IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joamsc/v50y2022i5d10.1007_s11747-022-00844-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Boundary spanner corruption: a potential dark side of multi-level trust in marketing relationships

Author

Listed:
  • Sebastian Forkmann

    (The University of Alabama)

  • Jonathan Webb

    (Queen Mary University of London)

  • Stephan C. Henneberg

    (Queen Mary University of London)

  • Lisa K. Scheer

    (University of Missouri
    University of Graz)

Abstract

Boundary spanner corruption—voluntary collaborative behavior between individuals representing different organizations that violates their organizations’ norms—is a serious problem in business-to-business (B2B) marketing relationships. Drawing on insights from the literatures on the dark side of business relationships and deviance in sales and service organizations, the authors identify boundary spanner corruption as a potential dark side complication inherent in close B2B marketing relationships. The same elements that generate benefits in interorganizational relationships, such as those between customer and seller firms, also enable the development of boundary-spanning social cocoons that can foment corrupt activities under certain conditions. A conceptual framework illustrates how trust at the interpersonal, intraorganizational, and interorganizational levels enables corrupt behaviors by allowing deviance-inducing factors stemming from the task environment or from the individual boundary spanner to manifest in boundary spanner corruption. Interpersonal trust between representatives of different organizations, interorganizational trust between these organizations, and intraorganizational agency trust of management in their representatives foster the development of a boundary-spanning social cocoon—a microculture that can inculcate deviant norms leading to corrupt behavior. Boundary spanner corruption imposes direct and opportunity costs on the involved organizations, with the additional burden of latent financial risk associated with potential exposure. The authors substantiate their multi-level framework and propositions with field-based insights from qualitative interviews with senior executives. The multi-level framework of boundary spanner corruption extends beyond extant marketing literature, highlights intriguing directions for future research, and offers new managerial insights.

Suggested Citation

  • Sebastian Forkmann & Jonathan Webb & Stephan C. Henneberg & Lisa K. Scheer, 2022. "Boundary spanner corruption: a potential dark side of multi-level trust in marketing relationships," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 50(5), pages 889-914, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:joamsc:v:50:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s11747-022-00844-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11747-022-00844-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11747-022-00844-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11747-022-00844-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Allison R. Johnson & Valerie S. Folkes & Juan Wang, 2018. "When one bad apple spoils consumers’ judgment of the brand: exposure to an employee’s non-workplace transgression and potential remedies," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 725-743, July.
    2. Yoo, Jaewon (Jay) & Flaherty, Karen & Frankwick, Gary L., 2014. "The effect of communication practice on deviance among Korean salespeople: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(9), pages 1991-1999.
    3. Geyskens, I., 1998. "Trust, Satisfaction, and Equity in Marketing Channel Relationships," Other publications TiSEM fe002848-4b88-4266-a87b-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Chi, Nai-Wen & Chang, Huo-Tsan & Huang, Hsien-Lier, 2015. "Can personality traits and daily positive mood buffer the harmful effects of daily negative mood on task performance and service sabotage? A self-control perspective," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 1-15.
    5. Verónica H. Villena & Christopher W. Craighead, 2017. "On the Same Page? How Asymmetric Buyer–Supplier Relationships Affect Opportunism and Performance," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 26(3), pages 491-508, March.
    6. Yadong Luo, 2004. "An Organizational Perspective of Corruption," Management and Organization Review, International Association of Chinese Management Research, vol. 1(1), pages 119-154, June.
    7. Martin Gargiulo & Mario Benassi, 2000. "Trapped in Your Own Net? Network Cohesion, Structural Holes, and the Adaptation of Social Capital," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(2), pages 183-196, April.
    8. Kaufmann, Daniel, 2005. "Myths and Realities of Governance and Corruption," MPRA Paper 8089, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Shaker A. Zahra & R. Isil Yavuz & Deniz Ucbasaran, 2006. "How Much do you Trust Me? The Dark Side of Relational Trust in New Business Creation in Established Companies," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 30(4), pages 541-559, July.
    10. Husted, Bryan W., 1994. "Honor Among Thieves: A Transaction-Cost Interpretation of Corruption in Third World Countries," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 17-27, January.
    11. Diana C. Robertson & Erin Anderson, 1993. "Control System and Task Environment Effects on Ethical Judgment: An Exploratory Study of Industrial Salespeople," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 617-644, November.
    12. Brandy L. Aven, 2015. "The Paradox of Corrupt Networks: An Analysis of Organizational Crime at Enron," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 980-996, August.
    13. Akbar Zaheer & Bill McEvily & Vincenzo Perrone, 1998. "Does Trust Matter? Exploring the Effects of Interorganizational and Interpersonal Trust on Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 141-159, April.
    14. Bill McEvily & Vincenzo Perrone & Akbar Zaheer, 2003. "Trust as an Organizing Principle," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(1), pages 91-103, February.
    15. Seriki, Olalekan K. & Nath, Pravin & Ingene, Charles A. & Evans, Kenneth R., 2020. "How complexity impacts salesperson counterproductive behavior: The mediating role of moral disengagement," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 324-335.
    16. Noordhoff, C.S. & Kyriakopoulos, K. & Moorman, C. & Pauwels, P. & Dellaert, B.G.C., 2011. "The Bright Side and Dark Side of Embedded Ties In Business-to-Business Innovation," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2011-008-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    17. Akbar Zaheer & N. Venkatraman, 1995. "Relational governance as an interorganizational strategy: An empirical test of the role of trust in economic exchange," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(5), pages 373-392.
    18. Ranjay Gulati & Jack A. Nickerson, 2008. "Interorganizational Trust, Governance Choice, and Exchange Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(5), pages 688-708, October.
    19. Jiuchang Wei & Zhe Ouyang & Haipeng (Allan) Chen, 2017. "Well Known or Well Liked? The Effects of Corporate Reputation on Firm Value at the Onset of a Corporate Crisis," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(10), pages 2103-2120, October.
    20. Christian Homburg & Danijel Jozić & Christina Kuehnl, 2017. "Customer experience management: toward implementing an evolving marketing concept," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 377-401, May.
    21. Vincenzo Perrone & Akbar Zaheer & Bill McEvily, 2003. "Free to Be Trusted? Organizational Constraints on Trust in Boundary Spanners," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(4), pages 422-439, August.
    22. Sandy D. Jap & Erin Anderson, 2003. "Safeguarding Interorganizational Performance and Continuity Under Ex Post Opportunism," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(12), pages 1684-1701, December.
    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. Colleen E. McClure & Justin M. Lawrence & Todd J. Arnold & Lisa K. Scheer, 2023. "The opportunities and costs of highly involved organizational buyers," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 480-501, March.
    2. Selma Kadic-Maglajlic & Claude Obadia & Irena Vida & Matthew J. Robson, 2023. "Moral Categorization of Opportunists in Cross-Border Interfirm Relationships," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 188(2), pages 221-238, November.

