The interaction between boundary spanners and the creation of interpersonal trust in strategic alliances.
The mediating role of interpersonal relationship and the ‘danger’ of organisational identification.
Master thesis, MSc. Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
June 16, 2019
ABSTRACT
Organisations increasingly prefer to opt for strategic alliances but most of them still fail due to lacking trust. Little research exists regarding interpersonal trust creation in strategic alliances. To increase the success rate and to add to the scientific understanding of strategic alliances, this study examines how the interaction among boundary spanners in strategic alliances leads to the development of interpersonal trust, by exploring interpersonal relationship as a mediator. Additionally, the ‘danger’ of dissimilar organisational identification is considered by investigating whether it moderates the relationship between interaction and interpersonal trust negatively. An online experiment and qualitative interviews show that interpersonal relationship does not function as a mediator and that dissimilar organisational identity has no moderating effect. Nevertheless, a positive relationship between interpersonal relationship and trust has been found. This study stresses the importance of interpersonal relationships and provides an initial concept which should be investigated further by future research.
INTRODUCTION
how a firm can create trust within a strategic alliance. For example, trust can be created through shared equity, the introduction of contractual agreements or by making large commitments (Gulati, 1995; Kale, Singh & Perlmutter, 2000; Kale & Singh, 2009; Mayer et al., 1995; Zaheer & Harris, 2006).
Individuals who cooperate with and develop trust in individuals from the partner organisation in the post-formation phase of a strategic alliance are called boundary spanners. These are actors who processes “the information coming from the partner organisation”, represents the interests of his or her own firm in a relationship and links environmental elements with organisational structure (Adams, 1976; Aldrich & Herker, 1977: 218; Perrone, Zaheer & McEvily, 2003: 423). A strong interpersonal relationship between boundary spanners of partner organisations is important for successful strategic alliance management as an antipathy, which leads to unwillingness to cooperate, is counterproductive for the creation of strategic alliance synergies (Jap & Anderson, 2003).
organisational identity has a moderating effect on the creation of interpersonal trust in strategic alliances.
Theoretically, by taking an individual perspective, this study will contribute as the creation of interpersonal trust is examined and in the context of strategic alliances. Also, the role of interpersonal relationship in the process is investigated. In addition, further factors which might impact the creation of interpersonal trust in strategic alliances are explored by considering individuals’ identification with their own organisation. Practically, the study intends to enable organisations to increase the success rate of strategic alliances by sensitising managers for the importance of interpersonal trust. The understanding of the underlying process of interpersonal trust creation allows managers of strategic alliances to introduce suitable mechanisms to enhance interpersonal trust among boundary spanners. Furthermore, this study helps organisations to increase their performance during a strategic alliance. The investigation of the underexamined mechanism between interpersonal relationship and interpersonal trust revealed that the development of interpersonal relationships is critical for the creation of interpersonal trust among boundary spanners and to ensure thereby the successful performance of an organisation. A literature review and hypotheses follow, that will be tested empirically and examined further through qualitative interviews. In the end, results will be discussed and limitations, recommendations as well as practical and theoretical implications of the study stated before a conclusion is drawn. Figure 1 depicts the proposed moderation and mediation model. The main research question and the sub research question are as follows:
Research question: To what extent do interpersonal relationships mediate the relationship between interaction and interpersonal trust?
FIGURE 1 Conceptual model
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
In the following, key theoretical perspectives and empirical findings that have already informed the research topic will be explained.
Interaction and interpersonal trust
For a successful strategic collaboration, complementary knowledge needs to be acquired and absorbed from partner organisations (Nielsen, 2005). In the post-formation phase this knowledge is gained through interactions of individuals from different partner organisations. Through face-to-face interactions or interaction media such as e-mail, experiences are shared, disseminated and the exchange of information enhanced (Dekker, Rutte & Van den Berg, 2008; Inkpen, 1996; Morgan, Salas & Glickman, 1993; Rousseau, Aubé & Savoie, 2006). The interaction between boundary spanners can be frequently when little time elapses between exchanges or infrequent when a lot of time elapses (Deo Sharma, 1998: 515). Parkhe (1993) showed that frequent interactions among boundary spanners are positively related to strategic alliances’ success. In contrast, infrequent interactions will decelerate learning and therewith
Interaction Interpersonal trust
reduce the success of a strategic alliance (Ghosh, 2004; Lei & Slocum, 1992). According to Galbraith (1977) the degree of interaction between individuals is enhanced through three coordination mechanisms which are interfirm knowledge-sharing routines (Dyer & Singh, 1998), formal roles or structures which oversee interactions and feedback mechanisms (Prashant & Harbir, 2009). However, overall past literature showed that interactions impact individuals’ psychological attachment to a strategic alliance, make tacit knowledge explicit and determine outcomes of a strategic alliance (Ghosh, 2004; Kumar & Nti, 1998; Potter, Cooke & Balthazard, 2000).
connection and therewith act in the interest of others. Identification-based trust is created through joint products, goals, proximity and shared values (Kramer & Tyler, 1995; Lewicki & Bunker, 1995; Shapiro et al., 1992). In other words, the creation of interpersonal trust requires information about possible threats, rewards, an individual’s behaviour or norms and values. In their study Lewicki and Bunker (1995) stress that interpersonal trust develops through a stage-wise development. First, deterrence-based-trust exists when individuals operate with each other the first time. This is strengthened through the gain of knowledge about the individual of the partner organisation that results into knowledge-based trust. Afterwards, identification-based trust evolves if individuals have interest to learn about and identify with each other (Lewicki & Bunker, 1995).
Literature shows that the creation of interpersonal trust in a strategic alliance requires the possession of information about a boundary spanner. Considering the memory model by Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968), information is received by an individual through sensory memories such as the visual or auditory system. Additionally, information will be hold perpetual if they are repeated (Hebb, 1961; Melton, 1963). Following, in the context of strategic alliances, the boundary spanner receives information through interaction media. As the interactions between the individuals are repeated, information is hold permanent and fosters therewith the creation of interpersonal trust. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 1. Interaction has a positive effect on interpersonal trust.
The mediating effect of interpersonal relationship
boundary spanners to some extent through activities that build relationships (Pirola-Merlo, Härtel, Mann & Hirst, 2002; Shapiro et al., 1992).
