AREN’T WE THE BEST? SENSE OF SUPERIORITY AND LEVEL OF NARCISSISM IN STRATEGIC ALLIANCES’ TRUST

AREN’T WE THE BEST? SENSE OF SUPERIORITY AND LEVEL OF NARCISSISM IN STRATEGIC ALLIANCES’ TRUST

Master thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

February 26, 2020

LETICIA BELLA PUTRI SUDARMAJI Student number: 3181359

Nieuwendijk 111B 1012 MD Amsterdam tel.: +31 (0)611691627

e-mail: l.b.p.sudarmaji@student.rug.nl

Supervisor Martin Kleis Pit

Acknowledgements: I would like to extend my gratitude for the helpful comments and support on

this thesis that were given by my supervisor, Martin Kleis Pit. Despite his busy schedule, he always

made time to provide critical thoughts on my writing. Further, I would like to thank Larasati

Sihkristantini, Marten Class Thee, and my family for their constant support.

ABSTRACT

Strategic alliances have been one of the most popular topics in the business world to look into; it is unsurprising taking into account of their prominence and frequency of occurrence in the business world. This fame is driven by the risk-sharing opportunity for companies to develop new products or enter into a new market while maintaining their independence. I conducted an experimental study where I look at the trusting behaviour of the participants acting as an alliance manager for an assigned company. I looked into whether organizational identity will affect trust among companies in an alliance partnership. Further, this relationship is mediated by the alliance manager’s sense of superiority whereby the mediation relationship is moderated by the alliance manager’s level of narcissism. The result of the experiment confirmed that similar identity does play a role in the amount of trust put to the partner organisation in an alliance. However, I found no evidence of the effect of sense of superiority and narcissism on the identity and trust relationship.

Keywords

Identity dynamics; Personality; Leaders; Social identity; Trust; Strategic alliance

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ... i

INTRODUCTION ... 1

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES ... 5

Trust ... 5

Organisational identity ... 6

Alliance manager sense of superiority ... 8

Level of narcissism ... 11

METHOD ... 12

Operationalisations and sample ... 13

Manipulation ... 15

Variables ... 15

Dependent variable: Extent of Identity Similarity and Difference ... 15

Moderator: Level of narcissism ... 16

Mediator: Sense of superiority ... 16

Independent Variable: Trust ... 17

Control Variable ... 17

Data management plans ... 17

RESULTS ... 18

Descriptive and Correlation Analysis ... 18

Control Variable ... 18

Gender ... 18

Education ... 19

Identity and Trust ... 19

Mediation of Sense of Superiority ... 20

Moderated Mediation Analysis ... 21

DISCUSSION ... 22

Theoretical Implications ... 22

Practical Implications ... 25

Conclusion ... 25

Limitations and Future Research Ideas ... 26

REFERENCES ... 28

APPENDIX A ... 35

APPENDIX B ... 37

APPENDIX C ... 38

APPENDIX D ... 39

APPENDIX E ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

INTRODUCTION

To drive corporate growth or profitability, 90% of the US CEOs are planning to engage in a partnership, and as much as 40% of them are planning to explicitly participate in a new strategic alliance in 2019 (PwC, 2018). This popularity of engaging in a strategic alliance is mainly driven by the risk-sharing possibility of companies while maintaining their independence (Hofstede, 2010). A strategic alliance is a cooperative arrangement between two firms or more to enhance their performance and competitive position by sharing resources (Ireland, Hitt, & Vaidyanath, 2002). However, the number of CEOs that are willing to engage in a strategic alliance is still staggering, considering up to 70% of strategic alliances failed (Day, 1995).

Das and Teng (2000) conclude that one of the main factors of a strategic alliance failure is the lack of trust between the partners as the firms are too competitive among other factors. Trust is defined as the mutual confidence that no one will exploit another’s vulnerabilities (Barney &

Hansen, 1994). The existence of trust is thus crucial for stable working relationships and economic transactions (Hosmer, 1995). Due to the risk-sharing nature of the strategic alliance, trust is then even more critical, as Sabel (1993) mentioned, to trust someone is to take a risk with the trustee.

It is believed that only in risky situations do we need trust (Das & Teng, 2004).

Further, relational features such as cultural differences often explain alliance failure (de

Jong, 2016). An organisation’s culture is mostly seen and formed from the inside. However, when

it the norms and the values of the culture have been adapted in the organisation, it is more likely

that these values and norms are communicated outwards, forming an organisation identity. Identity

itself relates to a system of shared values and norms that define appropriate attitudes and

behaviours for organizational members (Das & Teng, 1998). Child (2001) states that one of the

bases of trust is one that is associated with a strong personal relationship, and this arises between those with a shared collective identity. Prior research on an organisational level has shown that organisational identity acts as an excellent platform in increasing the level of trust between employees (Gulatti et al., 2012). Previous literature has also touched upon how trust facilitates cooperation in strategic alliance (Mellewigt, Thomas, Weller, & Zajac, 2017; Wicks, Berman, &

Jones, 1999; Moore, 1998) and the effect of organisational identity on trust (Zhang & Huxham, 2009). In contrast, relatively little research has looked into the identity of organisations and how it affects trust in an alliance context. By examining the relationship between organisational identity on trust in strategic alliances we wish to gain further insight into how relational mechanisms can help explain alliance success.

In steering the direction of a strategic change such as a strategic alliance in an organisation, one of the most influential people are its leaders. Specifically, the alliance manager plays a significant role in building and maintaining trust amongst the partners as the support of senior management encourages individuals involved in alliance activity (Whipple et al., 2000).

Moreover, as leaders are the ones to go to for guidance, alliance managers can either facilitate or

hinder the effect of organisational identity in the alliance context. Leaders, such as alliance

managers in a strategic alliance, are ones who have the most influence in the process of

communicating identity and organisational reality (Clifton, 2017) and their personalities play a

significant role in strategic behaviour (Peterson et al., 2003). Further, Child (2001) stated that

collaborative relationships between organizations are executed through the interaction of

individuals, such as the alliance managers. Thus, alliance managers’ personality traits are crucial

in ensuring the success of the partnership. In strategic alliances I therefore focus on the perspective

of the alliance manager on identity as well as their personality and trusting behaviour for this thesis.