    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. Bill McEvily & Akbar Zaheer & Darcy K. Fudge Kamal, 2017. "Mutual and Exclusive: Dyadic Sources of Trust in Interorganizational Exchange," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 74-92, February.
    2. Chao-Hung Wang & Kuan-Liang Chen, 2018. "Do Relationships have a Dark Side for Innovation Performance in the High-Tech Industry?," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(02), pages 1-22, April.
    3. 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).
    4. Ranjay Gulati & Maxim Sytch, 2008. "Does familiarity breed trust? Revisiting the antecedents of trust," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2-3), pages 165-190.
    5. Liwen Wang, 2023. "The interplay of contracts and trust: untangling between- and within-dyad effects," Post-Print hal-03944358, HAL.
    6. Skokic, Vlatka & Coh, Marko, 2017. "How do executive search firms increase interest in career opportunities? The role of past interactions," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 505-513.
    7. Lui, Steven S. & Ngo, Hang-yue & Hon, Alice H.Y., 2006. "Coercive strategy in interfirm cooperation: Mediating roles of interpersonal and interorganizational trust," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(4), pages 466-474, April.
    8. Oliver Schilke & Karen S. Cook, 2015. "Sources of alliance partner trustworthiness: Integrating calculative and relational perspectives," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(2), pages 276-297, February.
    9. Fang, F., 2019. "When performance shortfall arises, contract or trust? A multi-method study of the impact of contractual and relational governances on performance in public – private partnerships," Other publications TiSEM 473840ee-6945-4a93-9326-5, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. Oliveira, Luis & Johanson, Martin, 2021. "Trust and firm internationalization: Dark-side effects on internationalization speed and how to alleviate them," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 1-12.
    11. Verónica H. Villena & Thomas Y. Choi & Elena Revilla, 2021. "Mitigating Mechanisms for the Dark Side of Collaborative Buyer–Supplier Relationships: A Mixed‐Method Study," Journal of Supply Chain Management, Institute for Supply Management, vol. 57(4), pages 86-116, October.
    12. Lumineau, Fabrice & Jin, Jason Lu & Sheng, Shibin & Zhou, Kevin Zheng, 2022. "Asset specificity asymmetry and supplier opportunism in buyer–supplier exchanges," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 85-100.
    13. Pei-Li Yu, 2019. "Interfirm coopetition, trust, and opportunism: a mediated moderation model," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 13(5), pages 1069-1092, November.
    14. Thorgren, Sara & Wincent, Joakim & Eriksson, Jessica, 2011. "Too small or too large to trust your partners in multipartner alliances? The role of effort in initiating generalized exchanges," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 99-112, March.
    15. Teck Ming Tan & Saila Saraniemi, 2023. "Trust in blockchain-enabled exchanges: Future directions in blockchain marketing," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 51(4), pages 914-939, July.
    16. Shivaram V. Devarakonda & Brian T. McCann & Jeffrey J. Reuer, 2018. "Marshallian Forces and Governance Externalities: Location Effects on Contractual Safeguards in Research and Development Alliances," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(6), pages 1112-1129, December.
    17. Vincenzo Perrone, 2013. "Sympathy for the devil? Reflections on the perils of institutionalising trust research," Journal of Trust Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(2), pages 155-171, October.
    18. George Chondrakis & Mari Sako, 2020. "When suppliers shift my boundaries: Supplier employee mobility and its impact on buyer firms' sourcing strategy," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(9), pages 1682-1711, September.
    19. Laura Poppo & Kevin Zheng Zhou & Todd R. Zenger, 2008. "Examining the Conditional Limits of Relational Governance: Specialized Assets, Performance Ambiguity, and Long‐Standing Ties," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(7), pages 1195-1216, November.
    20. Wenbo Guo & Jing Betty Feng & Brad McKenna & Pengzhu Zhang, 2017. "Inter-organizational governance and trilateral trust building: a case study of crowdsourcing-based open innovation in China," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 16(3), pages 187-207, July.

    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:spr:joamsc:v:50:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s11747-022-00844-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.