Haytko (2004) introduces three interpersonal relationship categories: strictly business, business friends and personal. Individuals, who have a strictly business relationship focus invariably on a common project. No communication, personal interaction and knowledge exchange with the partner’s contact person occurs. In contrast, in a business friend relationship, self-disclosure, certain degree of interaction and a small knowledge base between individuals exists. Finally, in a personal relationship, an extensive knowledge base of an other individual persists. Furthermore, a lot of interaction and self-disclosure takes place (Haytko, 2004).
However, the creation of an interpersonal relationship requires social bonds (Perry, Cavaye & Coote, 2002; Rodríguez & Wilson, 2002; Wilson, 1995), which is “the degree of mutual personal friendship and liking shared” by individuals (Wilson, 1995: 339). The importance of social bonds in the creation of interpersonal relationships is stressed by the little literature on social bonds. Past studies found that social bonds impact openness of communication positively, are more important than economic resources for customer satisfaction and lead to higher commitment to maintain a relationship between buyers and sellers (Bolton, Smith & Wagner, 2003; Čater, 2008; Mummalaneni & Wilson, 1991; Wilson & Mummalaneni, 1986).
maintenance of a relationship structual bonds are not sufficient since social bonds avoid opportunistic behaviour (Madhok, 2006).
Nevertheless, it is important to note that social bonds accure according to Wilson (1995) through social interactions. These can be seen as short-term episodes in which routinizing takes place. Routinized activities provide individuals among other things with proximity and a common context. Therewith, they link individuals in an emotional perspective with each other (Ling, 2000; Ritter & Gemünden, 2003; Schutte & Light, 1978).
Following, in the context of a strategic alliance, interaction may function as a mean through which interpersonal relationship among boundary spanners develop. Hence, through interaction more information is gained about a contact person. Therewith, the proximity between the individuals increases and an emotional link between an individual and the partner’s contact person may accures. These social bonds result into the creation of a strong interpersonal relationship. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 2. Interaction has a positive effect on interpersonal relationship.
Interpersonal trust is the outcome of a relationship, which develops gradually over time (Robert, Denis & Hung, 2009). In line, literature states that trust requires social relationships to exist (Hosmer, 1995; Lewis & Weigert, 1985) and Haytko (2004) stresses that higher trust exists in strong personal relationships. The development of trust requires that individuals do not act opportunistically and therewith do not take advantage of a trustor (Hosmer 1995; Six, 2007; Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard & Werner, 1998).
interest of others (Chen, Peng & Saparito, 2002). Hence, individuals recognize a moral imperative and thus act in the best interest of a person as they expect the same from the person (Kant, 1785; Lyons & Mehta, 1997: 244). In line, literature defines social bonds as very important for mutual trust among individuals and found a positive impact of social bonds on trust (Čater, 2008; Mavondo & Rodrigo, 2001; Rodríguez & Wilson, 2002; Snehota & Hakansson, 1995).
Following, the development of interpersonal trust between boundary spanners in a strategic alliance may depends on the existence of an interpersonal relationship. An interpersonal relationship embodies an emotional linkage, which creates moral obligations between individuals. Thereby an interpersonal relationship prevents opportunistic behaviour between boundary spanners which creates trust among them. Therefore it is expected:
Hypothesis 3. Interpersonal relationship has a positive effect on interpersonal trust.
Considering the above stated hypotheses, it can be concluded that the effect of interaction has a direct as well as indirect effect on interpersonal trust creation. First, interaction generates directly interpersonal trust between boundary spanners in a strategic alliance as information about each other is exchanged and hold permanent through interaction media. Second, through interaction, emotional links develop which lead to the creation of interpersonal relationships between the boundary spanners. The relationships’ moral obligations prevent individuals’ opportunistic behaviour which enhances the development of trust between them. Hence, interpersonal relationship is an important mechanism that explains the positive effect of interaction on interpersonal trust creation. Therefore, the indirect effect of interaction on interpersonal trust is hypothesized as follows:
Organisational identification as a moderator
According to the social identity theory, which has been introduced by Tajfel (1978) and later been extended by Tajfel and Turner (1979), boundary spanners maybe classify themselves into a social category such as an organisational membership (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). This identification with an organisation is one form of social identity and is the “perceived oneness with an organisation” (Mael & Ashforth, 1992: 103). Therewith, it provides a definition of self to the boundary spanner (Ashforth & Mael, 1989) as he or she is seen to belong to a certain organisation which is characterised by prototypical characteristics (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Trepte & Loy, 2017; Turner, 2010). Following, boundary spanners who identify with their organisation, internalize the group membership as an important aspect of their self-concept (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), which persists out of a personal identity and social identity (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). In general, the organisational identification can refer to different organisational levels such as organisational, team or department level (Dukerich, Golden & Shortell, 2002; Rink & Ellemers, 2007; Van Dick, Wagner, Stellmacher & Christ, 2004; Van Knippenberg & Van Schie, 2000). Overall, the social identity theory assumes that personal identity, which contains idiosyncratic characteristics, forms the opposite of social identity, that are salient classifications (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Trepte & Loy, 2017).
fact that individuals favour towards their own in-groups because humans’ self-concept depends partially on membership in social groups, the seek for positive self-esteem and the fact that positive social identity can be enhanced through comparison with out-groups (Perdue, Dovidio, Gurtman & Tyler, 1990; Tajfel, 1970; Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Van Dick et al., 2004). This favouritism does not require interaction among groups and is independent of liking (Turner, 1984). Consequences are that more rewards are allocated to in-group members, in-group members are perceived to possess more positive attributes and individuals help in-group members more likely (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Brewer, 1979; Gaertner, Mann, Murrell & Dovidio, 1989; Piliavin, Dovidio, Gaertner & Clark, 1981; Tajfel, 1970; Wilder, 1986). Additionally, in-group members are perceived as more trustworthy, loyal, honest and cooperative (Kane et al., 2005). In an organisational context, past research showed that individuals who identify with their own organisation act in line with their organisation’s values, identity and in a way that benefits their own organisation (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Cheney, 1983; Lee, 2004). Nevertheless, ones’ group membership only affects behaviour if it is salient (Trepte & Loy, 2017).
Hypothesis 5. Organisational identification moderates the relationship between interaction and interpersonal trust, such that the relationship is weaker (stronger) with a dissimilar (similar) organisational identification.
