Antecedents of peer trust in franchising:
The role of the franchise system’s culture
Master Thesis
MSc BA Small Business & Entrepreneurship
July 3
rd, 2016
Karin Smit
S2190494
Supervisor: Dr. E.P.M. Croonen
Co-assessor: Dr. M.J. Brand
Word count: 13,369
Abstract
This study aims to narrow the literature gap on antecedents of peer trust in a franchise system. It is important to study this, since horizontal agency problems can exist when there is a lack of trust among the franchisees. Three dimensions of organizational culture are proposed to have an influence on peer trust; the bureaucratic, the supportive and the innovative dimension. Furthermore, intrabrand competition is introduced as a moderating variable to influence the relationship between the cultural dimensions and peer trust. This research is conducted from the perspective of the franchisees. A questionnaire has been completed by 72 franchisees in an US franchise system. The results show that only the perception of a supportive culture positively influences peer trust, whereas no significant results were found for the other variables. This implies that a supportive culture in the franchise system might be important for peer trust among the franchisees. In addition, no significant moderating effect of intrabrand competition was found. For future researchers it is suggested to investigate how franchisors can create a supportive culture in the franchise system and to explore other antecedents of peer trust.
1
Table of content
1. Introduction 2
2. Theoretical Background 5
2.1 The importance of peer trust 5
2.2 Defining peer trust 6
2.3 Culture of the franchise system 7
2.3.1 Relationship between culture and trust 8
2.3.2 Bureaucratic dimension 9 2.3.3 Supportive dimension 10 2.3.4 Innovative dimension 11 2.4 Intrabrand competition 12 2.5 Conceptual model 14 3. Methodology 15 3.1. Data collection 15 3.2. Analysis 15 3.3. Measurements 16 3.3.1 Dependent variable 16 3.3.2 Independent variables 16 3.3.3 Moderating variable 17 3.3.4 Control variables 17 4. Results 19
4.1 Descriptive statistics and correlations 19
4.2 Hypotheses testing 21
4.3 Additional analyses 23
5. Discussion and Conclusions 26
5.1 Discussion 26
5.2 Conclusion 27
5.3 Theoretical and managerial implications 27
5.4 Limitations and further research 28
References 31
Appendix 36
Table A: Variables, statements and labels 36
2
1. Introduction
The franchise industry is doing well and is set to grow even more, according to the International Franchise Association (Rogers, 2016). More and more businesses adjust their model to a franchising model (Rogers, 2016). According to the growth forecast of 2016 there will be 795,932 franchises in the U.S. this year (Rogers, 2016). The business concept, which is American from origin, is also doing very well in the Netherlands; in ten years the amount of franchise units has increased from 16,000 to 30,000 (Nu.nl, 2012). In 2015 the amount of franchise units was 30,262 and the amount of franchisors was 744 (NFV, 2016).
Franchising can be defined as “a contractual agreement by and between two parties whereby one party extends the right to the other party to carry on an independent business under the trade mark or trade name or brand of the franchisor and to receive sufficient privileged know-how, derived through the franchisor’s experience in operating such a business, throughout the term of the agreement, consisting of all components as to enable a previously inexperienced person to establish a successful business under the franchisor’s brand” (Webber, 2013, p. 20). The one party is the franchisor who is a person or company that has created a commercial business and who wishes to allow other persons or companies to operate a business under their brand, and the other party is the franchisee who is a person or company that agrees to purchase the rights to operate an independent business using the franchisor’s specialist know-how and brand in exchange for a financial consideration (Webber, 2013).
The relationship between the franchisee and the franchisor is one that has been studied multiple times over the years. For example, topics within this relationship are free-riding (Kidwell et al., 2007) and compliance (Davies et al., 2011). The agency theory has been used to explain this relationship, since the franchisor can be seen as the principal who delegates authority and the franchisees as the agents (Combs & Ketchen, 2003). Since the franchisor has more power than the franchisees, there is a risk of the franchisor’s opportunistic behavior. According to Croonen et al. (2015), due to such vertical agency problems the franchisees’ trust in the franchisor is very important. Trust is the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party (Mayer et al., 1995). A selection of the franchising literature can be found about franchisee trust. Croonen (forthcoming) did a systematic literature review about antecedents of the franchisee’s trust on different levels and listed all the proposed antecedents of trust. Croonen (forthcoming) concludes that the literature on antecedents of franchisee trust is still fragmented and can benefit from research on trust antecedents in other organizational contexts.
3
franchisees can have important implications. Croonen et al. (2015) state that the financial performance of the franchisee depends on the behavior of other franchisees. Croonen et al. (2015) are the first to distinguish between a franchisee’s trust in the franchisor and a franchisee’s trust in his or her peers. They say this is important, because franchisees are dependent on whether their peers are willing and able to implement the franchisor’s business format in their own units. Furthermore, franchisees that trust each other are more likely to form networks where they can share knowledge which can improve the franchisee’s performance (Croonen et al., 2015). One study that comes close to research about peer trust in franchising is the paper of El Akremi et al. (2010) about the role of cohesion among franchisees. They argue that trust and social control among the franchisees, which are related to the perception of cohesion, can diminish opportunistic behaviors. However, apart from the paper of Croonen et al. (2015), there is no literature about peer trust itself in franchising and therefore, this aspect is studied more in depth in this paper, where peer trust indicates a franchisee’s willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of his or her peers within the franchise system. In particular, the goal of this research is to study the antecedents of peer trust in franchising.
Trust exists across different levels and trust referents. Peer trust exists when a franchisee trusts the other franchisees within their franchise system. Thus, peer trust is on the individual level and the trust referent is a team; the franchisees in the same franchise system. Fulmer and Gelfand (2012) did a systematic review of trust across different levels and trust referents. Antecedents of peer trust in franchising have not been identified before. However, antecedents of individual trust in teams have been, although these are limited. These antecedents are characteristics of the trustee or trustor, or both. Coworker trust is an example of trust on the individual level in a team and is a concept close to peer trust among franchisees, since coworkers and franchisees both work for the same boss and for the same brand. Coworker trust has been studied before, but these studies are limited as well (Tan & Lim, 2009). Since there is not much research done about antecedents of individual trust in teams, Fulmer and Gelfand (2012) recommend doing research about antecedents that have been identified in research on individual trust in interpersonal referents, for instance, communication, networks and organizational contexts. Therefore, these antecedents could also be examined as antecedents of peer trust in franchising.
