IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jomstd/v60y2023i8p2091-2124.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unpacking the Duality of Control and Trust in Inter‐Organizational Relationships through Action‐Reaction Cycles

Author

Listed:
  • Anna R.S. Swärd
  • Ragnhild Kvålshaugen
  • Lena E. Bygballe

Abstract

To ensure cooperation, parties in inter‐organizational relationships (IORs) draw upon both control and trust. Yet, how control–trust dynamics change as IORs evolve remains unclear. This study illuminates the interplay between control–trust dynamics and IOR dynamics by unpacking how control and trust refer to and create one another through action–reaction cycles. We find that conflicting enactments of vulnerability and risk caused by critical incidents lead to tensions between the parties (IOR dynamics) regarding how and when they rely on control and trust. Consequently, coping practices are applied to redefine the controlling and trusting domain and mediate between the multiple and temporal domains to ensure that control and trust refer to and create one another to (re)form positive expectations. The study's main implication is that it makes little sense to study control‐trust dynamics in IORs, like other relational phenomena, in isolation and at a single point in time.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna R.S. Swärd & Ragnhild Kvålshaugen & Lena E. Bygballe, 2023. "Unpacking the Duality of Control and Trust in Inter‐Organizational Relationships through Action‐Reaction Cycles," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(8), pages 2091-2124, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jomstd:v:60:y:2023:i:8:p:2091-2124
    DOI: 10.1111/joms.12864
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12864
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/joms.12864?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martha S. Feldman & Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2011. "Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1240-1253, October.
    2. Manning, Stephan, 2017. "The rise of project network organizations: Building core teams and flexible partner pools for interorganizational projects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1399-1415.
    3. Lumineau, Fabrice & Malhotra, Deepak, 2011. "Shadow of the contract: how contract structure shapes inter-firm dispute resolution," MPRA Paper 38359, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. 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.
    5. Mark de Rond & Hamid Bouchikhi, 2004. "On the Dialectics of Strategic Alliances," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 56-69, February.
    6. Karen Locke & Karen Golden-Biddle & Martha S. Feldman, 2008. "Perspective---Making Doubt Generative: Rethinking the Role of Doubt in the Research Process," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(6), pages 907-918, December.
    7. Jörg Sydow & Arnold Windeler & Jörg Sydow & Arnold Windeler, 2003. "Knowledge, Trust, and Control: Managing Tensions and Contradictions in a Regional Network of Service Firms," International Studies of Management & Organization, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(2), pages 69-100, January.
    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. Lee, Hsing-fen & Miozzo, Marcela, 2024. "Beyond complementarity and substitutability? Understanding relational governance and formal contracts in university-industry collaborations for innovation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).

    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. Hans Berends & Elco van Burg & Erik M. van Raaij, 2011. "Contacts and Contracts: Cross-Level Network Dynamics in the Development of an Aircraft Material," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 940-960, August.
    2. Jing Liang & Shilei Yang, 2024. "The profitability implications of supplier concentration during economic recession and restoration: the moderating role of supply localization," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Svensson, Martin & Jacobsson, Mattias, 2024. "Managing inconsistencies in medical decision-making: An eight-fold typology," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 130-141.
    4. McCarter, Matthew W. & Wade-Benzoni, Kimberly A. & Kamal, Darcy K. Fudge & Bang, H. Min & Hyde, Steven J. & Maredia, Reshma, 2020. "Models of intragroup conflict in management: A literature review," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 925-946.
    5. Dafna Kariv & Carlo Giglio & Vincenzo Corvello, 2025. "Fostering Entrepreneurial intentions: exploring the interplay of education and endogenous factors," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 1-27, December.
    6. Palo, Teea & Åkesson, Maria & Löfberg, Nina, 2019. "Servitization as business model contestation: A practice approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 486-496.
    7. Hao, Bin & Feng, Yanan, 2018. "Leveraging learning forces in asymmetric alliances: Small firms’ perceived power imbalance in driving exploration and exploitation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 27-39.
    8. Phillips, Paul & Moutinho, Luiz, 2014. "Critical review of strategic planning research in hospitality and tourism," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 96-120.
    9. Lehoux, P. & Daudelin, G. & Williams-Jones, B. & Denis, J.-L. & Longo, C., 2014. "How do business model and health technology design influence each other? Insights from a longitudinal case study of three academic spin-offs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 1025-1038.
    10. Gazi Islam, 2012. "Recognition, Reification, and Practices of Forgetting: Ethical Implications of Human Resource Management," Post-Print hal-01232667, HAL.
    11. Uzunca, Bilgehan & Sharapov, Dmitry & Tee, Richard, 2022. "Governance rigidity, industry evolution, and value capture in platform ecosystems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    12. Jose Luis Retolaza & Leire San-Jose, 2021. "Understanding Social Accounting Based on Evidence," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, April.
    13. Dane, Erik, 2024. "Promoting and supporting epiphanies in organizations: A transformational approach to employee development," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    14. Möllering, Guido, 2005. "Understanding Trust from the Perspective of Sociological Neoinstitutionalism: The Interplay of Institutions and Agency," MPIfG Discussion Paper 05/13, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    15. Rebecca Adler-Nissen, 2016. "Towards a Practice Turn in EU Studies: The Everyday of European Integration," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 87-103, January.
    16. Tippmann, Esther & Sharkey Scott, Pamela & Reilly, Marty & O’Brien, Donal, 2018. "Subsidiary coopetition competence: Navigating subsidiary evolution in the multinational corporation," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 540-554.
    17. Martinez-Noya, Andrea & Narula, Rajneesh, 2018. "What more can we learn from R&D alliances? : A review and research agenda," MERIT Working Papers 2018-022, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    18. Anne Kokkonen & Pauli Alin, 2015. "Practice-based learning in construction projects: a literature review," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(7), pages 513-530, July.
    19. Angelika Zimmermann & Nora Albers & Jasper O. Kenter, 2022. "Deliberating Our Frames: How Members of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives Use Shared Frames to Tackle Within-Frame Conflicts Over Sustainability Issues," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 178(3), pages 757-782, July.
    20. Moshe Farjoun & Christopher Ansell & Arjen Boin, 2015. "PERSPECTIVE—Pragmatism in Organization Studies: Meeting the Challenges of a Dynamic and Complex World," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 1787-1804, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:jomstd:v:60:y:2023:i:8:p:2091-2124. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0022-2380 .

    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.