The effect of narcissistic leaders (for this study, alliance managers) to organisations and their decision making itself have been heavily researched, especially in the field of overall strategic change (Herrmann & Nadkarni, 2014; Chin et al., 2013; Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007) and in numerous behavioural science journals on how it would affect trust (Rhodewalt and Morf, 1998;

Campbell and Miller, 2011). Previous studies have noted that a narcissistic tendency can be especially destructive to the organisation if their leader (alliance manager) possesses it (Lubit, 2002; Campbell and Miller, 2011). More often than not, this is due to their tendency to have a self- inflated view; thus, they do not trust anyone but themselves (Kwiatkowska et al., 2019). It is of consensus that strategic alliances are highly valuable; however, cooperation between two independent organisations is difficult to maintain. Prior literature has noted that in settings where collaboration is hard to maintain, people look towards leaders (for this study, alliance managers) for guidance (Child, 2001). However, leadership can either be beneficial for cooperation or can harm some cases, such as those with narcissistic tendencies. As noted before, trust and collaboration are of high value in the strategic alliance; thus, by looking further into how leadership traits in alliance managers affect the relationship of identity and trust in an alliance context, I hope to add additional insight to the debate on the role of identity on trust via alliance managers’

personality traits. Thereby, I propose to take a more comprehensive look at their role in a strategic alliance trust context. Accordingly, the research question as a basis for this thesis is as follows:

What is the effect of organisational identity perceptions on trusting behaviour between companies in an alliance partnership?

Additionally, through this study, I aim to find out how alliance managers’ narcissistic

tendencies steer the effect of identity perceptions of alliance managers to the partner organisation

in the alliance. By answering the following proposed research question, the study seeks to fill in

the gaps from the existing research on the success factor of strategic alliances. The study also hopes to further the understanding of how organisational identity shapes trust between companies.

With the result of this study, I hope to provide a new insight that managers can use in making decisions to enhance trust, to mitigate risks in partner selection, and avoid partnership failure.

Further, as I conduct this study on an experimental basis, I can capture a robust behavioural aspect of trust in strategic alliances.

This thesis begins with a broad introduction of the topic itself, followed by a theoretical framework and background which will introduce us to the formulated hypotheses and conceptual model.

Finally, the method section will elaborate on the operationalisation of the study.

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

Trust

Trust is defined as the mutual confidence that no party in an exchange will exploit another’s vulnerabilities (Barney & Hansen, 1994). Someone can be said to be showing trusting behaviour when they are making themselves vulnerable to the actions of another person (Lahno, 2004). It can serve as a helpful tool in building relationships and maintaining collaboration. Further, Wicks, Berman, and Jones (1999) noted that trust is essential in yielding positive outcomes in economic transactions, with its existence, trust can lower transaction and agency costs despite the risks that come with it (e.g., opportunism risks). However, when trust is misplaced, it can foster unethical behaviour (Yip & Schweitzer, 2015) and thus yielding to resentment and distrust.

In the context of the strategic alliance, trust plays an essential role in predicting the success of the cooperation (Das & Teng, 1998). Due to the unique nature of strategic alliances, the companies in an alliance partnership depend on each other to reap the benefit of the partnership yet remain autonomous and continue to have their interests and identity. The existence of trust then allows partners to share crucial information needed to manage the alliance and assuring the partners of the plausibility of meeting their long-term needs (Moore, 1998). Further, Ring and Van de Ven (1994) stated that when two parties are highly dependent on each other, they would have an incentive to make the relationship work. The development of mutual trust in alliances helps reduce the adverse effects of uncertainties in partnerships such as the problem of a specific investment, and opportunism, thus decreasing overall transaction cost (Chiles & McMakin, 1996).

Naturally, as individuals have limited knowledge, they are to make decisions based on the

cognitive limitations of their minds. Thus, to have mutual trust between partners can decrease the

possibility that the action taken by alliance managers under their bounded rationality is harmful.

Further, cooperation is impeded when there is a lack of trust. Gambetta (1988) stated that when an individual say that they find that someone is trustworthy, they implicitly assume that they will perform a beneficial action or at the very least not detrimental to us and thus made us consider engaging in some form of cooperation. Thereby, lack of trust would signal that another party might act in a behaviour that is harmful to an alliance manager, barring our inclination to cooperate with the perceived untrustworthy partner. Thus, having trust facilitates strategic alliance, as in trusting relationships in which people are dependent on one another, would they give their best and commit to their cooperation partners.

Organisational identity

Organisational identity refers to a system of shared values and norms that define appropriate attitudes and behaviours for organizational members (Das & Teng, 1998). This sense of identity is usually due to individuals’ claims of self-categorization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989) and they tend to build this sense of belonging by finding some common attributes between themselves and the organisations (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Organisational identity can shape how a company deals with its networks and how these are governed, how consensus is reached, and how relationships are ended (Kohtamäki, Thorgren, & Wincent, 2016). Having a clear organisational identity would also give alliance managers direction on their identity in the company. Take into example a company that is in crisis, without a clear sense of identity, different types of alliance managers taking different actions and decisions will lead to further miscommunication and high conflict resolution. These small differences in terms of identity that take form as in management style and culture will make it challenging to create synergies between organisation (Lajara, Lillo,

& Sempere, 2002). This self-concept of identity leads to the categorisation of in-groups and out-

group (Oldmeadow et al., 2003) where people would put one or the other in a membership based on their attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions. Social identity theory posits that alliance managers of a certain group tend to favour and gravitate towards other in-group alliance managers and can be more likely to move towards other alliance managers that are part of companies with identity and norms that are similar to them. Having a similar organizational identity in this sense creates a shared feeling of ‘who they are’ and helps to foster the idea that these others share the same values, norms and principles as the alliance manager; providing a feeling of social cohesion. Overall, this provides the idea that those with a similar identity as the alliance manager are more likely to act out of goodwill. By moving towards others that are similar to them, it is more likely for them to be accepted in the in-group.