METHODOLOGY
In order to answer the research question “To what extent do interpersonal relationships mediate the relationship between interaction and interpersonal trust?” and the sub research question “To what extent does organisational identification moderate the relationship between interaction and interpersonal trust?”, I considered qualitative and quantitative instruments. First, to test the above stated hypotheses I conducted an online experiment which was developed online by using Qualtrics and distributed through Amazon Turk Prime. Second, I executed qualitative interviews with boundary spanners of strategic alliances to gain additional practical insights into the hypothetical quantitative findings. This study was part of a collaboration with a PhD student and a fellow student of the MSc Human Resource Management to ensure the generation of sufficient data for the analyses. Nevertheless, only the content of the collaborative survey, which is relevant to answer the above stated research questions, will be considered in the following. The sample, procedure, measures and analytical approach of the online experiment and the interviews are exemplified below.
Sample quantitative experiment
did not pass the attention check and I excluded them therewith. Additionally, I excluded two outliers because of invalid answers. Furthermore, I deleted 185 participants because they fell under manipulation conditions unrelated to the present study. In the end, I used a final sample of 213 participants for the quantitative data analyses. The sample contained 110 female (51.6%) and 103 male (48.4%) participants (ratio of around 94). Furthermore, the average age of the sample was 38, with 19 as a minimum value, 74 as a maximum value, a standard deviation (SD) of 12 and a range of 55. Additionally, 82.2% stated that English is their mother tongue and the majority (47.9%) indicated a Bachelors’ degree as their highest educational level. A summary of the descriptive statistics can be found in Table A1 (Appendix A).
Procedure quantitative experiment
Manipulation of organisational identity
similar group was still 0.11 lower than of the baseline. A graphical illustration (Graph D1) of the means can be found in Appendix D.
Measurement quantitative experiment
This study considered a correlational design as I aimed to investigate the relationship between variables. Following, existing measurement instruments, which have been adapted, were used to test the above stated relationships. Thereby, construct validity and reliability were ensured. Nevertheless, to guarantee that different items measured the same construct, I conducted an internal reliability analysis additionally. It can be concluded that each variables’ items measured the same concept as the Cronbach’s alphas were all above the criterion value 0.70 (Cortina, 1993a).
Interaction. To measure the variable interaction, I conducted two different scenarios in which participants needed to invest resources into the cooperation between firm A and B. While some participants participated five rounds, others participated only two rounds in the cooperation.
Interpersonal relationship. I adapted the three-item scale of Rodríguez and Wilson (2002) for the variable interpersonal relationship, which asses the social bonding between individuals. A sample question is: “If I were to drop this contact person, I would drop a good business partner”. However, I measured interpersonal relationships twice in the survey. Once before participants took place in the cooperation (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89) and once after the cooperation took place (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.85). For response I considered a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).
disposition to trust (r = .20, p = .00) correlated significantly with interpersonal trust. This means that higher values of interpersonal trust were associated with a greater degree of need for affiliation and disposition to trust. In addition, the results stressed that need for affiliation (r = .33, p = .00) and disposition to trust (r = .30, p = .00) correlated significantly with interpersonal relationship measured before the interaction and afterwards (need for affiliation (r = .21, p = .00) and disposition to trust (r = .20, p = .00)). Following, it can be concluded that higher values of interpersonal relationship were related to a greater degree of need for affiliation and disposition to trust. Besides, both control variables did correlate significantly with each other (r = .58, p = .00). To sum, this means that higher values of need for affiliation were associated with a higher degree of disposition to trust and vice versa. An overview of the correlations is depicted in Table E1 in Appendix E.
Data analysis quantitative experiment
Sample qualitative interview
To gain further insights into the quantitative findings, I considered a purposive sample that provided additional information about the creation of interpersonal trust in strategic alliances. Out of the parent population “employees in strategic alliances”, I generated a sample by considering “direct business contact to boundary spanners of the partner organisation” as a selection criterion. In order to detect suitable interviewees, I used Google by searching for the key word “strategic alliances”. Therefore, the derived sample contained two male boundary spanners who were 63 and 46 year’s old.
Procedure qualitative interview
Data analysis qualitative interview
To integrate the findings of the qualitative interviews in the following discussion, I analysed the interview transcripts. This contained the coding of the data segments regarding each hypothesis (Maruster & Gijsenberg, 2013).
RESULTS
In the following, the results of the statistical analyses of the mediation (H1-H4), moderation (H5) and the complete moderation and mediation model are presented which considered the cross-sectional measure of interpersonal trust. In addition, I conducted further analyses in order to explore the role of similar identity as a moderator and the moderating effect of similar as well as dissimilar identity on the positive relationship between interpersonal relationships and interpersonal trust. In the end, I examined additionally the longitudinal measure of interpersonal trust in order to investigate the relationship between interaction and interpersonal trust in more detail.
Mediation
= 0.54). This result is underlined by an additionally conducted paired-samples-t-test which determines if there was a change in individuals’ interpersonal relationships over the collaboration. Nevertheless, the results of the paired-samples-t-test show that interpersonal relationships do not rise significantly through the interaction t (212) = 0.50, p = 0.61, d = 0.03. Following, I reject H2. Third, it has been hypothesized that interpersonal relationship has a positive impact on interpersonal trust (H3). The results of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis, which considered the relationship between interpersonal relationship and interpersonal trust in the presence of interaction and the control variables, stress that a positive relationship exists (B = 0.70, SE = 0.05, p = 0.00). Thus, I accept H3 and conclude that an increase in interpersonal relationships leads to an increase in interpersonal trust of 0.70. Fourth, I tested the relationship between interaction and interpersonal trust in the presence of interpersonal relationships in order to investigate the effect of the mediator on the dependent variable. This relationship is not significant (B = 0.08, SE = 0.09, p = 0.39). Overall, I conclude that interpersonal relationship does not act as a mediator because the relationship between interaction and interpersonal trust as well to interpersonal relationship are insignificant. Nevertheless, I still conducted the Sobel-test in order to complete the mediation analysis. The results stress that no significant evidence for an indirect effect through the mediator interpersonal relationship exists (Z = 0.59, p = 0.54). Following, I reject hypothesis 4.