4
previous literature; trust has been found as an antecedent, consequence and part of an organizational culture. The culture of the franchise system might have important implications for the franchisee’s trust in others working in the system. In this research it is expected that the franchisee’s perception of the culture in the franchise system can be an important antecedent of peer trust and therefore, it is included likewise in this paper.
Furthermore, it is proposed that intrabrand competition has a moderating effect on the relationship between the franchise system’s culture and peer trust, since it can change how franchisees feel about the franchise system and their fellow franchisees and it can cause problems within the franchise system (Cochet et al., 2008). Intrabrand competition exists when franchisees perceive that they are competing with fellow franchisees within the same franchise system.
The purpose of this paper is to narrow the literature gap about peer trust in a franchise system and to contribute to the literature about franchising. Based on the found literature gap and the goal of this research, two research questions have been formulated. First of all, it is important to understand how the franchisee’s perception of organizational culture can influence peer trust. Therefore, the first research question is:
1. How does the franchisee’s perception of the culture of a franchise system influence peer trust? Furthermore, it is analyzed how intrabrand competition within the franchise system moderates the relationship between the three cultural dimensions and peer trust. Thus, the second research question is:
2. How is the relationship between the franchisee’s perception of the culture of a franchise system and peer trust moderated by intrabrand competition?
This research contributes to the literature field of franchising by investigating an understudied topic in the franchising literature. Furthermore, it gives franchisors new insights in how to manage their franchise system and perhaps how to improve peer trust and reduce behavioral problems among their franchisees.
5
2. Theoretical background
This section discusses the theoretical framework and elaborates on the variables of this research. In addition, the hypotheses and conceptual model based on the literature gap are developed.
2.1 The importance of peer trust
In this paper, the concept of trust is analyzed from the franchisee’s perspective. Since this paper is about trust among franchisees, the term peer trust is used. Important to mention is that this concept is about franchisees that work in the same franchise system, thus, for the same franchisor, and the franchisees have interdependencies with each other. As mentioned before, in this paper peer trust is on the individual level and the referent is a team; the other franchisees in the franchise system.
According to Croonen et al. (2015), peer trust is an important aspect in franchising, due to horizontal agency risks that exist within the franchise system. A franchisee’s behavior such as free-riding and non-compliance may negatively affect the results of other franchisees. Franchisees’ trust in each other is important, because a franchisee is dependent on the other franchisees whether they will implement the franchisor’s business format and thereby create a consistent image to the outside world (Croonen et al., 2015). Furthermore, franchisees that trust each other can form networks together to share knowledge to improve their performance (Croonen et al., 2015). Schaubroeck et al. (2013) say peer trust among coworkers is important, since it can enhance the quality of social exchanges and thereby enable workers to acquire information support and other resources. Since coworker trust and trust among franchisees are concepts that are close to each other, this might also be true in the franchising concept. Thus, trust is important for franchisees, since they can use their network with other franchisees for support and thereby improve their performance. If a franchisee does not trust the other franchisees, he or she is less likely to work with them and the franchisee might miss the opportunity to improve his or her performance.
6
2.2 Defining peer trust
Trust has been defined in many ways in the literature. Fulmer and Gelfand (2012) have done a systematic literature review of trust. They state that there are two key dimensions within most of these definitions, which are positive expectations of trustworthiness and willingness to accept vulnerability. The first one refers to perceptions, beliefs, or expectations about the trustee’s intention and being able to rely on the trustee and the second one refers to suspension of uncertainty or an intention or a decision to take risk and to depend on the trustee. Some important and often used definitions where these two dimensions are key are the definitions of Mayer et al. (1995), Doney et al (1998) and Rousseau et al. (1998), which can be found in table 1. From these definitions it can be concluded that trust exists when a trustor has the intention to be vulnerable to another party and has the expectation that the trustee will behave in a particular way.
Furthermore, from the abovenamed definitions it can be understood that the intentions of the trustee are an important aspect. Trust in the intentions of the other party should be distinguished from trust in the competences of the other party. Trust in competences means trusting that the other party is capable of doing his or her job. Trust in the intentions of others means trusting that the other party has the intention to do his or her job in the right way. Davies et al. (2011) make this distinction as well for the franchisee’s trust in the franchisor; namely, competence trust and integrity trust. They say that judging a franchisor’s competences can be problematic, due to a lack of appropriate experiential benchmarks. Therefore, franchisees need to rely more on integrity. Although this does not necessarily have to be the same for franchisees judging their peers, it is proposed that trust in intentions is more important than trust in competences, since from the abovenamed definitions it can be concluded that the intentions of the trustees play a major part in whether the trustor trusts them. Accordingly, in this research the focus is on trust in intentions, thus, when the term trust is used, it refers to a franchisee’s trust in the intentions of the other franchisees.
7
Important to note is that trust can be distinguished from trustworthiness and trust propensity, although these concepts are close to each other. Colquitt et al. (2007) makes this distinction and according to them, trust is the intention to accept vulnerability to a trustee based on positive expectations of his or her actions. This definition corresponds with the definitions discussed before. Colquitt et al. (2007) say trustworthiness captures the competence and character of the trustee and can be divided in three dimensions; ability, benevolence and integrity. Thus, trustworthiness is about how the trustor sees the trustee. Trust propensity is defined as a stable individual difference that affects the likelihood that a person will trust (Colquitt et al., 2007). Trust propensity indicates if the trustee is a trusting person in general. According to Colquitt et al. (2007), trustworthiness and trust propensity are antecedents of trust. It seems that trustworthiness and trust propensity influence trust and therefore, they are introduced as control variables in this research.
Table 1: Definitions of trust
Author Year Definition trust
Mayer et al. 1995
“the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party” (p. 712).
Doney et al. 1998
“the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party” (p. 604).
Rousseau et al. 1998
“a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another” (p. 395).
Tan and Lim 2009 “the willingness of a person to be vulnerable to the actions of fellow coworkers whose behavior and actions that person cannot control” (p. 46).
2.3 Culture of the franchise system
8
describe an organizational culture. Thus, it can be said that an organizational culture is about a group of employees that share the same thinking and understanding about how to behave in the organization. According to Wallach (1983) organizational cultures are complex, elusive and paradoxical and can differ like people’s personalities. It is important to understand the differences and how the things are done in a specific organization. Therefore, Wallach (1983) distinguishes three dimensions within organizational culture; bureaucratic, supportive and innovative. Important to note is that all cultures cannot be divided in three parts, but the three separate dimensions can occur in different combinations (Wallach, 1983). Those three dimensions will be used to analyze the franchisee’s perception of the culture in the franchise system and they will be elaborated on further on in this paper.