Further, Child (2001) has noted that one of the bases of trust is one that is associated with a strong personal relationship as trust between organisations mainly reflects the quality of relationships between the people who represent or symbolise the organisations. As familiarity is the precondition for trust (Luhmann, 1979), a similarity between a preconceived organisational identity such as values would increase trust between partners. This form arises between those with a shared collective identity, such as similar values, and a shared concept of moral obligation. These similarities will have them bonded with each other. Thus, when alliance managers experience a similar perceived organisational identity between the companies in an alliance partnership, I expect that it will strengthen perceived trust towards the alliance manager of the partner organisation.

On the other hand, in scenarios where there are little synergies due to the existence of in- group and out-group, social identity theory posits that alliance managers view those with a different identity (out group) as being more likely to have divergent values and norms to them.

These perceptions of different values and norms create a foundation for wariness and distrust

(Deutsch, 2003), laying a foundation for alliance managers to view those with a different identity as more competitive. In turn, they tend to withhold information and ideas to increase their chances of winning over the out-group (Deutsch, 2003). In the alliance context, a different organizational identity can thus foster a feeling of wariness (based on the perception of different values and norms ascribed to the out-group members), that results in this act of withholding information. Combined with an increased likelihood to further their chance of winning over the out-group disrupts the willingness of the alliance manager to be vulnerable towards their partner. Thus, little synergies due to differences in organisation identity in a strategic alliance would lead to distrust amongst one another. Therefore, when alliance managers experience that there is a different perceived organisational identity (versus a similar organizational identity), I propose that trust towards the alliance manager of the partner organisation is negatively impacted.

H

: Trust between alliance managers is higher when the alliance is characterised by similar organisational identities (versus when it is characterised by different organisational identities).

Alliance manager sense of superiority

As mentioned before, alliance managers act as a point of reference in times where cooperation is hard to maintain. Bilali (2012) observed that based on the evaluative component of a person, one way in which a person can keep their group’s favourable image is to view their group as better than other groups. When individuals such as alliance managers have a strong sense of organisational identity, they attach their own value to their group identity. Thereby, the success of their own group acts as an important determinant of their personal self-esteem and will maintain a clouded positive evaluation of their group identity. Consequently, the tendency of an alliance manager to have an inflated view of the organisation they believe to be a part of will increase.

Tajfel (1978) presented an explanation that social identity, such as organisational identity and

ingroup positivity are coupled and resulting in enhanced self-esteem. Further, an alliance manager’s desire to enhance their self-esteem and status can be done by being a part of a highly prestigious group (Dutton et al., 1994). Thereby, these managers form an ingroup positivity bias, the tendency for individuals to be more helpful and positive to their own group rather than out- group members which leads to self-aggrandizing of the group outcomes (Brewer, 2001). In other words, alliance managers are more likely to attribute strong favourable emotions to those that belong to their in-group, as a means with which to protect their own concept of self-esteem they gain from belonging to that particular ingroup.

The notion of similarities or differences in organisational identity establishing in-group and out-group perceptions further creates a rift between alliance managers of both organisations. As alliance managers acts as the face of their respective company, they attach themselves to the identity of the company (Tajfel, 1978). When the other organisation in the alliance has a different identity than those of which the alliance manager’s company believes in, the alliance manager would then consider them as an out-group member. The classification of in-group and out-group members thus leads to a defensive state to maintain the in-group’s favourable image. Conversely, when the partner organisation in the alliance identity is similar to the alliance manager’s company, the manager would be more likely to consider the partner organisation in the alliance an in-group member. Thereby, eliminating the sense that one must be better than the other. I then posit that in strategic alliance, the more similar the partner company’s identity to the current company, the less would the sense of superiority of the alliance manager be.

H

: Sense of superiority between alliance managers is higher when the alliance is characterised

by different organisational identities (versus when it is characterised by similar organisational identities).

The sense of superiority will then lead to an arrogant behaviour which might hinder trust.

As someone feels superior above the other, they would feel compelled to control those that they deem inferior. Alliance managers with a strong sense of superiority as leaders then are likely to set high expectations, not only for themselves but also for those that they interact with, in order to maintain their sense of grandiosity and superiority (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998). Literature has shown that when these expectations are met, they aid in reinforcing the sense of superiority; however, when they are not met act as a threat. A sense of superiority over another group provides alliance managers with the feeling that those they deem as inferior are more likely to break expectations. As Ouchi (1979) stated, to successfully cooperate, people must either be able to trust each other or closely monitor each other. This implies that to trust; one must realise that they must relinquish control over the other. Thus, when an alliance manager feels a sense of superiority above others, it can then be expected that they would have a lower incentive to cooperate compared to when they perceive their partners as equal (Ouchi, 1979).

Further, it has been noted that those with a sense of superiority tend to separate themselves from others (Bond, Kwan, & Li, 2000). As they are not as attached to the other group than they are with their identified group, they would not then be motivated to protect its goal and image.

Lahno (2004) stated that to expect cooperation to happen, there should be a sufficiently strong incentive. As alliance managers with a heightened sense of superiority distanced themselves from their perceived inferior partners, this low degree of interaction could result in a lesser degree of trusting behaviour. The previously mentioned reluctance to cooperate then would lead to the unwillingness to share resources due to perceived value imbalance. Accordingly, a high sense of superiority will result in an overall decrease in the sense of trust towards the opposing the partner organisation in the alliance.

H

: High sense of superiority weakens trust between the companies in an alliance partnership.

H

: Sense of superiority of alliance manager mediates the relationship between organisational identity (similar versus different) and trust.

Level of narcissism

A sense of superiority is often linked to a narcissistic tendency as it is one of the underlying natures of narcissism. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (1994), defines narcissism as a pervasive pattern of grandiosity be it in fantasy or behaviour, need for admiration, and lack of empathy. Narcissism is a concept which combines self-adoration with an aloofness that denies the need for another person (Russel, 1985). Grandiose sense of self-importance is one of the defining characteristics of narcissism which entails more than just arrogance, but an unrealistic sense of superiority, leading to an exaggeration of their achievements and talents.

Conversely, a low level of narcissism implies a lack of grandiosity, with a lower likelihood to exaggerate achievements and talents, or to look for excessive admiration.