Moderation
between the independent and dependent variable (B = 0.13, SE = 0.13, p = 0.30). Afterwards, I added the moderator dissimilar identity which is insignificant (B = -0.19, SE = 0.13, p = 0.14). Finally, I added the interaction effect to test the effect of moderation. Nevertheless, the results show that no evidence is given that dissimilar identity acted as a moderator (B = 0.08, SE = 0.26, p = 0.73). In line are the results of the interaction effect in the PROCESS model 1, which I ran additionally. The interaction effect is insignificant (B = 0.08, SE = 0.25, p = 0.72). Following, it can be concluded that dissimilar identity does not moderate the relationship between interaction and interpersonal trust. Therewith I reject H5.
Moderation and mediation
Finally, I considered PROCESS 5 in order to test the entire moderation and mediation model. Its results are in line with the above stated previous conclusions. An overview of the results is presented in Table H1 (Appendix H). First, no relationship between interaction and interpersonal trust exists (H1) (B = 0.09, SE = 0.09, p = 0.33). Furthermore, no significant evidence has been found for H2 neither (B = 0.07, SE = 0.11, p = 0.49). Thus, no evidence for H4 exists. Nevertheless, the relationship between interpersonal relationship and interpersonal trust (H3) is, as stated above, significant (B = 0.69, SE = 0.06, p = 0.00). Finally, the interaction term is insignificant (B = 0.20, SE = 0.19, p = 0.28) which leads to the conclusion that no significant evidence has been found for H5.
Additional analyses
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The aim of the study was to investigate the relationship of interaction on interpersonal trust and whether interpersonal relationship mediates this relationship. Moreover, the moderating effect of dissimilar organisational identity on the relationship between interaction and interpersonal trust has been investigated. However, the results of the sample which contained 213 participants varied. First, the findings stressed that interaction does not have a significant effect on interpersonal relationship nor to the cross-sectional measurement of interpersonal trust. Nevertheless, the longitudinal measurement of interpersonal trust showed a significant relationship with interaction as the investments’ means increased over each round. Second, the results did not show that dissimilar identity has a negative moderating effect on the relationship of interaction on interpersonal trust. The additional conducted analysis which tested the moderating effect of similar identity was insignificant, too. Third, no significant evidence was found that stresses that interpersonal relationship acts as a mediator on the relationship of interaction and interpersonal trust. Though a significant relationship exists between interpersonal relationship and interpersonal trust. Finally, the additional conducted analyses did not show a moderating effect of similar or dissimilar identity on the relationship between interpersonal relationship and interpersonal trust.
Interpretation of results
In order to explain these findings, qualitative interviews as well as previous literature are considered in the following.
which states that interpersonal relationships have a significant positive impact on trust (Doney & Cannon, 1997; Hawes, Mast & Swan, 1989; Nicholson, Compeau & Sethi, 2001; Swan, Trawick, Rink & Roberts, 1988; Swan, Trawick & Silva, 1985) and is one of the most important “antecedents of interpersonal trust” (Doney & Cannon, 1997; Nicholson et al., 2001: 5). Furthermore, the interviewees indeed underline the theoretical perspective by stating that they trust a person more if they know him or her “better” and are personally “more connected”. The underlying explanation for this relationship are moral obligations that result from an emotional relationship (Adobor, 2006). Obligations prevent opportunistic behaviour and create therewith interpersonal trust (Hosmer 1995; Six, 2007; Whitener et al., 1998). Also, obligations prevent that interpersonal relationships are impacted negatively by opportunistic behaviour (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). However, individuals often realize a boundary spanner’s moral obligation first during difficult times which thereby “help to establish better relations”. In this study, the manager of firm B never violated the moral obligations which were expected by participants. More precisely, participants never perceived firm B’s managers to act opportunistically by for instance splitting up the invested resources unfairly. Instead firm B’s managers always split up the invested resources equally between firm A and B because of the programmed standardized decision in the survey. Therewith, participants had the feeling that firm B’s manager acts in their best interest and interpersonal trust developed. Hence, interpersonal trust was created because of the study’s experimental set-up.
insights from the conducted interviews into account, a conclusion should be drawn more carefully. Both interviewees stress that the creation of an emotional link with a partner’s boundary spanner requires numerous face-to-face interactions to develop “something different than a work relationship”. For example, a “family” group atmosphere is created through “visits” and a “small conference”, which include drinks and dinner. This is underlined by Baker and Dutton’s (2007) practices for the creation of high-quality relationships (Carmeli, Brueller & Dutton, 2009: 91). Among other things, relational meeting practices are recommended for the creation of personal relationships. It is argued that individuals share during such events narratives which are according to social theorists essential for the creation of personal relationships (Baker and Dutton, 2007; Putnam & Feldstein, 2009). To sum, it can be concluded that interaction media like email is not sufficient for the development of an interpersonal relationship between boundary spanners. Instead, additional face-to-face interaction among boundary spanners is required for the development of interpersonal relationships. Hence, managers of strategic alliances need to enhance face-to-face communication among boundary spanners in a strategic alliance in order to ensure the creation of emotional linkages. The importance of face-to-face interaction can be explained by the media richness theory by Daft and Lengel (1986). Accordingly, face-to-face interaction is categorized as a rich and email as a leaner medium, because face-to-face interaction contains more ability to convey nonverbal cues which include among other things facial expressions (Aguinis, Simonsen & Pierce, 1998; Burgoon, Bonito, Ramirez Jr, Dunbar, Kam & Fischer, 2002; Kotlyar & Ariely, 2013). For the creation of interpersonal relationships these nonverbal cues are conducive because more nonverbal cues are associated with “better perception of the other person, greater information disclosure” and a greater desire to develop a relationship (Kotlyar & Ariely, 2013: 549).
know each other better” such as others’ opinions, interests, “attitude”, “appearance” and behaviour. Thereby distance between the individuals is reduced and boundary spanners feel “more connected” and trust each other more than with whom they “have more distance”. This can also be defined as knowledge-based trust, which refers to the ability to predict an individual’s behaviour due to exchanged information (Lewicki & Bunker, 1995; Shapiro et al., 1992). Thereby, the above detected positive relationship between rounds of investments and the increase of participants’ trust can be explained. In other words, it can be concluded that participants gained through each investment decision more information that enabled him or her to predict manager B’s behaviour regarding the division of the resources. After the participant realized that manager B divides the resources always equally, he or she predicted that this will also be the case for the following rounds. Hence, the participant decided to invest more resources in subsequent rounds. The findings showed that the means of invested resources increased steadily over time from approximately 5 resources in the beginning to around 8 resources in the end. Therewith, it can be reasoned that the participant developed knowledge-based trust because of the gained information about the behaviour of firm B’s manager.
interaction took place between the participant and the manager of firm B, in form of an investment decision, the individuals did not interact face-to-face. Hence in this experimental set-up, is was unfeasible for the participant to verify shared values with the manager of firm B, which resulted in the failure to create identification-based interpersonal trust.