In a franchise system an organizational culture also exists. Since the franchisees, franchisor and other employees in the system all work for the same brand, they can also share the same values and ideas about what behavior is appropriate in their franchise system. According to Nathan (2008), a franchise culture (or network) is a “community” of business people sharing a brand and systems to gain a competitive edge. In this paper the franchisee’s perception of the culture in the whole franchise system is studied. Thus, this is research is about what the franchisee believes is appropriate behavior within their franchise system, and what the franchisee believes are the values and goals everyone in the franchise system shares.
2.3.1 Relationship between culture and trust
This paper looks at the relationship of the perception of organizational culture and peer trust in franchising. In particular, this paper looks at the franchisee’s perception of the franchise system’s culture as an antecedent of the franchisee’s trust in his or her peers. No literature can be found about this specific topic, since peer trust in franchising is a very new topic. However, other literature about organizational culture and trust might suggest that the franchisee’s perception of the culture in the franchise system influences the franchisee’s trust in his or her peers.
First of all, Wiewiora et al. (2014) et al. linked organizational culture and trust with each other. They used the definition of Schein to define organizational culture. They argue that culture on organizational level influences trusting behaviors between individuals. Wiewiora et al. (2014) state it was found that culture, depending on which cultural values are important, can constrain or contribute to the development of trust. This indicates that organizational culture can influence trust in different ways.
9
Third, one paper about trust and culture in the franchising context is from Grace et al. (2016). In their paper the culture of the franchisor’s team was analyzed, where the team consisted of the franchisor and the managers, administrative workers and other people working for the franchise system. According to Grace et al. (2016), a culture consists of the combination of values, beliefs and assumptions that underpin organizational behavior. In a strong team culture cohesion, flexibility and high morale are encouraged. The franchisee’s perception of a strong team culture was found to positively influence the perception of a franchisor’s competence and character, which in turn were found to be determinants of franchisee trust (Grace et al., 2016). Thus, it seems that the culture within the franchise system indirectly influences trust.
Based on the above, it is proposed that organizational culture will also influence peer trust in franchising. The franchisees’ perceptions of the culture in their franchise system are analyzed and the three abovenamed dimensions of Wallach (1983) are used for this. Based on these dimensions it can be seen how a culture can have an influence on peer trust and if this is a positive or negative relationship. Since literature about the relationship between these cultural dimensions and peer trust does not exist, literature about the different values belonging to the cultural dimensions in relation with trust in general is used to create a theoretical framework. In the next sections each cultural dimension and their relation to trust is explained in detail and the hypotheses based on the literature are formulated.
2.3.2 Bureaucratic dimension
According to Wallach (1983), a bureaucratic culture is hierarchical and compartmentalized with clear lines of responsibility and authority. Work is organized and systematic and usually based on control and power (Wallach, 1983). Characteristics of a bureaucratic culture are power-oriented, cautious, established, solid, regulated, ordered, structured, procedural and hierarchical (Wallach, 1983).
Grey and Garsten (2001) state that in a bureaucratic culture trust is installed within the organizational routines that come with predictability and reliability. Trust is an artefact of following the rules of conduct. Furthermore, Grey and Garsten (2001) say that bureaucratic organizations are extremely effective in producing trust on the intra-organizational level, thus, people within the organization as both trustees and trustors. Especially at higher levels in the organization trust is routinely secured, due to the existence of a certain kind of community supplying a largely traditional basis for predictability and trust (Grey & Garsten, 2001). Thus, it seems that a bureaucratic culture in an organization can create trust.
decision-10
making is regulated by written rules and procedures. This is one important aspect of a bureaucratic culture. In addition, Kidwell et al. (2007) say higher levels of formalization allow a franchisee to understand his or her role, making expectations clear and lowering role ambiguity.
Thee abovenamed arguments imply that a bureaucratic culture is more likely to lead to higher trust levels. Therefore, it is expected that a franchisee’s perception of a bureaucratic culture in the franchise system can have a positive effect on peer trust. However, counterarguments can also be given. Wiewiora et al. (2014) state that organizations with high-control and formalized cultures will constrain the development of trusting relationships. They say that cultures that are low-control and less formal are more likely to delegate decisions and communicate openly and there is an environment created where trust between individuals can be developed. This might imply that franchisees will be less trusting when they perceive a bureaucratic culture. Nonetheless, in this paper it is proposed that the franchisee’s perception of a bureaucratic culture has a positive relationship with peer trust, since Dahlstrom and Nygaard (1995) found a positive relationship between formalization and interpersonal trust. This leads to the first hypothesis, formulated as:
H1: A franchisee’s perception of a bureaucratic culture in the franchise system has a positive influence on peer trust.
2.3.3 Supportive dimension
A supportive culture exists when people are friendly, fair and helpful to each other and there is an open, harmonious and warm environment (Wallach, 1983). According to Wallach (1983), a highly supportive environment is trusting, safe, equitable, sociable, encouraging, open, relationship-oriented and collaborative. Appelbaum et al. (2004) say that a supportive organization offers its members satisfactions that are derived from relationships: mutuality, belonging, and connection.
Grace et al. (2016) did research about the franchisee’s trust in the franchisor and they found that when an organizational culture consists of values that reinforce teamwork and trust, franchisee trust (in the franchisor) is built. Furthermore, they name values as frankness, open communication and integrity as important for a trusting environment. These values relate to the values of a supportive culture and this might imply that a supportive culture positively influences trust.
11
employees. Therefore, in this paper it is argued that, within the franchising context, if franchisees perceive a supportive culture, it is more likely that they will trust their peers. Thus, the following hypothesis is:
H2: A franchisee’s perception of a supportive culture in the franchise system has a positive influence on peer trust.
2.3.4 Innovative dimension
According to Wallach (1983), an innovative culture is exciting and dynamic where entrepreneurial and ambitious people thrive in. The environment is a creative place to work with challenges and risks and where stimulation is often a constant (Wallach, 1983). An innovative organization is driving, enterprising, challenging, stimulating, creative, results-oriented and risk-taking (Wallach, 1983). The influence of an innovative organization on trust is an understudied topic in the literature. A topic related to an innovative culture is the innovative dimension of an entrepreneurial orientation within the franchise system. An entrepreneurial orientation “refers to a firm’s strategic orientation, capturing specific entrepreneurial aspects of decision-making styles, methods, and practices” (Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005, p. 74). It consists of three dimensions; innovativeness, proactiveness and risk taking. Sometimes two other dimensions are added; autonomy and competitive aggressiveness (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). The innovativeness dimension “reflects a firm's tendency to engage in and support new ideas, novelty, experimentation, and creative processes that may result in new products, services, or technological processes” (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996, p. 142).