Furthermore, individuals with high narcissistic tendencies also believe in a unique status,

and thus, will show tendencies to need excessive admiration. I propose that the moderating effect

of narcissism acts as follows. An alliance manager perceives that the partner organisation in the

alliance with a different organizational identity to have different norms and values to their own

and hence is more likely to attribute unfavourable feelings towards the partner organisation in the

alliance. For those with a high narcissistic tendency, these perceptions of having to work with

people with different norms and values, are exacerbated by their own need to maintain a personal

sense of grandiosity. Strong differences in organizational identity for these alliance managers are

a cause or uncertainty as these could harm their self-concept. Thereby, these beliefs prevalent

amongst individuals with narcissistic tendency might incite an individual’s sense of superiority.

Further, alliance managers with narcissistic tendencies are more likely to compare themselves under terms of uncertainty and use this for self-enhancement purposes (Bogart, Benotsch, & Pavlovic, 2004). Strategic alliance as a partnership of independent organisations contains a high level of uncertainty, and it is then expected that alliance managers with high narcissistic tendencies would compare and look down to their partner to self-enhance themselves.

By self-enhancing, narcissist alliance managers’ sense of superiority thus is strengthened. Thus, I expect that the relationship of identity and trust in strategic alliance mediated by the sense of superiority are moderated by the level of narcissistic tendencies.

H

: The alliance manager’s narcissistic tendencies moderate the relationship between organisational identity and sense of superiority. As the level of the alliance manager’s narcissistic tendency increases (decreases), the alliance manager’s narcissistic tendencies moderate the relationship between organisational identity (similar versus different) and sense of superiority.

Figure 1. Conceptual model

METHOD

Similar to other studies in the field (e.g. Harmon, Kim & Mayer, 2015; Weber & Bauman, 2019),

our hypotheses are tested using a sample from Prolific Academic. These participants have been

proven as equally reliable as lab participants, and data is of comparable quality to data from other sources (Palan & Schitter, 2018; Peer, Samat, Brandimarte & Acquisti, 2017). We test our assumptions using an experimental design.

Operationalisations and sample

I experimented with a game where participants are asked to decide if they would like to cooperate by allocating several resources to a fictitious alliance scenario (Weber & Bauman, 2017). The game is conducted in four rounds to create a longitudinal view of trust. Participants will be bachelor students in their last year, master’s students and graduates, along with professionals working in a managerial position. The data were collected through Qualtrics for its pilot launch and Prolific for the second official launch of the study. Before experimenting on a larger scale, I conducted a pilot run for the study via Qualtrics.

The pilot study itself gained 89 participants, of which, 53 were excluded as they did not finish the study. The total number of participants for the pilot study was 36 people. The final sample consists of 15 (41.7%) males and 21 (58.3%) females, with an average age of 23 (M

= 23.3, SD = 1.98). The participants came from 4 countries, and most participants are from the Indonesia (86.1%), followed by Germany (8.3%). Further, the majority of the participants have completed bachelor’s degree in college (75%).

At the beginning of the study, participants are told that they will be participating in a game

where they will play out several cases on resource sharing and at the end, to fill several questions

regarding their personal characteristics. The participants are notified that they will assume the role

of an alliance manager of one of two companies; OMEGA and ALPHA and are presented with the

background of the companies along with the alliance managers’ backstory in the company. Then,

participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions; baseline condition as a control

condition where they are not presented the companies’ identity, similar identity condition and different identity condition where they will read on the companies’ identity. Further, the participants can also be exposed to either the original or the counterbalance condition where depending on their assignment; they will read either the original or reversed company identity.

This counterbalancing was done to eliminate other plausible explanation for the relationship; in this case, if a participant would be attached to their assigned company due to their name or due to the order in which their company’s goals are shown first. After reading the companies’ identity description, they are presented with the rules of the game and fill out questions regarding the rules of the game. Then after, are asked to wait and told that they had been assigned to company OMEGA.

Before the rounds of the game starts, the participants are shown the identity of the companies according to their assigned condition and to fill in a short questionnaire to see the difference in their perceived similarity or differences of the appointed company. After, they responded to statements regarding the organisation they are assigned to (OMEGA) and whether they perceive OMEGA as superior. Then, they went through four rounds of resource sharing game.

Round 1 introduced the initial trust for the participants and the outcome of the investment is split

into half. In round 2, where participants have formed their trust, I performed a trust breach where

the partner organisation in the alliance takes ¾ of the resources. In round 3, the amount of

investment would be the participants’ reaction to breach of trust and round 4 is the repair of the

trust itself. Finally, participants were asked to fill in their descriptive data, and the participants are

asked to respond to some statements which will gauge their trust propensity and level of

narcissistic tendencies. At the end of the study, they are told of the purpose of the research and

which aspects of the strategic alliance the study is examining.

Manipulation

Participants are told that they will be randomly assigned to either one of two fictitious companies. They underwent the study in either one of the three different conditions; baseline condition, similar identity condition, and different identity condition, however, I exclude the baseline condition for my main analysis. To test that the manipulation of the independent variable causes results, I applied a manipulation check. The participants are presented the identity of the two companies depending on which conditions they are assigned to. After reading the identities, I asked the participants to mention the most striking similarity or difference between the two companies. From this open-ended question, the manipulation was proven to be working, and I saw differences in their written answers. Participants with baseline conditions mention that both of the companies are similar as they were not presented with any other information other than the fact that the two companies are identical in size and founding year. Participants with different conditions noted the mentioned difference in identities; subsequently, those that are assigned to the similar identity condition stated how similar the identity among the two companies are.

Furthermore, I used the organisational identification scale Ashfort & Mael (1992) to test whether people experience a significantly different degree of identification. A one-way between subjects’ ANOVA was conducted, between group results (F (2,238) = 5.251, p = 0.023)and the results of post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for the similar identity condition (M = 3.43, SD = 0.57) was significantly different than the different identity condition (M = 3.13, SD = 0.54).

Variables

Independent variable: Extent of Identity Similarity and Difference

Measured with the dummy variable of Organisational Identity with 0 = similar identity, and 1 = different identity. This variable was formulated from whether participants were assigned to the similar identity condition or the different identity condition.