Overall, the above stated contradicting results, regarding the relationship of interaction and interpersonal trust, stress that the decision how boundary spanners interact with each other is a critical strategic decision. While the findings show that interaction media such as email would be sufficient for the creation of knowledge-based-trust, more time and effort would be required for the creation of identification-based trust.
they started to see each other as ‘we’ and therewith did not perceive originally ‘out-group’ members as less trustworthy because of their common interest “the cooperation”. This is underlined by the fact that the means of similar and dissimilar individuals did not differ statistically significant in the behavioural measure of trust. Furthermore, the insignificant effect of similar organisational identity can may be explained by the fact that the three ways through which participants’ perception of a similar identity has been manipulated were not strong enough. This is stressed by the result that the mean difference between similar identity and the baseline has not been statistically significant. This irrelevance of dissimilar and similar identity is underlined by additional conducted analyses which show no significant moderating effect of similar nor dissimilar identity on the significant positive relationship between interpersonal relationship and trust.
To conclude, this study investigated if interpersonal relationship functions as a mediator in the relationship between interaction and interpersonal trust. Nevertheless, the insignificant result of the Sobel-test shows that interpersonal relationship did not act as a mediator in this relationship. This is maybe due to the way interaction has been measured in this study. Due to the exclusion of face-to-face interaction it is very likely that the relationships between interaction and interpersonal trust as well as to interpersonal relationship failed and therewith the role of interpersonal relationship as a mediator. Thereby, the insignificance of the complete moderation and mediation model may be explained as well.
Limitations and future directions
The conducted study has several limitations, of which the most important ones are elaborated in the following.
alliances, the findings need to be interpreted critically as the artificial perceived set-up might have affected participants’ answers. Additionally, because the experiment was distributed as an online survey, uncertainty exists to which extent participants’ responses have been biased by his or her personal well-being and external environment. Hence, the reliability of the above stated results should be questioned (Carmines & Zeller, 1979).
Second, the study is also limited because of the way interpersonal trust and interaction has been measured. Even though that a cross-sectional and a longitudinal measurement of trust has been used, it needs to be questioned if interpersonal trust has been measured appropriately for the aim of the study. Considering the cross-sectional measurement of trust, interpersonal trust in general has been examined. Nevertheless, interpersonal trust can be differentiated into different kinds such as knowledge-based and identification-based trust. Furthermore, the longitudinal measurement aimed to investigate the behavioural measure of trust. However, during this study participants never experienced to be disappointed by manager B. Following, this could have enhanced participants’ tactical behaviour during investments. In addition, interaction has been measured through the cooperation rounds. However, no face-to-face interaction took place, which turned out to be an essential element of interaction. To sum, the content validity of the measurements interpersonal trust and interaction need to be viewed critically (Lynn, 1986).
Following, participants should experience once an unfairly split of resources to test if a developed relationship created trust in firm B’s manager and participants therewith continue to act in the partner’s best interest (Lyons & Mehta, 1997) or act strategically during the investments instead.
Theoretical implications
Practical implications
This study revealed that interpersonal trust in strategic alliances develops through an interpersonal relationship between boundary spanners. Based on this finding, in order to ensure a strategic alliance’s success, managers need to be pro-active in the post-formation phases (Kale & Singh, 2009) by introducing mechanisms which foster the creation of interpersonal relationships between boundary spanners of partner organisations. If this is not done right from the beginning, boundary spanners will experience difficulties to develop relationships and therewith trust. This is due to lack of time once the strategic alliance started and the fact that the creation of interpersonal relationships is “not part of the main agenda” of the partner organisations. Therefore, the following relationship-building mechanisms are recommended in the beginning of the post-formation phase.
It is recommended to invite all boundary spanners to a conference during which the goal of the strategic alliance is clearly communicated. Thereby, a common goal is created for the different boundary spanners which enhances the interest to develop interpersonal relationships as the overall strategic alliance’s success will benefit everyone (Ferrazzi, 2012; Nicholson et al., 2001). In addition, workshops should take place during the conference, through which boundary spanners from partner organisations exchange information face-to-face about their professional and personal lives with each other. Thereby familiarity and empathy are created which leads to the creation of emotional linkages and finally trust (Ferrazzi, 2012; Han, 1991; Rodríguez & Wilson, 2002).
Conclusion
REFERENCES
Adams, J. S. 1976. The structure and dynamics of behavior in organizational boundary roles. In M. D. Dunnette (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: 1175-1199. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Adobor, H. 2006. The role of personal relationships in inter-firm alliances: Benefits, dysfunctions, and some suggestions. Business Horizons, 49(6): 473-486.
Aguinis, H., Simonsen, M. M., & Pierce, C. A. 1998. Effects of nonverbal behavior on perceptions of power bases. The Journal of social psychology, 138(4): 455-469.
Albert, S. 1998. The definition and metadefinition of identity. In D. A. Whetten & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Developing theory through conversations: 1-13. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. 1985. Organizational identity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7: 263-295.
Albers, S., Wohlgezogen, F., & Zajac, E. J. 2016. Strategic alliance structures: An organization design perspective. Journal of Management, 42(3): 582-614.
Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. 1977. Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. Academy of management review, 2(2): 217-230.
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. 2008. Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of management, 34(3): 325-374.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of management review, 14(1): 20-39.
Baker, W., & Dutton, J. E. 2007. Enabling positive social capital in organizations. In J. E.
Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring Positive Relationships at Work: Building a Theoretical and Research Foundation: 325–346. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6): 1173-1182.
Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley.
Bolton, R. N., Smith, A. K., & Wagner, J. 2003. Striking the right balance: designing service to enhance business-to-business relationships. Journal of Service Research, 5(4): 271-291.