An entrepreneurial orientation has been studied in relation to the franchisee-franchisor relationship. Dada and Watson (2012) found that the entrepreneurial orientation of the franchise system was positively related to the quality of the relationship between the franchisor and the franchisee. They argue that franchise systems with an entrepreneurial orientation will have a better relationship quality, since it will enable a true entrepreneurial partnership between the franchisor and the franchisee. In the article of Strutton (1995) it was found that innovativeness has a positive influence on solidarity in the franchisor-franchisee relationship. The reasoning behind this is that if franchisees perceive franchisor’s support of innovativeness, they are likely to support other behavior expected by the franchisor as well. These arguments suggest that an entrepreneurial orientation can strengthen the relationship between the franchisee and franchisor. This can imply that the franchisee will have more trust in the franchisor, since franchise interactions with franchisees are important for developing trust (Dada and Watson, 2012).
12
conflict and damage integrity in the system. These negative behaviors might affect other franchisees as well and can negatively influence peer trust.
Strutton (1995) says it was found that innovative employees experienced significantly more conflict than adaptive employees. The efforts of the innovative employees to set up creative workplaces and their responses to problems were often discouraged by the adaptive employees (Strutton, 1995). These conflicts can be reduced when the franchisees feel more support from their franchisor for being innovative. However, if franchisees are not on the same level of innovativeness this might have a negative influence on peer trust, since the less innovative franchisees might feel less appreciated in an innovative culture. These franchisees might think the other franchisees can hurt the consistent image of the franchise system and consequently, they trust their fellow franchisees less. Although there is not much evidence that an innovative culture has a negative influence on peer trust, it is proposed that the relationship is indeed negative. Consequently, the next hypothesis has been developed:
H3: A franchisee’s perception of an innovative culture in the franchise system has a negative influence on peer trust.
2.4 Intrabrand competition
In this paper the franchisee’s perception of intrabrand competition is proposed to have a moderating effect on the relationship between the franchisee’s perception of culture and peer trust. Intrabrand competition in the franchising context exists when franchisees feel as if they compete with their fellow franchisees. It can occur when franchisees perceive that they have to prove themselves and have to be the best in their franchise system, due to for example award systems (Dada et al., 2011). Furthermore, intrabrand competition can take place when the system grows and geographical proximity of the franchisees increases (Cochet et al., 2008). Consequently, the franchisees are more clustered and market size and returns of investments are reduced. This can cause problems like agency issues, horizontal externalities and free-riding, which in turn can affect the individual performances of the franchisees (Cochet et al., 2008).
13
relationship between the franchisee’s perception of the franchisor’s duty fulfillment and the franchisee assessments of the franchisor trustworthiness. These results might imply that intrabrand competition could moderate other relationships where trustworthiness or trust (since this is close to trustworthiness) is the dependent variable as well.
In this research paper, it is argued that intrabrand competition influences the relationship between the perception of culture in the franchise system and peer trust. First of all, it is proposed that intrabrand competition will weaken the positive effect of a bureaucratic culture on peer trust. If a franchisee perceives high competition, he or she can feel that the other franchisees are not compliant with the rules and regulations of the franchise system and they do not respect the culture. Thus, the franchisee will rely less on the cultural values that belong to a bureaucratic culture and therefore, the relationship between the perception of a bureaucratic culture and peer trust will be weakened.
Second, for the perception of a supportive culture this moderating effect will also be a weakening effect. If a franchisee perceives high competition among their fellow franchisees, he or she will perceive less support from his or her peers and the franchisee might not perceive strong cultural values and norms regarding a supportive culture. Therefore, the relationship between the perception of a supportive culture and peer trust will be weaker.
Lastly, in a perceived innovative culture the negative relationship between this and peer trust will be stronger due to intrabrand competition. Dada et al. (2011) argued already in their paper that with increased intrabrand competition franchisees will be encouraged to be more innovative and implement more entrepreneurial strategies. This implies that the franchisee value the innovative culture more and therefore, the negative relationship between a perception of an innovative culture and peer trust will be stronger. Accordingly, the next three hypotheses have been formulated:
14
2.5 Conceptual model
Based on the found literature and the above formulated hypotheses a conceptual model has been developed (see figure 1).
15
3. Methodology
In this part the research approach is discussed. First of all, it is explained how and where the data was collected. Furthermore, the way the analysis is executed is discussed. Lastly, the measurement of the different variables is elaborated on. In this research the theory testing process is used as a research approach. According to Van Aken et al. (2012), the driver of the theory testing approach is a business phenomenon faced by many companies, which has not been fully addressed in the academic literature. In this paper this research approach is chosen, since a literature gap exists for peer trust in franchising and the relationship with organizational culture. Based on other literature this relationship can be partly explained. However, the relationship has never been researched before and therefore, the theory testing approach is appropriate here.
3.1 Data collection
To collect the necessary data for this research, an existing dataset on trust and trustworthiness in franchising is used. Only the data that is specific for the research questions is analyzed, thus, data concerning the franchisee perceptions regarding peers and regarding the culture of the franchise system. The dataset is based on a questionnaire sent out to franchisees of an American convenience store chain, which exists of convenience stores sometimes in combination with a gas station, a pharmacy or Starbucks. Of the 83 franchisees 72 have filled in the questionnaire. The questionnaire was sent out in January 2016. All the items from the questionnaire used for this research can be found in table A in the appendix. The franchise system remains anonymous in this paper; therefore, some of the statements are edited so the name of the franchise system is left out.
3.2 Analysis
The data analysis is conducted with SPSS. The first step in the analysis is a construct validity check by means of a factor analysis. According to Blumberg et al. (2005), the purpose of a factor analysis is to discover patterns among the variables to determine if an underlying combination of the original variables can summarize the original set. De Pelsmacker and Van Kenhove (2010) distinguish between an explorative factor analysis and a confirmative factor analysis. The first serves to reduce data and the second serves to check how well a variable measures the underlying dimension. Since the aim of doing a factor analysis in this research is to check whether the statements empirically reflect the variables that were intended to be measured, the factor analysis is confirmative. Statements that do not highly correlate with one factor and that factor only are deleted.
