IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i19p5217-d270028.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Interorganizational Trust and Effectiveness Perception in a Collaborative Service Delivery Network

Author

Listed:
  • Krzysztof Opolski

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland Długa Street 44/50, 00-241 Warsaw, Poland)

  • Piotr Modzelewski

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland Długa Street 44/50, 00-241 Warsaw, Poland)

  • Agata Kocia

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland Długa Street 44/50, 00-241 Warsaw, Poland)

Abstract

This study presents the determinants of trust in light of the scientific literature on trust and governance networks. The theoretical analysis focuses on differentiation of various types of trust and its determinants at both for-profit and nonprofit organizations. Moreover, the idea of a network is presented with the main attention given to the performance of collaborative service delivery networks. On the basis of theoretical study, a longitudinal analysis was performed at institutions providing services to the homeless people in Warsaw, Poland. During the periods of 2013 and 2017 to 2018, two cohorts of field questionnaire studies were conducted among employees of 18 social welfare centers (sample based on 18 Warsaw districts) and homeless shelters run by nonprofit organizations (samples of 19 and 22, respectively). These local government institutions and nonprofit organizations comprised the collaborative service delivery network under study. Mixed-method research was applied at welfare centers and nonprofit organizations (NGOs) where both frontline and management level employees were interviewed, and some data were statistically evaluated. The research was conducted using the same questionnaires at both points in time. The research showed that, from the perspective of social welfare centers, interorganizational trust in relation to other social welfare centers and to nonprofit organizations is positively correlated with perceived interorganizational effectiveness of other actors in the network (measured by the possibility of obtaining information, promptness, commitment, completeness and correctness of documents, and assessment of employees’ knowledge). The same results were obtained from the perspective of NGOs. In addition, these correlations remained almost unchanged over time, although the research was repeated after many years using the same variables. Finally, there is no basis to state that trust is correlated with outcome perception when considering the most difficult and complex social services.

Suggested Citation

  • Krzysztof Opolski & Piotr Modzelewski & Agata Kocia, 2019. "Interorganizational Trust and Effectiveness Perception in a Collaborative Service Delivery Network," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-27, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:19:p:5217-:d:270028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/19/5217/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/19/5217/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bhattacharya, Sudipto & Boot, Arnoud W A & Thakor, Anjan V, 1998. "The Economics of Bank Regulation," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 30(4), pages 745-770, November.
    2. Rosaria Burchielli & Annie Delaney & Jane Tate & Kylie Coventry, 2009. "The FairWear Campaign: An Ethical Network in the Australian Garment Industry," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 90(4), pages 575-588, December.
    3. Williamson, Oliver E, 1993. "Calculated Trust, A Reply," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(1), pages 501-502, April.
    4. McFadden, Daniel, 1999. "Rationality for Economists?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 73-105, December.
    5. Bill McEvily & Vincenzo Perrone & Akbar Zaheer, 2003. "Trust as an Organizing Principle," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(1), pages 91-103, February.
    6. Joop Koppenjan, 2008. "Creating a playing field for assessing the effectiveness of network collaboration by performance measures," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(6), pages 699-714.
    7. Benoit Aubert & Barbara L. Kelsey, 2000. "The Illusion of Trust and Performance," CIRANO Working Papers 2000s-03, CIRANO.
    8. David L. Owen & Tracey Swift & Karen Hunt, 2001. "Questioning the Role of Stakeholder Engagement in Social and Ethical Accounting, Auditing and Reporting," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(3), pages 264-282, September.
    9. Daniela Cristofoli & Josip Markovic & Marco Meneguzzo, 2014. "Governance, management and performance in public networks: How to be successful in shared-governance networks," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 18(1), pages 77-93, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nassim Ghondaghsaz & Zarina Chokparova & Sven Engesser & Leon Urbas, 2022. "Managing the Tension between Trust and Confidentiality in Mobile Supply Chains," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-25, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yvonne Tobias-Miersch, 2017. "Beyond trust: towards a practice-based understanding of governing ‘network organizations’," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 21(2), pages 473-498, June.
    2. Han, Shaojie & Su, Jingqin & Lyu, Yibo & Liu, Qing, 2022. "How do business incubators govern incubation relationships with different new ventures?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    3. Bianca Alves Almeida Machado & Lívia Cristina Pinto Dias & Alberto Fonseca, 2021. "Transparency of materiality analysis in GRI‐based sustainability reports," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 570-580, March.
    4. Gropp, R. & Grundl, C. & Guttler, A., 2012. "Does Discretion in Lending Increase Bank Risk? Borrower Self-Selection and Loan Officer Capture Effects," Other publications TiSEM bfec5360-2a2b-47e4-ba3f-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    5. Michiel Bijlsma & Wouter Elsenburg & Michiel van Leuvensteijn, 2010. "Four Futures for Finance; A scenario study," CPB Document 211.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    6. Albertazzi, Ugo & Gambacorta, Leonardo, 2009. "Bank profitability and the business cycle," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 393-409, December.
    7. Ariane Lambert Mogiliansky & Shmuel Zamir & Herve Zwirn, 2003. "Type Indeterminacy: A Model of the KT(Kahneman-Tversky)-man," Discussion Paper Series dp343, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    8. Jarratt, Denise & Ceric, Arnela, 2015. "The complexity of trust in business collaborations," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 2-12.
    9. Philipp Bagus & David Howden, 2016. "The economic and legal significance of “full” deposit availability," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 243-254, February.
    10. Alexander, Gordon J. & Baptista, Alexandre M. & Yan, Shu, 2012. "When more is less: Using multiple constraints to reduce tail risk," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 2693-2716.
    11. Lehman, Glen, 2013. "Critical reflections on Laughlin's middle range research approach: Language not mysterious?," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 211-224.
    12. Markus Behn & Rainer Haselmann & Paul Wachtel, 2016. "Procyclical Capital Regulation and Lending," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 71(2), pages 919-956, April.
    13. Blackburn, Nivea & Brown, Judy & Dillard, Jesse & Hooper, Val, 2014. "A dialogical framing of AIS–SEA design," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 83-101.
    14. Ole Røgeberg & Morten Nordberg, 2005. "A defence of absurd theories in economics," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(4), pages 543-562.
    15. Ari Hyytinen & Tuomas Takalo, 2002. "Enhancing Bank Transparency: A Re-assessment," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 6(3), pages 429-445.
    16. Georges Dionne, 2003. "The Foundationsof Banks' Risk Regulation: A Review of Literature," THEMA Working Papers 2003-46, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    17. Ekström, Mathias, 2018. "The (un)compromise effect," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 10/2018, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics, revised 16 May 2018.
    18. Michaël Lainé, 2014. "Vers une alternative au paradigme de la rationalité ? Victoires et déboires du programme spinoziste en économie," Post-Print hal-01335618, HAL.
    19. Amalesh Sharma & V. Kumar & Jun Yan & Sourav Bikash Borah & Anirban Adhikary, 2019. "Understanding the structural characteristics of a firm’s whole buyer–supplier network and its impact on international business performance," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 50(3), pages 365-392, April.
    20. Wong, Jin Boon & Zhang, Qin, 2022. "Stock market reactions to adverse ESG disclosure via media channels," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(1).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:19:p:5217-:d:270028. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.