Moderator: Level of narcissism

In examining the level of narcissism, the participants are asked to fill a short personality test consisting of 16 questions measuring several narcissistic tendency adapted from the narcissism NPI (narcissistic personality inventory), a questionnaire by Ames, Rose, & Anderson (2006) based on the DSM-IV criteria consisting of 16 items to measure narcissism. The items are measured on a 5-point Likert scale. Reliability analysis of the questions showed a high result with Cronbach's α of 0.839.

Mediator: Sense of superiority

This measure is adapted from the components of the perceived organisational prestige by Ashforth & Mael (1992). Six items were selected to evaluate the perceived superiority of presented company. The items were chosen to the extent to which it is appropriate and suitable for the study.

Whereby Mael and Ashforth focus on schools, in this study, we focus on companies and thus, participants are asked to provide their assessment for if they were to work in the company.

Example of the item is “X is considered one of the best companies”, the question is presented with the notion that it is measured with the partner company in mind from the information presented previously to them. The questions are measured on a 5- point Likert scale (5 = strongly agree to 1

= strongly disagree). With a Cronbach's α = 0.778, this implies that the items used to measure the

sense of superiority were reliable, and it measures the same construct. All six items can be summed

up to measure participants’ perceived superiority of presented company.

Dependent Variable: Trust

Trust is measured by the amount of investment in the strategic alliance; this measurement is derived from the trust game of Weber and Bauman (2017). The measure of trust in this experiment is a behavioural measure of trust. Each round, the participants decides how many of their available resources they would invest in the alliance. Any of the resources that are invested grows, but the alliance manager of the partner organisation decides how many to share. This way, I can observe how contracts affected participants’ willingness to invest their resources under the control of their exchange partners. Thereby, the trust game creates a measure of trusting behaviour that is consistent with the definition of trust as a willingness to be vulnerable. Participants went through 4 rounds of investment games. The more investment that the participants invested indicates more trust in the partner company.

Control Variable

To control across participants, we control for gender (0 = male, 1 = female), and education (1 = some college but no degree, 2 = Bachelor’s degree in college, 3 = Master’s degree, 4 = Doctoral degree, 5 = Professional degree) as potential variables that may explain variation.

Data management plans

The collection of the necessary data is going to be done through Qualtrics. Data that are obtained will then be owned and deposited with the repository on the University of Groningen. I, as the principal investigator of the project, take responsibility for the collection, management, and sharing of the research data. The information mined from the data collection will not contain private information, except for the age and gender of the participant.

The data collected consists of the behavioural pattern, tendencies, and option selection of the

participants through various scenarios. The data conformed to the best practices and standards, and

the following language will be used in the informed consent: “The information in this study will only be used in ways that will not reveal who you are. You will not be identified in any publication from this study or in any data files shared with other researchers. Your participation in this study is confidential”.

RESULTS

Descriptive and Correlation Analysis

Table 1 (See Appendix D), a total of 280 participants took part in the experiment. Of which 39 were excluded because they did not finish the survey. Thus, 241 participants were included in the final analysis. The final sample consists of 129 (53.5%) males and 112 (46.5%) females, with an average age of 32 (M

= 32.04, SD = 11.32). The participants came from 25 countries, and most participants are from the United Kingdom (31.5%), followed by the United States of America (27%). Further, the majority of the participants have completed some college with no degree (42.3%). Additionally, I ran a correlation analysis between gender, education, identity, level of narcissism, sense of superiority, and level of trust. The full results of this analysis can be found in Table 1. The result reveals that there is a significantly positive relationship

between identity and level of trust of the participants.

Control Variable

Gender

In order to analyse whether or not the average trust result of men is different from the average trust result of women, I performed an independent samples t-test with gender and trust.

1

Result not the same with pilot study result. Pilot study suggests there are no correlation between the variables

The independent samples t-test was insignificant, t (239) = 1.007, p = 0.315. The average trust result of men (M = 6.03, SD = 1.51) does not differ from the average trust result of women (M = 5.83, SD = 1.58).

Education

To analyse if trust results differ from the education level of the participants, I performed a one-way ANOVA of education level on trust results. The result of this analysis was not significant, F (4, 236) = 0.48, p = 0.53. Thus, the education level of the participants does not influence their trust level.

Identity and Trust

Hypothesis 1 predicted that organisational identity is linked to trust of the partner organisation in the alliance. To analyse the score of trust, I took the average score of the investment game rounds and conducted a one-way ANOVA test. The result of a one-way ANOVA test of organisational identity (0 = similar identity, 1 = different identity) on trust shows that there is a significant difference between the groups in terms of the level of trust (F (2,238) = 31.54, p = 0.000). Results of post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for the different identity condition was significantly different than the similar identity condition (M = 1.674, p = 0.000). Regression analysis showed that identity indeed predicted trust, in such that similar identity have a positive significant relationship with trust, (b = 0.647, t(240) = 2.966, p = 0.003) and different identity has a negative significant relationship with trust (b = -1.028, t(240)

= -4.711, p = 0.000). Therefore, hypothesis 1 is supported.

Supplementary analysis (behavioural)

To capture the behavioural aspect of the investment game, I conducted a one-way ANOVA

analysis and comparing the amount of investment made per rounds between various conditions.

When comparing between all rounds of investment done by the participants, I saw that there are significant differences between the rounds per condition. In round 1 (F(2,238) = 64.902, p = 0.000), all conditions differ from one another (M

= 6.05, SD = 1.81; M

= 7.29, SD = 1.28;

M

= 4.66, SD = 1.34). Results of post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated all conditions indeed differ from one another (M

- M

= -1.241, p = 0.000; M

- M

= 1.390, p = 0.000; M

- M

= 2.632, p = 0.000). In round 2 (F(2,238) = 11.023, p = 0.000), I saw a significant difference between those with the different identity condition (M

= 5.65, SD = 1.99) with neutral identity condition (M

= 6.52, SD = 2.18) and similar identity condition (M

= 7.13, SD = 1.96). There was no significant difference between neutral and similar identity condition. Round 3 (F(2,238) = 8.412, p = 0.000) had only an observable significant difference between similar condition (M

= 6.56, SD = 1.91) and different identity condition (M

= 5.09, SD = 2.42), and no significant difference with those of neutral identity condition (M

= 5.96, SD = 2.59). Lastly, in round 4, there were no significant difference between neutral identity condition (M

= 6.30, SD = 2.52) and similar identity condition (M

= 6.42, SD = 1.87). While there are significant differences between different identity condition (M

= 5.33, SD = 2.29) with similar and neutral identity condition.