16
subsequently, sum variables are made. Furthermore, descriptive statistics are performed to determine the mean and the standard deviation of the variables in the sample and the correlation among the variables and their significance will be determined. Finally, a moderated multiple regression analysis is done to test the hypotheses.
3.3 Measurements
The variables are measured based on the perception of the franchisees and for each variable one or more statements were formulated. For each of the statements a 1-5 Likert scale was used, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree, with an exception for the statements about the franchise culture (see below). Furthermore, there are some open and closed questions in the demographics part. For the open questions the franchisee had to fill in a number and for the closed questions the franchisee had to choose from a list of answers.
3.3.1 Dependent variable
The dependent variable in the conceptual model is peer trust. In the questionnaire statements have been formulated to measure trust, where trust is explained as the willingness to be vulnerable to other parties. To measure peer trust five statements have been formulated which are based on the paper of Cook and Wall (1980). For example, the franchisees were asked to state to what extent they agree with the statement: “I can trust my fellow franchisees to help me when needed”.
A factor analysis has been done to check whether the five items related to peer trust correlate only with one factor. Only one component was found, which means there is no underlying structure. Furthermore, the reliability has been analyzed by calculating the Cronbach Alpha. For the five items of peer trust α = 0.913, thus, the items are internally consistent with each other and the scale is highly reliable. After this a sum variable for peer trust has been made consisting of the average of the five items.
3.3.2 Independent variables
17
innovative dimension was based on the terms risk-taking, creative, stimulating, challenging and enterprising.
A factor analysis has been conducted to check the construct validity. For the items of each variable only one component was found, hence, the items within one variable are highly correlated. Cronbach Alpha values have been calculated to test the reliability of the scales. For the perception of a bureaucratic culture α = 0.709, thus, the scale is reliable. Second, the Cronbach Alpha for the perception of a supportive culture is α = 0.881, which means this scale is also reliable. Lastly, the perception of an innovative culture has a Cronbach Alpha of α = 0.836. By deleting the item “taking” the Alpha would be higher (α = 0.876), however, it is decided to keep the item in, since risk-taking is an important aspect of the innovative culture and the scale is also highly reliable including the risk-taking item. Furthermore, the average scores of the items of the three variables have been calculated and sum variables have been made for a bureaucratic culture, a supportive culture and an innovative culture.
3.3.3 Moderating variable
The moderating variable is the franchisee’s perception of intrabrand competition. This variable is measured by only one statement, namely: “I experience competition from my fellow franchisees”. The statement is based on the paper by Croonen and Broekhuizen (forthcoming). They argue that the use of only one item can be justified, since the item can be easily and uniformly imagined by the respondents (Croonen & Broekhuizen, forthcoming).
3.3.4 Control variables
The control variables for peer trust are a franchisee’s trust propensity and a franchisee’s trustworthiness perception regarding peers. According to Colquitt et al. (2007), trust propensity and trustworthiness are related to trust. Trust propensity is personality-based and can be defined as a generalized expectancy that the words or promises of others can be relied on (Colquitt et al., 2007). Statements related to propensity to trust are based on the paper of Mayer and Davis (1999). An example of one statement is: “Most adults are competent at their jobs”. Trustworthiness refers to perceived characteristics of a trustee; an exchange partner who is trustworthy is one that will not exploit the other’s exchange vulnerabilities (Schilke & Cook, 2015). Mayer et al. (1995) say there are three dimensions of trustworthiness; ability, benevolence and integrity. Accordingly, statements about trustworthiness perceptions are based on these three dimensions and are adjusted to the franchisee’s perceptions regarding peers. For example, for ability one statement is: “My fellow franchisees are capable of running their businesses”.
18
Table 2: Factor Analysis Trust Propensity
Construct Loading
Component 1
Franchisee_Trust4 (Most adults are competent at their jobs) 0.916 Franchisee_Trust2 (Can count on people to do what they say) 0.896
Component 2
Franchisee_Trust3REVERSED (Alert to someone who is likely to take advantage) 0.860
Franchisee_Trust1REVERSED (Cautious with strangers) 0.781
Eisinga et al. (2012) discuss in their paper what the most appropriate reliability indicator is with only two items, since a two-item scale might be less reliable than a multiple-item scale. They find that the Spearman-Brown formula is more appropriate than Cronbach Alpha or Pearson correlation. Therefore, reliability of the two trust propensity components is calculated with the Spearman-Brown formula instead of the Cronbach Alpha. Using the formula it seems that the reliability of the first component is ρ = 0.800 and of the second component ρ = 0.630. It is decided to exclude the items under component 2 further on in this research, since the reliability is low and the items reflect trust propensity less than the items of component 1. Thus, when trust propensity is referred to, the items under component 1 are meant. A sum variable for trust propensity is made of the average of the two items belonging to component 1.
Moreover, a factor analysis has been done for the items of the three dimensions of trustworthiness; ability, benevolence and integrity. For all three of them there was only one component found, thus, within the dimensions there were no underlying structures. The Cronbach Alpha’s for the items of ability, benevolence and integrity are respectively α = 0.866, α = 0.740 and α = 0.847. For ability the Cronbach Alpha would be higher without the item “My fellow franchisees are capable of running their businesses”, namely α = 0.877. However, the item is not deleted, since the difference is very small and the statement reflects ability well. In addition, the Cronbach Alpha for benevolence would be higher (α = 0.856) without the item “My fellow franchisees would not knowingly do anything to hurt me”. Although the difference is big, it is not deleted, since the statement reflects benevolence well and otherwise there would be only two statements relating to benevolence. Sum variables are made of ability, benevolence and integrity by taking the average of the items relating to them.
19
4. Results
In this section the analyzed data is explained and the findings flowing from the questionnaire are presented. First of all, the descriptives and correlations among the variables are explained. Next, the results from the regression analysis are presented. Furthermore, some additional analyses are discussed.