Boyatzis, R. E. 1979. The need for close relationships and the manager's job. Organisational psychology: Readings in human behaviour in organisations: 81-86.
Bracht, G. H., & Glass, G. V. 1968. The external validity of experiments. American educational research journal, 5(4): 437-474.
Brewer, M. B. 1979. In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological bulletin, 86(2): 307.
Buchan, N. R., Croson, R. T., & Solnick, S. 2008. Trust and gender: An examination of behavior and beliefs in the Investment Game. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68(3-4): 466-476.
Buono, A. F., & Bowditch, J. L. 1989. The human side of mergers and acquisitions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Burke, P. J. 2006. Contemporary social psychological theories. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Carmeli, A., Brueller, D., & Dutton, J. E. 2009. Learning behaviours in the workplace: The role of high‐quality interpersonal relationships and psychological safety. Systems Research and Behavioral Science: The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research, 26(1): 81-98.
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. 1979. Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Čater, B. 2008. The importance of social bonds for communication and trust in marketing relationships in professional services. Management: journal of contemporary management issues, 13(1): 1-15.
Chen, C. C., Peng, M. W., & Saparito, P. A. 2002. Individualism, collectivism, and opportunism: A cultural perspective on transaction cost economics. Journal of Management, 28(4): 567-583.
Cheney, G. 1983. On the various and changing meanings of organizational membership: A field study of organizational identification. Communications Monographs, 50(4): 342-362.
Child, J. 2015. Organization: contemporary principles and practice. Cornwall: John Wiley & Sons.
Cortina, J. M. 1993a. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of applied psychology, 78(1): 98.
Cortina, J. M. 1993b. Interaction, nonlinearity, and multicollinearity: Implications for multiple regression. Journal of Management, 19(4): 915-922.
Croson, R., Anand, J., & Agarwal, R. 2007. Using experiments in corporate strategy research. European Management Review, 4(3): 173-181.
Daft & Lengel, 1986. Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management science, 32(5): 554-571.
Dasgupta, P. 1988. Trust as commodity. In D. Gambetta (Eds.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations: 49-72. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Deo Sharma, D. 1998. A model for governance in international strategic alliances. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 13(6): 511-528.
DeRosa, D. M., Hantula, D. A., Kock, N., & D'Arcy, J. 2004. Trust and leadership in virtual teamwork: A media naturalness perspective. Human Resource Management, 43(2‐ 3): 219-232.
Dekker, D. M., Rutte, C. G., & Van den Berg, P. T. 2008. Cultural differences in the perception of critical interaction behaviors in global virtual teams. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(5): 441-452.
Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. 1997. An examination of the nature of trust in buyer–seller relationships. Journal of marketing, 61(2): 35-51.
Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B. R., & Shortell, S. M. 2002. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: The impact of organizational identification, identity, and image on the cooperative behaviors of physicians. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(3): 507-533.
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of management review, 23(4): 660-679.
Elmuti, D., & Kathawala, Y. 2001. An overview of strategic alliances. Management decision, 39(3): 205-218.
Ferrazzi, K; How to Build Trust in a Virtual Workplace; https://hbr.org/2012/10/how-to-build-trust-in-virtual; October 2012.
Fiol, M., Hatch, M. J., & Golden-Biddle, K. 1998. Organizational culture and identity: What's the difference anyway?. In D. Whetten & P. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: 56-59. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Murrell, A., & Dovidio, J. F. 1989. Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization. Journal of personality and social psychology, 57(2): 239.
Galbraith, J. R. 1977. Organization design. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Company.
Ghosh, A. 2004. Learning in strategic alliances: A Vygotskian perspective. The Learning Organization, 11(4-5): 302-311.
Gulati, R. 1995. Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of management journal, 38(1): 85-112.
Gulati, R., & Nickerson, J. A. 2008. Interorganizational trust, governance choice, and exchange performance. Organization Science, 19(5): 688-708.
Han, S. 1991. Antecedents of Buyer–Seller Long-term Relationships: An Exploratory Model
of Structural Bonding and Social Bonding. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The
Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania.
Harrison, J. S., Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Ireland, R. D. 2001. Resource complementarity in business combinations: Extending the logic to organizational alliances. Journal of management, 27(6): 679-690.
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. 2002. The dynamics of organizational identity. Human relations, 55(8): 989-1018.
Hawes, J. M., Mast, K. E., & Swan, J. E. 1989. Trust earning perceptions of sellers and buyers. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 9(1): 1-8.
Hayes, A. F. 2013. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.
Haytko, D. L. 2004. Firm-to-firm and interpersonal relationships: Perspectives from advertising agency account managers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(3): 312-328.
Hebb, D. O. 1961. Distinctive features of learning in the higher animal. Brain mechanisms and learning, 37: 46.
Hill, C. A. 1987. Affiliation motivation: people who need people…but in different ways. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(5): 1008.
Hitt, M. A., Keats, B. W., & DeMarie, S. M. 1998. Navigating in the new competitive landscape: Building strategic flexibility and competitive advantage in the 21st century. Academy of Management Perspectives, 12(4): 22-42.
Hoskisson, R. E., & Busenitz, L. W. 2002. Market uncertainty and learning distance in corporate entrepreneurship entry mode choice. Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset, 151: 172.
Hosmer, L. T. 1995. Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of management Review, 20(2): 379-403.
Inkpen, A. C. 1996. Creating knowledge through collaboration. California management review, 39(1): 123-140.
Inkpen, A. C., & Birkenshaw, J. 1994. International joint ventures and performance: an interorganizational perspective. International Business Review, 3(3): 201-217.
Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Vaidyanath, D. 2002. Alliance management as a source of competitive advantage. Journal of management, 28(3): 413-446.
Jamison, G. D. 2011. Interpersonal trust in Latin America: analyzing variations in trust using data from the Latinobarómetro. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 3(3): 65.
Jap, S. D., & Anderson, E. 2003. Safeguarding interorganizational performance and continuity under ex post opportunism. Management science, 49(12): 1684-1701.
Jarillo, J. C. 1988. On strategic networks. Strategic management journal, 9(1): 31-41.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. 1999. Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization science, 10(6): 791-815.
Jo Hatch, M., & Schultz, M. 1997. Relations between organizational culture, identity and image. European Journal of marketing, 31(5-6): 356-365.