Mediation of Sense of Superiority

Table 2 (See Appendix E), to calculate the indirect effect of the mediation of a sense of

superiority, I created a dummy variable for each condition; similar identity and different identity

(0 = similar identity, 1 = different identity). With this, I used Model 4 in the PROCESS macro of

Hayes to test the overall model for mediation. Hypothesis 2 posits that similarity (difference) in

identity leads to a lower (higher) sense of superiority. I have found a negative insignificant

relationship between organisational identity (0 = similar identity, 1 = different identity) and sense

of superiority (b = -0.042, t(238) = - 0.698, p = 0.485). Thus, hypothesis 2 is not supported.

Following to that, hypothesis 3 predicts that a high sense of superiority will weaken trust between partners. Results proved that the relationship between a sense of superiority and trust is negative and insignificant (b = -.3041, t(238) = -1.296, p = 0.196). Thus, hypothesis 3 is not supported.

In hypothesis 4, I predict that sense of superiority of an alliance manager mediates identity and trust, in a way that similar organisational identity has an indirect negative effect on trust through a sense of superiority . The result from a PROCESS model 4 showed positive and significant relationship between organisational identity (0 = similar identity, 1 = different identity) and trust (b = 0.634, t(237) = 2.908, p = 0.004). However, I found that the overall indirect effect of identity on trust via sense of superiority was insignificant (b = -.3041(.2346), p = .1961, LLCI

= .2046, ULCI = 1.0637). Therefore, hypothesis 4 is not supported.

Moderated Mediation Analysis

Table 3 (See Appendix E), I tested whether the participants’ level of narcissism moderates

the indirect effect of identity on trust through sense of superiority using conditional process

regression analysis model 7. The interaction between identity (0 = similar identity, 1 = different

identity) and level of narcissism was negative but statistically insignificant (b = -1.0052, s.e =

.0221, p = .1866) for sense of superiority. Thereby, hypothesis 5 is not supported.

DISCUSSION

This thesis was done to gain an understanding of the role of identity on trust in a strategic alliance. The result provides empirical support that identity indeed plays a role in determining the level of trust that one might put into another in a strategic alliance. The analysis of the data suggests that similarities of the identity of one organisation with another are associated with higher trust level. I have found that there is no significant relationship between identity and sense of superiority. However, I found a negative and significant relationship between sense of superiority and trust. Further, contrary to initial expectation, the result of the analysis showed that there is no significant interaction of a sense of superiority and level of narcissism on the overall model.

Theoretical Implications

This study aimed to contribute to the current literature by examining the role of identity

on trust among strategic alliance partners. Stemming from Zhang & Huxham (2009), I aim to

further their study, which analysed the effect of identity construction and trust-building. Whereas

they looked into the process of change and the formation of “we”-ness within an organisation to

trust, I looked into whether the similarity or difference of identity between organisations would

affect trust. This discovery adds on to the debate on trust by discovering that identity plays a role

in predicting trust in a strategic alliance partnership. Specifically, perceived similar company

identities in an alliance is positively linked to trust, and different company identity is negatively

related to trust. This perception of the alliance managers on organisational identity similarities and

difference adds to the debate on the role of alliance manager on trust. As such that similar

(different) organisational identity will increase (decrease) an alliance manager’s trust between

organisations in strategic alliance or resource sharing scenarios.

Whipple et al. (2000) noted that alliance managers play an essential role in shaping the identity of an organisation, specifically in providing support to the individuals that are engaged in the strategic alliance. This identity would be the basis of perceived trust measurement for alliance managers. I expand on this assertion by integrating a sense of superiority as a mediating variable for identity and trust. If an alliance manager believes that one is superior from another, this might also shape the identity or the overall perception of the company to their partner company and vice versa. Ouchi (1979) concluded that when one believes that their partner is unequal, it is harder to cooperate, as they have lower propensity to trust. Brewer (2001) explained that the heightened level of superiority is due to the ingroup positivity bias in which a person would most likely self- aggrandise the group that they identify with.

I have found that sense of superiority does not affects trust between alliance partnership and that identity does not affect sense of superiority, the findings of the study also suggest that there is no significant mediation effect of sense of superiority between identity and trust. Further, the insignificance of sense of superiority to trust can be affected by other things that lessen the effect of sense of superiority on trust. Bar-Tal et al. (2007) noted that a group’s emotional climate and emotional orientation mainly depends on past experiences. Thus, factors such as a person’s network and their surrounding environment might shape a person to put either less or more trusting.

Consequently, cultural upbringing can also explain the insignificant relationship. One culture

might allow feeling superior above another, say when a culture is individualistic, it will be more

likely that a person feeling superior above another would feel less inclined to trust. On the other

hand, when an individual originates from a more collectivistic country, they will have a more

trusting behaviour. Thus, future studies might benefit from looking into country of origin or

cultural upbringing of strategic alliances’ managers to gauge its effect on sense of superiority and trust propensity.

Consequently, there was no significant moderation effect of narcissism on the model.

In their study, Peterson et al. (2003) stressed that an alliance manager’s personality is an integral part in strategic behaviour. Although the aforementioned study believed on the effect of alliance managers’ personality traits on the alliance manager’s strategic behaviour, I did not find evidence that suggest a significant relationship. Specifically, on an alliance manager’s narcissistic tendencies to its strategic behaviour, or in this case, trusting behaviour to their partner organization in the alliance. However, it is worth remembering that there is a plethora of personality tendencies that can explain this relationship that might overpower their narcissistic tendencies. There is a possibility that other personal innate disposition plays a role. For instance, Mondak & Halperin (2008) found that there is a relationship between one of the main personality traits that was taken from the OCEAN model, agreeableness to general trust, high agreeableness in itself promotes trusting behaviour. Further, Oskasson et al. (2012) observed that trust is related to extraversion, intelligence, and personal control. Thereby, taking a further look into other variables under the umbrella of personality, especially those in the Big Five traits might make a difference in the model. As such that by including these variables to the model, the possibility to pinpoint which factors further enhances trust in a strategic alliance will be higher.

