuyts (2007), who found that a cooperative atmosphere in the relationship promotes extra-role behavior. Furthermore, interpersonal trust building actions enable a shared perception of in-role behavior by making the supplier feel safe meeting expectations. This happens in two ways. First, the buyer representative shows the supplier that it is ‘worth it’ meeting the buyer’s requirements, by showing the buyer is willing to perform their role too. This acknowledges Kashyap and Sivadas (2012) who stated that interpersonal trust promotes the fulfillment of in-role behavior. Second, complementing Kashyap and Sivadas (2012), the buyer representatives stimulate the supplier to meet the buyer’s requirements, as the representative convinces the supplier they can meet these requirements. Lastly, both stimulation of trusting behavior and communication enable a shared perception of in-role behavior (Huang et al., 2015). For both this happens by making the supplier believe both have a common attitude, as the buyer shares required information or provides clear answers on questions. For communication only, this happens as the buyer makes the supplier perceive reciprocity, by showing professional behavior. These findings add to Huang et al. (2015) by showing how buyers enable a shared perception of in-role behavior. Therefore, the following is proposed:
P2a. All trust building actions enable a shared perception of extra-role behavior by making the supplier feel safe going beyond expectations.
P2b. Stimulation of trusting behavior enables a shared perception of extra-role behavior by making the supplier perceive a common attitude.
P2c. Interpersonal trust building actions enable a shared perception of in-role behavior by making the supplier feel safe meeting expectations.
P2d. Stimulation of trusting behavior and communication enable a shared perception of in-role behavior by making the supplier perceive a common attitude.
Influence of interpersonal and interfirm trust building actions. Both interpersonal and interfirm
trust building actions enable a shared perception of values (Huang et al., 2015; Kashyap & Sivadas, 2012). In line with Zaheer et al. (1998), the findings suggest that interpersonal trust also builds interfirm trust and vice versa. This happens as suppliers are willing to engage in in-role and/or extra role behavior, thus making themselves vulnerable to opportunistic behavior by both the buyer’s firm and buyer’s representative, based on either interpersonal or interfirm trust. Therefore, the following is proposed:
P3. Interpersonal and interfirm trust building actions both enable perceived values.
Perceived Norms
Several trusting contexts which enable a shared perception of relational norms are identified. Overall, these contexts are created by both interpersonal and interfirm trust building actions (Ashnai et al., 2016). However, stimulation of attribution of trustworthiness (interpersonal) does not enable a shared perception of all relational norms.
Shared perception of relational norms regarding flexibility. All trust building actions enable a
shared perception of these norms. This happens as the buyer makes the supplier believe both have a common understanding of norms on flexibility (Pilbeam et al., 2012). This finding complements Pilbeam et al. (2012) by showing what actions build this common understanding. Furthermore, communication enables this shared perception by making the supplier believe their efforts will be reciprocated by a purchase, as the buyer refuses offers from competitors. Lastly, this shared perception is enabled by stimulation of trusting behavior, by making the supplier believe both have a common attitude. This happens as the buyer representative focuses on finding solutions to complaints. Heide and John (1992) stated that relational norms require both parties to consider each other's interests. These findings acknowledge this and add how parties can consider this. Therefore, the following is proposed:
P4b. Communication enables a shared perception of relational norms regarding flexibility by making the supplier trust the buyer to reciprocate their efforts by making a purchase.
P4c. Stimulation of trusting behavior enables a shared perception of relational norms regarding flexibility by making the supplier believe both have a common attitude.
Shared perception of relational norms regarding information sharing. Both stimulation of
trusting behavior and communication enable a shared perception of these norms. For both actions, this happens as the buyer is the one who starts sharing information. Therefore, the supplier is sure the buyer will reciprocate their information sharing (Luu et al., 2018). Furthermore, also for both actions, a shared perception of these norms is enabled as the buyer firm shares information required by the supplier. This makes suppliers believe both have a common attitude towards information sharing. These findings acknowledge Ashnai et al. (2016) who found a positive relation between interpersonal and interfirm trust building actions and adherence to norms on information sharing. These findings add to literature by showing how both actions build the required trust. Furthermore, Luu et al. (2018) noted that suppliers are less likely to adhere to norms on information sharing with buyers in which they have low trust. The findings show buyers can build this trust by starting to share information and/or share information required by the supplier. Therefore, the following is proposed:
P5a. Stimulation of trusting behavior and communication enable a shared perception of relational norms regarding information sharing by creating perceived reciprocity, as the buyer shares information as first.