Johnson Jr, W. A., Scott, G. M., & Garrison, S. M. 2016. The Sociology Student Writer's Manual and Reader's Guide. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
Kale, P., & Singh, H. 2009. Managing strategic alliances: what do we know now, and where do we go from here?. The Academy of Management Perspectives: 45-62.
Kane, A. A., Argote, L., & Levine, J. M. 2005. Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowledge quality. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 96(1): 56-71.
Kant, I. 1785. The categorical imperative. In M. A. Cahn & R. O’brien (Eds.), Thinking About the Environment: Readings on Politics, Property and the Physical World: 293-312. New York: Routledge.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1978. The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
Kogut, B. 1991. Joint ventures and the option to expand and acquire. Management science, 37(1): 19-33.
Kotlyar, I., & Ariely, D. 2013. The effect of nonverbal cues on relationship formation. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3): 544-551.
Kramer, R. M., & Tyler, T. R. (Eds.). 1995. Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kumar, R., & Nti, K. O. 1998. Differential learning and interaction in alliance dynamics: A process and outcome discrepancy model. Organization science, 9(3): 356-367.
Laan, A., Noorderhaven, N., Voordijk, H., & Dewulf, G. 2011. Building trust in construction partnering projects: An exploratory case-study. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 17(2): 98-108.
Lambe, C. J., Spekman, R. E., & Hunt, S. D. 2002. Alliance competence, resources, and alliance success: conceptualization, measurement, and initial test. Journal of the academy of Marketing Science, 30(2): 141-158.
Lei, D., & Slocum Jr, J. W. 1992. Global strategy, competence-building and strategic alliances. California Management Review, 35(1): 81-97.
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. 1995. Trust in relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 5(1): 583-601.
Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. 1985. Trust as a social reality. Social forces, 63(4): 967-985.
Ling, R. 2000. Direct and mediated interaction in the maintenance of social relationships. In A. Sloane (Eds.), International Conference on Home-Oriented Informatics and Telematics: 61-86. Boston, MA: Springer.
Luo, Y. 2001. Antecedents and consequences of personal attachment in cross-cultural cooperative ventures. Administrative science quarterly, 46(2): 177-201.
Lynn, M. R. 1986. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35: 382– 385.
Lyons, B., & Mehta, J. 1997. Contracts, opportunism and trust: self-interest and social orientation. Cambridge journal of economics, 21(2): 239-257.
Madhok, A. 2006. Revisiting multinational firms' tolerance for joint ventures: A trust-based approach. Journal of international Business studies, 37(1): 30-43.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. 1992. Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of organizational Behavior, 13(2): 103-123.
Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, J. K. 2002. The effects of contracts on interpersonal trust. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(3): 534-559.
Maruster, L., & Gijsenberg, M. J. 2013. Qualitative research methods / editorial arrangement and practice. London: SAGE.
Mavondo, F. T., & Rodrigo, E. M. 2001. The effect of relationship dimensions on interpersonal and interorganizational commitment in organizations conducting business between Australia and China. Journal of Business Research, 52(2): 111-121.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of management review, 20(3): 709-734.
McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. 1998. Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management review, 23(3): 473-490.
Melton, A. W. 1963. Implications of short-term memory for a general theory of memory. Journal of verbal Learning and verbal Behavior, 2(1): 1-21.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. 1994. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of marketing, 58(3): 20-38.
Morgan, B. B., Jr., Salas, E., & Glickman, A. S. 1993. An analysis of team evolution and maturation. The Journal of General Psychology, 120 (3): 277-291.
Mummalaneni, V., & Wilson, D. T. 1991. The Influence of a Close Personal Relationship Between Y Buyer and a Seller on the Continued Stability of Their Role Relationship. Working paper no. 4-1991, Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania.
Nicholson, C. Y., Compeau, L. D., & Sethi, R. 2001. The role of interpersonal liking in building trust in long-term channel relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(1): 3.
Nielsen, B. B. 2010. Strategic fit, contractual, and procedural governance in alliances. Journal of Business Research, 63(7): 682-689.
Parkhe, A. 1993. Strategic alliance structuring: A game theoretic and transaction cost examination of interfirm cooperation. Academy of management journal, 36(4): 794-829.
Parkhe, A. 1998. Building trust in international alliances. Journal of World Business, 33(4): 417-437.
Perdue, C. W., Dovidio, J. F., Gurtman, M. B., & Tyler, R. B. 1990. Us and them: social categorization and the process of intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(3): 475
Perrone, V., Zaheer, A., & McEvily, B. 2003. Free to be trusted? Organizational constraints on trust in boundary spanners. Organization Science, 14(4): 422-439.
Perry, C., Cavaye, A., & Coote, L. 2002. Technical and social bonds within business-to-business relationships. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 17(1): 75-88.
Piliavin, J. A., Dovidio, J. F, Gaertner, S. L., & Clark, R. D. 1981. Emergency intervention. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Pirola-Merlo, A., Härtel, C., Mann, L., & Hirst, G. 2002. How leaders influence the impact of affective events on team climate and performance in R&D teams. The leadership quarterly, 13(5): 561-581.
Poppo, L., & Zenger, T. 2002. Do formal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes or complements?. Strategic management journal, 23(8): 707-725.
Prashant, K., & Harbir, S. 2009. Managing strategic alliances: what do we know now, and where do we go from here?. Academy of management perspectives, 23(3): 45-62.
Pratt, M. G. 2003. Disentangling collective identities. Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 5: 161-188.
Putnam, R. D., & Feldstein, L. 2009. Better together: Restoring the American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M. 2006. Responding to organizational identity threats: Exploring the role of organizational culture. Academy of management journal, 49(3): 433-458.
Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. 1989. Formal and informal dimensions of transactions. In A. Van de Ven, H. Angel & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Research on the Management of Innovation: The Minnesota Studies: 171–192. New York: Ballinger/Harper Row. Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. 1994. Developmental processes of cooperative
interorganizational relationships. Academy of management review, 19(1): 90-118.
Rink, F., & Ellemers, N. 2007. Diversity as a basis for shared organizational identity: The norm congruity principle. British Journal of Management, 18: 17-27.
Ritter, T., & Gemünden, H. G. 2003. Interorganizational relationships and networks: An overview. Journal of business research, 56(9): 691-697.