Lastly, this study adds on current literature on trust, strategic alliance, organisational

identity and personality. Trust had been noted as one of strategic alliance’s success factors, this

study has enriched this claim by investigating how organisations can build trust in their strategic

alliance. The study has given proof that identity of partner organisation in an alliance plays a

substantial role in whether or not the companies would trust each other in the partnership. Finally,

studies on alliance managers’ personality and their disorders on an organisation posits that due to their self-enhancing tendencies and lack of confidence to others, narcissistic alliance managers have more propensity to micromanage and distrust others. In the strategic alliance context where alliance managers in the company still are faced with cooperation but are still given the freedom to pursue their interests, narcissistic individuals still show trusting behaviour.

Practical Implications

The result of this study showed that the extent that whether an organisational identity is similar or different to its partner identity affects the trust level, and the amount of resources that one would want to share. Thus, to ensure successful cooperation in strategic alliances, it is imperative for alliance managers to take into consideration of their organisation and their partner organisation’s identity. It is advisable that before deciding to engage in a strategic alliance, both parties should analyse their identity and try to discuss their similarities and differences. As such, there will be higher propensity of trusting one another by engaging in an open discussion regarding identity and expectation above other practicalities.

Conclusion

Engaging in a strategic alliance has gained popularity for the past years, even with a high

number of strategic alliance failure. The study was conducted to test if there is a difference in trust

with a similar or different organisational identity in strategic alliance partnerships. Specifically, if

the role of a sense of superiority of an alliance manager towards its organisation would impede

their trust on their partner. The study has shown that similar organisational identity generates

higher trust in a strategic alliance, and different organisational identity may impede trust. Further,

results from this study showed the impeding effect of a sense of superiority in an alliance manager

to trust in partnership. All in all, the result of this study proved the importance of identities on trust

between partners in strategic alliance. However, contrasting to what was hypothesized, I found that there is no significant mediating relationship of sense of superiority, and no significant moderating relationship of level of narcissism. As this study acts as a foundation for identifying underlying factors of identity and alliance managers, future research should take into account of analysing other personality measures that might affect alliance managers.

Limitations and Future Research Ideas

Although the study utilises experiment which ensures that results would be reliable and

able to capture behaviour, there are several limitations in this study that could be revisited in future

research. First, the investment game of which respondents participated in were done with a

fictional resource. Despite my efforts to engage the participants and measure their affection to the

organisation that they are assigned to, it is possible that the participants are not exposed to the

same pressure and fear of loss of resource as they might. In conducting another study, it would

also be beneficial for participants to be presented with a physical resource or visualise the resources

that are given to them to pronounce the endowment effect for the participants and emphasising the

feeling that they have more to lose. Second, this study is focused on the particular aspect of a

person’s personality which still contains layers of underlying factors, thereby, this study might

only capture a sliver of a whole. More research into the mechanisms underlying this process by

introducing new mediator and moderator derived from other aspects of a person’s personality trait

that can better explain the relationship might be needed. Third, as the study is conducted in a virtual

space, there is a high possibility of distraction that can deviate the focus of the participants,

reducing their comprehension on what is at stake. The fact that it is conducted in a virtual space

also means that there is little to no monitoring that can be done to gauge if the participants’ answers

are true. Moving forward, it is advisable to conduct this research in a physical or controllable space

where one can monitor participants. Fourth, there is a possibility that the questionnaire for the

sense of superiority did not properly measure this variable. The questionnaire used to measure

sense of superiority was meant to gauge both reputation and sense of superiority. Future study

using more strict measure of sense of superiority then might find different results. Lastly, this study

is focused on the inward and protective behaviour of a participant to its resources which might be

influenced by other factors in their personality traits such as a risk-aversion or risk-taking

tendencies.

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4

ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Ames, D.R., Rose, P., & Anderson, C.P. (2006). The NPI-16 as a short measure of narcissism.

Journal of Research in Personality, 40: 440 – 450.

Ashforth, B.E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organisation. Academy of Management Review, 14(1): 20 – 39.

Barney, J.B., & Hansen, M.H. (1994). Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage.

Strategic Management Journal, 15: 175 – 190.

Bar-Tal, D., Halperin, E., & De Rivera, J. (2007). Collective emotions in conflict situations:

Societal implications. Journal of Social Issues, 63: 441 – 460.

Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History. Games and Economic Behaviour, 10: 121 – 142.

Bilali, R. (2012). Identity centrality and in-group superiority differentially predict reactions to historical victimization and harm doing. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 6(2): 322 – 338.

Bogart, L.M., Benotsch, E.G., & Pavlovic, J.D.P. (2002). Feeling superior but threatened: The relation of narcissism to social comparison. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 26(1): 35 – 44.

Bond, M.H., Kwan, V.S.Y., & Li, C. (2000). Decomposing a sense of superiority: The differential social impact of self-regard and regard for others. Journal of Research in Personality, 34:

537–553.

Brewer, M.B. (2001). Ingroup identification and intergroup conflict. In R.D. Ashmore., L. Jussim.,

& D. Wilder (Ed.), Social Identity, Intergroup Conflict, and Conflict Reduction: 17 – 40.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Campbell, W., Foster, J.D., & Goodie, A.S. (2004). Narcissism, confidence, and risk attitude.

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17(4): 297–311.

Campbell, W. K., & Miller, J. D. (2011). The handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical findings, and treatments. Hoboken: John Wiley

& Sons.

Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D.C. (2007). It’s all about me: Narcissistic chief executive officers and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3): 351 – 386.

Child, J. (2001). Trust – The fundamental bond in global collaboration. Organizational Dynamics, 29(4): 274 – 288.

Chiles, T.H., & McMackin, J.F. (1996). Integrating variable risk preferences, trust, and transaction cost economics. Academy of Management Review, 21(1): 73 – 99.

Chim, M.K., Hambrick, D.C., & Trevino, L.K. (2013). Political ideologies of CEOs: illustrative evidence of the influence of executive values on corporate social responsibility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2): 197 – 232.