P5b. Stimulation of trusting behavior and communication enable a shared perception of relational norms regarding information sharing by making the supplier believe both have a common attitude, as the buyer shares information required by the supplier.
Shared perception of relational norms regarding reciprocity. Communication enables a shared
only communicating firm trustworthiness is sufficient to enable a shared perception. Moreover, this shared perception is also enabled by stimulation of trusting behavior. This acknowledges Dong et al. (2017), who showed that only partners within relationships with a high level of interpersonal trust have a shared perception of relational norms regarding reciprocity. These findings show buyers can either communicate interfirm trust or stimulate trusting behavior to enable a shared perception of these norms. Both trust building actions enable this shared perception by making the supplier believe its actions will be reciprocated. Therefore, the following is proposed:
P6. Stimulation of trusting behavior and communication enable a shared perception of relational norms regarding reciprocity by making the supplier believe its actions will be reciprocated.
Influence of interpersonal and interfirm trust building actions. Both interpersonal and interfirm
trust building actions enable a shared perception of all relational norms (Ashnai et al., 2016). Contradictory to the expectations, stimulation of attribution of trustworthiness does not enable a shared perception of relational norms on information sharing and reciprocity. This finding adds to Ashnai et al. (2016) that a shared perception of these norms can only be enabled through stimulation of trusting behavior and communication. Furthermore, Ashnai et al. (2016) only found that interpersonal and interfirm trust enable a shared perception of norms on information sharing, commitment and relational investments. This study extends their findings by showing that interpersonal and interfirm trust building actions also enable a shared perception of norms on flexibility and reciprocity. Therefore, the following is proposed:
CONCLUSION
This research has led to insight in how the buyer’s trust building actions influence the supplier’s perception of the social contract in the pre-contractual phase. It was identified how the buyer’s trust building actions create trusting contexts, which can differ per element of perceived values and norms. These contexts influence the supplier’s perception of the social contract by making the supplier trust the buyer to have the same perception of values and norms. As such, they enable a shared perception.
For perceived values, the trusting contexts can be created either by a specific trust building action, or by several trust building actions. This adds to the understanding of the influences by identifying the boundaries. For perceived norms, stimulation of attribution enables a shared perception of relational norms regarding flexibility. However, it was revealed that stimulation of trusting behavior and communication enable a shared perception of all relational norms. This adds to theory that only by creating strong two-way relationships and by building interfirm trust, buyers can enable a shared perception of all relational norms. All insights into the influences have led to the development of propositions, which enable scholars to quantify the influences and possibly identify ‘optimal’ approaches.
Managerial Implications
Limitations and Future Research
REFERENCES
Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. 1989. Determinants of Continuity in Conventional Industrial Channel Dyads. Marketing Science, 8(4): 310–323.
Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. 1990. A Model of Distributor Firm and Manufacturer Firm Working Partnerships. Journal of Marketing, 54(1): 42–58.
Ashnai, B., Henneberg, S. C., Naudé, P., & Francescucci, A. 2016. Inter-personal and inter-organizational trust in business relationships: An attitude–behavior–outcome model.
Industrial Marketing Management, 52: 128–139.
Blois, K., & Ivens, B. 2007. Method issues in the measurement of relational norms. Journal of
Business Research, 60(5): 556–565.
Blumberg, B., Cooper, D., & Schindler, P. 2014. Business Research Methods (4th ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.
Bradach, J. L., & Eccles, R. G. 1989. Price, authority, and trust: from ideal types to plural forms.
Annual Review of Sociology, 15(1): 97–118.
Broekhuis, M., & Scholten, K. 2018. Purchasing in service triads: the influence of contracting on contract management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 38(5): 1188–1204.
Delbufalo, E. 2012. Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships: a systematic literature review and a meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, 17(4): 377–402.
Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. 1997. An Examination of the Nature of Trust in Buyer-Seller Relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(2): 35–51.
Dong, W., Ma, Z., & Zhou, X. 2017. Relational governance in supplier-buyer relationships: The mediating effects of boundary spanners’ interpersonal guanxi in China’s B2B market.
Journal of Business Research, 78: 332–340.
Dowell, D., Morrison, M., & Heffernan, T. 2015. The changing importance of affective trust and cognitive trust across the relationship lifecycle: A study of business-to-business
relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 44: 119–130.
Dunfee, T. W. 1991. Business ethics and extant social contracts. Cambridge University Press, 1(1): 23–51.