4.1 Descriptive statistics and correlations
In table 2 the means, standard deviations and correlations are demonstrated. As can be seen, the mean of every variable has a value somewhere above 3 or just above 4. This indicates that on average the franchisees were often between being neutral about the statements and agreeing with the statements. In the table it can be seen that all independent and control variables positively correlate with peer trust on a significant level. Furthermore, it is interesting to see that the three dimensions of culture significantly correlate with each other. An increase in bureaucratic culture is significantly related to an increase in supportive culture (r = 0.472, p < 0.01) and an increase in innovative culture (r = 0.397, p < 0.01). In addition, a supportive culture and an innovative culture highly correlate with each other on a significant level (r = 0.835, p < 0.01). This could indicate that the cultural dimensions might be close to each other in some ways. If franchisees perceive an innovative culture, they might also perceive a supportive culture, if for instance they feel like their franchisor supports them to be innovative. All in all, many of the variables correlate significantly with each other and all the significant relationships are positive.
20
21
4.2 Hypotheses testing
22
Table 4: Moderated regression analysis
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Step and variables B SE B SE B SE
Intercept 0.576 (0.374) 1.202** (0.433) 1.252 (0.466) Control variables Trust Propensity 0.126 (0.066) 0.090 (0.066) 0.112 (0.070) TW Ability peers 0.284 (0.154) 0.181 (0.154) 0.096 (0.185) TW Benevolence peers 0.175 (0.122) 0.132 (0.118) 0.152 (0.122) TW Integrity peers 0.329 (0.122) 0.346** (0.118) 0.380** (0.129) Main effects Bureaucratic culture 0.048 (0.052) 0.043 (0.055) Supportive culture 0.191* (0.095) 0.174 (0.101) Innovative culture -0.057 (0.087) -0.025 (0.100) Intrabrand competition -0.010 (0.053) -0.038 (0.062) Two-way interaction Bureaucratic culture x Intrabrand competition 0.003 (0.061) Supportive culture x Intrabrand competition 0.108 (0.128) Innovative culture x Intrabrand competition -0.036 (0.095) R square 0.676 0.732 0.741 Δ R square 0.056 0.009
Dependent variable: peer trust * p<0.05
23
4.3 Additional analyses
Due to the unexpected results following from the regression analysis, some additional analyses have been done to search for some interesting ideas for further research. The results are discussed in this section. In table B in the appendix the variables and the corresponding statements are presented.
First of all, the same regression analysis is executed, but with different moderators than the perception of intrabrand competition. One moderator that is tested is the franchisee’s self-efficacy. According to Cumberland et al. (2015), self-efficacy “refers to individuals’ self-perceptions about their abilities to achieve goals within a context” (p. 4). It is proposed that when a franchisee’s self-efficacy is high, this will strengthen the positive relationship between a bureaucratic or supportive culture and peer trust and weaken the negative relationship between an innovative culture and peer trust. According to Marnburg et al. (2004), the self-efficacy of a manager working in the franchising system and his or her commitment to the franchise system are highly correlated. The same might be true for franchisees, since they both work for the same franchisor and system. This could imply that franchisees with high self-efficacy are highly committed to the franchise system and culture and they might be more involved with their peers. Therefore the relationship between the perception of culture and peer trust might be influenced.
Second, subjective subunit performance is tested as a moderator variable. If franchisees believe that their unit is performing very well, they might be less focused on the other franchisees and the franchise system as a whole. This could mean that subjective subunit performance could weaken the relationship between a bureaucratic or supportive culture and peer trust and could strengthen the relationship between an innovative culture and peer trust. However, no significant interaction effects were found for both moderating variables. The results can be found in table C and D in the appendix.
24
the perception of a bureaucratic culture and peer trust. The results can be found in table E in the appendix.
Figure 2. Interaction plot learning orientation and bureaucratic culture
Furthermore, since trustworthiness and trust are concepts that are very close to each other, peer trust as a dependent variable is replaced with trustworthiness overall and the separate trustworthiness dimensions ability, benevolence and integrity (with trust propensity as the only control variable). With trustworthiness as the dependent variable again only a supportive culture is significant and none of the interaction effects are significant. The same goes for benevolence and with integrity even supportive is not significant. However, with ability as a dependent variable the interaction effect of a bureaucratic culture with intrabrand competition (B = -0.177, p < 0.05) and the interaction effect of a supportive culture with intrabrand competition (B = 0.313, p < 0.05) are both significant. In table F in the appendix the results are presented.
25
Figure 3. Interaction plot intrabrand competition and bureaucratic culture
26
5. Discussion and conclusion
In this part the results are discussed and a conclusion is drawn. Furthermore, the theoretical and managerial implications of this research are discussed. Lastly, the limitations are presented and the paper ends with suggestions for further research.
5.1 Discussion
This paper aims to contribute to the literature on antecedents of peer trust in franchising. Two research questions have been formulated to address this literature gap. First of all, the goal was to find out if the perception of culture has an influence on peer trust among franchisees. Culture has been divided into three different dimensions based on Wallach (1983) and the relationship of the perception of each dimension with peer trust has been tested.
The first dimension is a bureaucratic culture. However, there was no significant relationship found between the franchisee’s perception of a bureaucratic culture and peer trust. The explanation for this might be related to results from previous research about the relationship between bureaucracy and trust in general. Some researchers have claimed that there is a positive relationship (for example Grey & Garsten, 2001); whereas other researchers such as Wiewiora et al. (2014) believe this relationship is negative. They say that organizations which operate in high-control cultures and are formalized will constrain the development of trusting relationships. These differences might also depend on whether the franchisees like to work in a structured culture with highly valued rules and regulations. Some franchisees might believe the system is more transparent and open and therefore they trust their peers more, whereas others feel restricted and controlled in a bureaucratic culture and therefore trust their peers less. Thus, for some franchisees perceiving a bureaucratic culture peer trust is high, while for other franchisees peer trust is low. The contradicting findings could be the reason that there was no significant relationship found.
Second, a positive significant relationship was found between the franchisee’s perception of a supportive culture and peer trust. It appears that when the franchisee has a high perception of a supportive culture, peer trust is high as well. These results support the theoretical framework that was developed for this research. The findings are in line with the theory based on Grace et al. (2016), Bordonaba-Juste and Polo-Redondo (2008) and Wiewiora et al. (2014). One important aspect of a supportive culture is trusting, which might already imply that there is an environment created where trust is self-evident. Thus, the significant positive relationship between the perception of a supportive culture and peer trust is no surprise.
27
relationships. This could also imply that it can lead to a better relationship between the franchisees which can in turn increase peer trust. Thus, it depends on the franchisee’s perception of innovativeness in the system and it depends if the franchisor is supporting the franchisee’s individual innovativeness. Since an innovative culture can perhaps influence peer trust in both ways, this might explain the non-significant results. In addition, the non-non-significant results for both a bureaucratic culture and an innovative culture could be explained by the fact that franchisees can perceive more than one culture to varying degrees (Wallach, 1983). These perceptions might have overlap with each other and therefore, the results are not significant.