Clifton, J. (2017). Leaders as ventriloquists: Leader identity and influencing the communicative

construction of the organisation. Leadership, 13(3): 301 – 319.

Crego, C., Glover, N., Lynam, D.R., Miller, J.D., & Widiger, T.A. (2012). The five-factor narcissism inventory: A five-factor measure of narcissistic personality traits. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94(5): 500–512.

Das, T.K., & Teng, B. (1998). Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. Academy of Management Review, 23: 491 – 512.

Das, T.K., & Teng, B. (2000). Instabilities of strategic alliances: An internal tensions perspective.

Organization Science, 11: 77 – 101.

Das, T.K., & Teng, B. (2004). The risk-based view of trust: A conceptual framework. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(1), 85 – 116.

De Jong, G. (2016). Successful Strategy and Alliances. Leeuwarden: Centre for Sustainable Entrepreneurship

Deutsch, M. (2003). Cooperation and conflict: A personal perspective on the history of the social psychological study of conflict resolution. International Handbook of Organizational Teamwork and Cooperative Working. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M., & Harquail, C.V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 239 – 263.

Engelen, A., Neumann, C., & Schmidt, S. (2016). Should entrepreneurially oriented firms have narcissistic CEOs? Journal of Management, 42(3), 698–721.

Gulati, R., Wohlgezogen, F., & Zhelyazkov, P. (2012). The Two Facets of Collaboration:

Cooperation and Coordination in Strategic Alliances. Academy of Management Annuals, 6(1),

531–583.

Harmon, D.J., Kim, P.H., & Mayer, K.J. (2015). Breaking the letter vs. spirit of the law: How the interpretation of contract violations affects trust and the management of relationships. Strategic Management Journal, 36(4): 497 – 517.

Hayes, A.F. (2017). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis.

New York: Guilford Publications.

Herrmann, P., & Nadkarni, S. (2014). Managing strategic change: The duality of CEO personality.

Strategic Management Journal, 35, 1318 – 1342.

Hofstede, G.J. (2010). Why do international alliances fail? Some insights from culture and human social biology.

Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2): 379 – 403.

Ireland, R. (2002). Alliance Management as a source of competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 28(3): 413-446.

Kwiatkowska, M. M., Jułkowski, T., Rogoza, R., Żemojtel-Piotrowska, M., & Fatfouta, R. (2019).

Narcissism and trust: Differential impact of agentic, antagonistic, and communal narcissism.

Personality and Individual Differences, 137: 139 – 143.

Lahno, B. (2004). Three aspects of interpersonal trust. Analyse & Kritik, 26: 30 – 47.

Lajara, B. M., Lillo, F. G., & Sempere, V. S. (2002). A success and failure factor in strategic alliances. Employee Relations, 25(1): 61 – 80.

Lubit, R. (2002). The long-term organizational impact of destructively narcissistic managers.

Academy of Management Executive, 16(1): 127 – 138.

Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and Power: Two works. Chicester: Wiley.

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B.E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 13: 103 – 123.

McAllister, D.J. (1995). Affect and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 38: 24 – 59.

Mellewigt, T., Thomas, A., Weller, I., & Zajac, E.J. (2017). Alliance or acquisition? A mechanisms-based, policy-capturing analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 38: 2353 – 2369.

Mondak, J.J., & Halperin, K.D. (2008). A framework for the study of personality and political behaviour. British Journal of Political Science, 38: 355 – 362.

Moore, K.R. (1998). Trust and relationship commitment in logistics alliances: A buyer perspective.

The Journal of Supply Chain Management, 34(1): 24 – 37.

Morf, C.C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unravelling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self- regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry: An International Journal for the Advancement of Psychological Theory, 12(4): 177 – 196.

Oldmeadow, J.A., Platow, M.J., Foddy, M., & Anderson, D. (2003). Self-categorization, status, and social influence. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(2): 138 – 152.

Oskarsson, S., Dawes, C., Johannesson, M., & Magnusson, P.K.E. (2012). The genetic origins of the relationship between psychological traits and social trust. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 15: 21 – 33.

Ouchi, W.G. (1979). A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control

mechanisms. Management Science, 25: 833 – 848.

Palan, S., & Schitter, C. (2017). Profilic.ac – A subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17: 22 – 27.

Peer, E., Samat, S., Brandimarte, L., & Acquisti, A. (2017). Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioural research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70: 153 – 163.

Peterson, R.S., Smith, D.B., Martorana., P.V. & Owens, P.D. (2003). The impact of chief executive officer personality on top management team dynamics: One mechanism on by which leadership affects organizational performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 795 – 808.

PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2017). Joint ventures and strategic alliances: Examining the keys to success. Retrieved from https://www.pwc.com/us/en/services/deals/library/joint-ventures- strategic-alliances.html

Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C.S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological Reports, 45(2): 590.

Rhodewalt, F., & Morf, C. C. (1998). On self-aggrandizement and anger: A temporal analysis of narcissism and affective reactions to success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3): 672 – 685.

Ring, P. S., & van de Ven, A. H. (1994). Developmental process of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19: 90 – 118.

Rosenthal, S.A., & Pittinsky, T.L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17:

617 – 633.

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: 293 – 404.

Russel, G.A. (1985). Narcissism and the narcissistic personality disorder: A comparison of the theories of Kernberg and Kohut. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 58: 137–148.

Sabel, C.F. (1993). Studied trust: Building new forms of cooperation in a volatile economy.

Human Relations, 46: 1133 – 1170.

Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Acad

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behaviour. In Worchel, S., & Austin, L.W. (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 7 – 24. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Weber, L., & Bauman, C.W. (201). The impact of promotion and prevention contracts on trust in repeated exchanges: an experimental investigation. The Academy of Management Journal, 62(2), 361 – 382.

Wicks, A.C., Shawn, B.L., & Jones, T.M. (1999). The structure of optimal trust: Moral and strategic implications. The Academy of Management Review, 24(1): 99 – 116.

Yip, J.A., & Schweitzer, M.E. (2015). Trust promotes unethical behaviour: Excessive trust, opportunistic exploitation, and strategic exploitation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6: 216 – 220.

Zhang, Y., & Huxham, C. (2009). Identity construction and trust building in developing

international collaborations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45(2): 186 – 211.