Robert, L. P., Denis, A. R., & Hung, Y. T. C. 2009. Individual swift trust and knowledge-based trust in face-to-face and virtual team members. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(2): 241-279.
Rousseau, D. M. 1998. Why workers still identify with organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 19(3): 217-233.
Rousseau, V., Aubé, C., & Savoie, A. 2006. Teamwork behaviors: A review and an integration of frameworks. Small group research, 37(5): 540-570.
Russo, M., & Cesarani, M. 2017. Strategic Alliance Success Factors: A Literature Review on Alliance Lifecycle. International Journal of Business Administration, 8(3): 1.
Schutte, J. G., & Light, J. M. 1978. The relative importance of proximity and status for friendship choices in social hierarchies. Social psychology, 41: 260-264.
Shapiro, D. L., Sheppard, B. H., & Cheraskin, L. 1992. Business on a handshake. Negotiation journal, 8(4): 365-377.
Sherman, S. 1992. Are strategic alliances working. Fortune, 126(6): 77-78.
Shi, Y., Guo, H., Zhang, S., Xie, F., Wang, J., Sun, Z., Dong, X., Sun, T., & Fan, L. 2018. Impact of workplace incivility against new nurses on job burn-out: a cross-sectional study in China. BMJ open, 8(4): 1-9.
Shrivastava, P. 1986. Postmerger integration. Journal of business strategy, 7(1): 65-76.
Six, F. E. 2007. Building interpersonal trust within organizations: a relational signalling perspective. Journal of Management & Governance, 11(3): 285-309.
Snehota, I., & Hakansson, H. (Eds.). 1995. Developing relationships in business networks. London: Routledge.
Spekman, R. E., Isabella, L. A., MacAvoy, T. C., & Forbes III, T. 1996. Creating strategic alliances which endure. Long range planning, 29(3): 346-357.
Stephens, K. K., & Dailey, S. L. 2012. Situated organizational identification in newcomers: Impacts of preentry organizational exposure. Management Communication Quarterly, 26(3): 404-422.
Swan, J. E., Trawick Jr, I. F., Rink, D. R., & Roberts, J. J. 1988. Measuring dimensions of purchaser trust of industrial salespeople. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 8(1): 1-10.
Swan, J. E., Trawick, I. F., & Silva, D. W. 1985. How industrial salespeople gain customer trust. Industrial marketing management, 14(3): 203-211.
Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. 2005. Research in Organizations: Foundations and Methods of Inquiry. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers.
Tajfel, H. 1970. Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223(5): 96-103.
Tajfel, H. 1978. Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In J. A. Williams & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations: 33–47. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations,vol. 2: 7-24. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Tomkins, C. 2001. Interdependencies, trust and information in relationships, alliances and networks. Accounting, organizations and society, 26(2): 161-191.
Trepte, S., & Loy, L. S. 2017. Social Identity Theory and Self‐Categorization Theory. The international encyclopedia of media effects: 1-13.
Turner, J. C. 1984. Social identification and psychological group formation. In H. Tajfel (Eds.), The social dimension: European developments in social psychology, vol. 2: 518-538. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, J. C. 2010. Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. In T. Postmes & N. R. Branscombe (Eds.), Key readings in social psychology. Rediscovering social identity: 243-272. New York: Psychology Press. Van de Ven, A. H., & Ring, P. S. 2006. Relying on trust in cooperative inter-organizational
relationships. In R. Bachmann & A. Zaheer (Eds.), Handbook of Trust Research: 144– 164. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
Van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Stellmacher, J., & Christ, O. 2004. The utility of a broader conceptualization of organizational identification: which aspects really matter?. Journal of Occupational and Organizational psychology, 77(2): 171-191.
Van Knippenberg, D., & Van Schie, E. C. 2000. Foci and correlates of organizational identification. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 73(2): 137-147.
Wang, S. W., Ngamsiriudom, W., & Hsieh, C. H. 2015. Trust disposition, trust antecedents, trust, and behavioral intention. The Service Industries Journal, 35(10): 555-572.
Weber, L., & Bauman, C. W. 2017. The impact of promotion and prevention contracts on trust in repeated exchanges: an experimental investigation. In Press: 1–69.
Weber-Rymkovska, J., Rassloff, J., Bhaiji, M., & Zinke, C; Strategic alliances: A real alternative to M&A?: Driving growth through strategic alliances;
Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. 1998. Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of management review, 23(3): 513-530.
Wicks, A. C., Berman, S. L., & Jones, T. M. 1999. The structure of optimal trust: Moral and strategic implications. Academy of Management review, 24(1): 99-116.
Wiesenfeld, B. M., Raghuram, S., & Garud, R. 2001. Organizational identification among virtual workers: The role of need for affiliation and perceived work-based social support. Journal of management, 27(2): 213-229.
Wilder, D. A. 1986. Social categorization: Implications for creation and reduction of intergroup bias. Advances in experimental social psychology, 19: 291-355.
Wilson, D. T. 1995. An integrated model of buyer-seller relationships. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 23(4): 335-345.
Wilson, D. T., & Mummalaneni, V. 1986. Bonding and commitment in buyer-seller relationships: a preliminary conceptualisation. Industrial Marketing and Purchasing, 1(3): 44-58.
Zaheer, A., & Harris, S. 2006. Interorganizational trust. In O. Shenkar & J. J. Reuer (Eds.), Handbook of strategic alliances: 169-197. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. 1998. Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization science, 9(2): 141-159.
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A
TABLE A1
Summary of descriptive statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean SD
Gender1
213 1 2 1.52 0.50
Age 213 19 74 37.79 12.20
English proficiency2 213 1 4 1.24 0.58
Education3 213 1 7 3.86 0.97
1 Dummy coded, 1 = male, 2 = female
2 Dummy coded, 1 = native, 2 = excellent, 3 = good, 4 = moderate, 5 = poor
3Dummy coded, 1 = less than high school degree, 2 = high school graduate, 3 = some college but no degree,
APPENDIX B
FIGURE B1
APPENDIX C
FIGURE C1
Illustration of similar identities of firm A and firm B
FIGURE C2
APPENDIX D
GRAPH D1
Comparison of the means of the baseline, similar and dissimilar organisational identity
4 4,2 4,4 4,6 4,8 5 5,2 5,4 5,6 5,8
Baseline Similar Dissimilar