Furthermore, the second goal was to research how perceived intrabrand competition in the franchise system could moderate the relationship between the franchisee’s perception of culture and peer trust. However, here again no significant results were found. A reason for this might be that franchisees have different perceptions of high competition. Some franchisees might feel threatened by competition and believe it will cause problems, while other franchisees might think competition is healthy and will improve the performance of the franchise system. Although the results are different than expected, it does not mean this research has no important implications. It could also be that intrabrand competition has indeed no influence on the relationship between culture and peer trust at all and it can be excluded that intrabrand competition has a moderating effect.
5.2 Conclusion
All in all, the two research questions can be partly answered. The first research question was: How does the franchisee’s perception of the culture of a franchise system influence peer trust? The franchisee’s perception of culture positively influences peer trust, if the franchisees perceive a supportive culture in their franchise system. However, there is no evidence that the perception of other cultural dimensions has an influence on peer trust as well. Thus, the answer to the first research question is that a perception of a supportive culture positively influences peer trust.
Furthermore, the second research question was: How is the relationship between the franchisee’s perception of the culture of a franchise system and peer trust moderated by intrabrand competition? No significant relationships were found with intrabrand competition as a moderating variable. There is no evidence that if a franchisee perceives intrabrand competition in the franchise system, the relationship with the perception of culture and peer trust is influenced. Therefore, the answer to the second research question is that intrabrand competition does not seem to moderate the relationship between the culture of a franchise system and peer trust.
5.3 Theoretical and managerial implications
28
researched before by Croonen et al. (2015) who looked at peer trust as an antecedent for exit intentions of the franchisees. Therefore, the findings in this paper contribute to the franchising literature. Although only a significant relationship was found between the perception of a supportive culture and peer trust, this research is an important first step in closing the literature gap about antecedents of peer trust.
Fulmer and Gelfand (2012) did a review of trust on different levels and with different trust referents. They recommend for research on trust on an individual level with a team as trust referent to look at the identified antecedents of individual trust in interpersonal referents, such as communication and networks. It is recommended for future research on antecedents of peer trust in franchising to look at these antecedents. Furthermore, as mentioned before, peer trust in franchising is a concept close to coworker trust, although little literature about its antecedents exists. However, a finding that might be interesting for further research on peer trust in franchising is the finding of Lau and Liden (2008).They found that an employee’s trust in coworkers is positively related to the trust their leaders have in them. This can imply that peer trust can also be related to a franchisor’s trust in their franchisees. Thus, if a franchisee has high trust in the franchisor, he or she might also have high trust in his or her peers.
Furthermore, since a positive relationship was found between the perception of a supportive culture and peer trust, it would be interesting to find out how a supportive culture can be created in a franchise system. This is also important for the franchisor, since a high level of peer trust can avoid behavioral problems of the franchisees, such as free-riding and non-compliance (Croonen et al., 2015). Therefore, the franchisor should know how to create the idea that the franchise system is supportive to its franchisees. Furthermore, the franchisor could look at antecedents of coworker trust as well to improve peer trust among the franchisees.
5.4 Limitations and further research
In this research there are also some limitations to be addressed that might have had an influence on the non-significant results.
First of all, in this research the external validity is not very high, since the generalizability of the results is low. This research has been done with only one franchise system. Since the franchisees work in the same system there is a chance that they all perceive more or less the same culture(s). In this case, the franchisees’ answers to the statements about all three dimensions of culture had little variation. However, in other franchise systems there might be a bigger difference between these dimensions. If more franchise systems could be compared and a real difference between the perceptions of culture could be measured, better and more generalizable results might have been found.
29
would be interesting to send out a questionnaire to franchisees from different franchise systems and from different industries.
Third, a limitation that might be important is that this research was done with an existing dataset. Consequently, more questions or statements that could also have been useful for this specific research could not be added. With more or other questions or statements more significant results might have been found. For example, in this research it would have been interesting to ask more questions about how and if the franchisees perceive a strong culture in the franchise system and not only ask about the different characteristics of a culture. For other researchers it would be recommended to make their own questionnaire or to have at least the opportunity to make their own contribution to the questionnaire.
Fourth, as mentioned before, the non-significant relationships might be a result of the contradicting findings on the relationships of the perceptions of bureaucratic and innovative culture with trust and the different perceptions franchisees can have of these cultural dimensions and high intrabrand competition. Furthermore, the cultural dimensions can occur in one franchise system but in varying degrees. For future research a distinction between the cultural dimensions could be made by measuring not only what culture the franchisees perceive, but also what they think about the values belonging to that culture. Perhaps another moderating variable could have an influence on this.
Fifth, the concepts trust and trustworthiness are closely related to each other. The three trustworthiness dimensions (ability, benevolence and integrity) have been introduced as antecedents of trust before (Colquitt et al., 2007; Mayer et al., 1995). In this research the trustworthiness dimensions were therefore included as control variables. However, trustworthiness might also act as a mediator in the relationship between the perception of culture and peer trust. Future research can also look at trustworthiness as a mediating variable.
Based on the additional analyses other suggestions for future research can also be given. Significant results were found with learning orientation as a moderator for the relationship between the perception of a bureaucratic culture and peer trust. There is no literature found on learning orientation related to a bureaucratic culture or trust, or on learning orientation in the franchising context. However, it might be interesting for future research to dive deeper into these relationships. It could be that franchisees having a high learning orientation and perceiving a bureaucratic culture are more trusting towards their peers than franchisees with a low learning orientation, due to franchisees with a high learning orientation feeling more the need to comply with the rules of the system. In addition, they might benefit more from a structured culture by being more open and reflective about others.
30
31
References
Appelbaum, S., Bartolomucci, N., Beaumier, E., Boulanger, J., Corrigan, R., Doré, I., Girard, C. & Serroni, C. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior: a case study of culture, leadership and trust. Management decision, 42(1), 13-40.
Blumberg, B. F., Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2005). Business research methods. Maidenhead, Berkshire: McGraw-hill education.
Bordonaba‐Juste, M.V., & Polo‐Redondo, Y. (2008). Differences between short and long‐term relationships: an empirical analysis in franchise systems. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 16(4), 327-354.
Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial marketing management, 31(6), 515-524.
Cheung, S. O., Wong, P. S., & Wu, A. W. (2011). Towards an organizational culture framework in construction. International Journal of Project Management, 29(1), 33-44.
Cochet, O., Dormann, J., & Ehrmann, T. (2008). Capitalizing on franchisee autonomy: Relational forms of governance as controls in idiosyncratic franchise dyads. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(1), 50-72.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West S.G., & Aiken, L.S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/ correlation analysis for the behavioural sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of applied psychology, 92(4), 909-927.
Combs, J. G., & Ketchen, D. J. (2003). Why do firms use franchising as an entrepreneurial strategy?: A meta-analysis. Journal of management, 29(3), 443-465.
Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non‐fulfilment. Journal of occupational psychology, 53(1), 39-52.
32
Croonen, E.P.M., Brand, M.J. & Broekhuizen, T.L.J. (2015). Time to say goodbye: Explaining franchisees’ exit intentions and exit behaviors. Proceedings of EMNet conference, Cape Town, South Africa. 1-48.
Croonen, E.P.M. (forthcoming). Understanding antecedents of franchisee trust, in: Hoy, F., Perrigot, R. and Terry, A. (eds.). Handbook of Research on Franchising, Edward Elgar Publishing.
Croonen, E.P.M. & T.L.J. Broekhuizen (forthcoming). How do franchisees assess franchisor trustworthiness. Journal of Small Business Management.
Cumberland, D. M., Meek, W. R., & Germain, R. (2015). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and firm performance in challenging environments: Evidence from the franchise context. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 20(1), 1-19.
Dada, O., Watson, A., & Kirby, D. (2011). Toward a model of franchisee entrepreneurship. International Small Business Journal, 30(5), 559-583.
Dada, O. L., & Watson, A. (2012). The effect of entrepreneurial orientation on the franchise relationship. International small business journal, 0(0), 1-23.
Dahlstrom, R., & Nygaard, A. (1996). An exploratory investigation of interpersonal trust in new and mature market economies. Journal of Retailing, 71(4), 339-361.
Davies, M. A., Lassar, W., Manolis, C., Prince, M., & Winsor, R. D. (2011). A model of trust and compliance in franchise relationships. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(3), 321-340.
De Pelsmacker, P., & Van Kenhove, P. (2010). Marktonderzoek, methoden en toepassingen. Amsterdam: Pearson Benelux.
Doney, P. M., Cannon, J. P., & Mullen, M. R. (1998). Understanding the influence of national culture on the development of trust. Academy of management review, 23(3), 601-620.
33
El Akremi, A., Mignonac, K. & Perrigot, R. (2010). Opportunistic behaviors in franchise chains: the role of cohesion among franchisees. Strategic Management Journal, 32(9), 930-948.
Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). At what level (and in whom) we trust trust across multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1167-1230.
Gillespie, N., & Dietz, G. (2009). Trust repair after an organization-level failure. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 127-145.
Grace, A. R., Frazer, L., Weaven, S. K., & Dant, R. P. (2016). Building franchisee trust in their franchisor: insights from the franchise sector. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 19(1), 65-83.
Grey, C., & Garsten, C. (2001). Trust, control and post-bureaucracy. Organization studies, 22(2), 229-250.
Kidwell, R.E., Nygaard, A., & Silkoset, R. (2007). Antecedents and effects of free riding in the franchisor-franchisee relationship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(4), 522-544.
Lau, D. C., & Liden, R. C. (2008). Antecedents of coworker trust: leaders' blessings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1130-1138.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of management Review, 21(1), 135-172.
Marnburg, E., Larsen, S., & Ogaard, T. (2004). Uncovering aspects of franchisees’ incentives: An explorative investigation. Food Service Technology,4(3), 117-128.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review. 20(3), 709-734.
Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of applied psychology, 84(1), 123-136.
34
NFV. (2016). Franchising in Nederland 2016. Retrieved from:
http://www.nfv.nl/userfiles/NFV%20Franchise%20statistiek%202016.pdf
NUZakelijk (2012, April 14). ‘Franchise wint aan populariteit'. Retrieved from: http://www.nu.nl/nuzakelijk-overig/2787047/franchise-wint-populariteit.html
Rogers, K. (2016, March 15). The franchise industry has gotten more good news. Retrieved from: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/20/us-franchises-set-to-grow-in-2016-report.html
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of management review, 23(3), 393-404.
Schaubroeck, J. M., Peng, A. C., & Hannah, S. T. (2013). Developing trust with peers and leaders: Impacts on organizational identification and performance during entry. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 1148-1168.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109-119.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Schilke, O., & Cook, K. S. (2015). Sources of alliance partner trustworthiness: Integrating calculative and relational perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 36(2), 276-297.
Strutton, D., Pelton, L. E., & Lumpkin, J. R. (1995). Psychological climate in franchising system channels and franchisor-franchisee solidarity. Journal of Business Research, 34(2), 81-91.
Tan, H. H., & Lim, A. K. (2009). Trust in coworkers and trust in organizations. The Journal of Psychology, 143(1), 45-66.
Van Aken, J., Berends, H., & Van der Bij, H. (2012). Problem solving in organizations: A methodological handbook for business and management students. Cambridge University Press.
Wallach, E. J. (1983). Individuals and organizations: The cultural match. Training & Development Journal, 29-36.
35
Webber, R. (2013). An Introduction to Franchising. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.
36
Appendix
Table A: Variables, statements and labels
Variables Statements Labels SPSS
Peer trust I can trust my fellow franchisees to help me when
needed. FranTrust_Peers1
For the majority of my fellow franchisees, I can
trust that they do what they promise. FranTrust_Peers2 I can trust the expertise of my fellow franchisees. FranTrust_Peers3 I can trust my fellow franchisees to not harm the
franchise. FranTrust_Peers4
My fellow franchisees typically have good
intentions. FranTrust_Peers5
Culture: To what extent is the franchise system…
Bureaucratic culture Hierarchical Hierarchical
Regulated Regulated
Power-oriented Power-oriented
Procedural Procedural
Structured Structured
Supportive culture Equitable Equitable
Collaborative Collaborative
Safe Safe
Trusting Trusting
Relationship-oriented Relationship-oriented
Supportive Supportive
Innovative culture Creative Creative
Risk-taking Risk-taking Enterprising Enterprising Stimulating Stimulating Challenging Challenging Intrabrand competition
I experience competition from my fellow
franchisees. Intra_Competition
Control variables:
