IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormsom/v23y2021i4p974-988.html

Contextual Trustworthiness of Organizational Partners: Evidence from Nine School Networks

Author

Listed:
  • Samantha M. Keppler

    (Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109)

  • Karen R. Smilowitz

    (McCormick School of Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208)

  • Paul M. Leonardi

    (Technology Management Program, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California 93106)

Abstract

Problem definition : Trustworthy partners in procurement and service relationships are an asset. How can organizations discern trustworthy from untrustworthy partners, especially early on, so as to not waste time or resources on bad relationships? Academic/practical relevance : Like prior studies, we take the perspective that organizations rarely know whether a partner is trustworthy, but also that organizations often have some evidence of a partner’s trustworthiness, even before interacting. We argue a qualitative study is needed to understand how people discern a partner’s trustworthiness and the consequences of initial perceptions on the relationship trajectory. Methodology : We conduct an interview-based study of how people discern trustworthy partners in a setting where doing so is challenging: the education sector. Kindergarten-through-12th-grade schools must choose outside partners to rely on for resources or services the school cannot afford. Potential partners are numerous and of variable trustworthiness. Results : We find people use contextual factors as evidence of a potential partner’s trustworthiness, such as the partner’s institutional affiliations, physical proximity, and relationships with other schools. Sometimes the evidence indicates that a partner acts intrinsically trustworthily, regardless of these contextual factors. In other cases, the evidence indicates a partner acts contextually trustworthily, meaning partners follow through in some conditions but not others. Intrinsically trustworthy partners provide valuable but standardized resources or services. Contextually trustworthy partners provide the competitive advantage: customized resources that are not easily accessible by other schools. Managerial implications : People in organizations identify trustworthy partners via contextual factors, which helps them determine whether a partner acts trustworthily independent of context or conditional on context. The value of intrinsically trustworthy partners derives from their low risk and high quality, whereas the value of contextually trustworthy partners derives from their willingness to customize resources or services to some—but not all—organizations.

Suggested Citation

  • Samantha M. Keppler & Karen R. Smilowitz & Paul M. Leonardi, 2021. "Contextual Trustworthiness of Organizational Partners: Evidence from Nine School Networks," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 974-988, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormsom:v:23:y:2021:i:4:p:974-988
    DOI: 10.1287/msom.2020.0892
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/msom.2020.0892
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/msom.2020.0892?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. Elena Belavina & Karan Girotra, 2012. "The Relational Advantages of Intermediation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(9), pages 1614-1631, September.
    2. Redding, Stephen & Amiti, Mary & Weinstein, David, 2019. "The impact of the 2018 trade war on U.S. prices and welfare," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 102619, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Michèle Belot & V. Bhaskar & Jeroen van de Ven, 2012. "Can Observers Predict Trustworthiness?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(1), pages 246-259, February.
    4. Jay B. Barney & Mark H. Hansen, 1994. "Trustworthiness as a Source of Competitive Advantage," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(S1), pages 175-190, December.
    5. 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.
    6. Iris Bohnet & Steffen Huck, 2004. "Repetition and Reputation: Implications for Trust and Trustworthiness When Institutions Change," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(2), pages 362-366, May.
    7. 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.
    8. Maoliang Ye & Jie Zheng & Plamen Nikolov & Sam Asher, 2020. "One Step at a Time: Does Gradualism Build Coordination?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 113-129, January.
    9. 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.
    10. Andrew M. Pettigrew, 1990. "Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and Practice," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 267-292, August.
    11. 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.
    12. Özalp Özer & Yanchong Zheng & Kay-Yut Chen, 2011. "Trust in Forecast Information Sharing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(6), pages 1111-1137, June.
    13. Özalp Özer & Yanchong Zheng & Yufei Ren, 2014. "Trust, Trustworthiness, and Information Sharing in Supply Chains Bridging China and the United States," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(10), pages 2435-2460, October.
    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. Samantha M. Keppler, 2024. "Little’s Law and Educational Inequality: A Comparative Case Study of Teacher Workaround Productivity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(5), pages 2756-2778, May.

    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. Xiaojin Liu & Anant Mishra & Susan Goldstein & Kingshuk K. Sinha, 2019. "Toward Improving Factory Working Conditions in Developing Countries: An Empirical Analysis of Bangladesh Ready-Made Garment Factories," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 21(2), pages 379-397, May.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Bill McEvily & Vincenzo Perrone & Akbar Zaheer, 2003. "Trust as an Organizing Principle," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(1), pages 91-103, February.
    5. Arvind Karunakaran, 2022. "In Cloud We Trust? Co-opting Occupational Gatekeepers to Produce Normalized Trust in Platform-Mediated Interorganizational Relationships," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(3), pages 1188-1211, May.
    6. 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.
    7. Nilsson, Magnus & Mattes, Jannika, 2015. "The spatiality of trust: Factors influencing the creation of trust and the role of face-to-face contacts," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 230-244.
    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. William E. Gillis & James G. Combs & David J. Ketchen Jr., 2014. "Using Resource–Based Theory to Help Explain Plural Form Franchising," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 38(3), pages 449-472, May.
    10. McGrath, Patia J. & O’Neill, Hugh M., 2023. "Acquisitions of divested business units: A typology and strategies for success," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 66(5), pages 691-706.
    11. Jensen, Paul H. & Palangkaraya, Alfons & Webster, Elizabeth, 2015. "Trust and the market for technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 340-356.
    12. Bidault, Francis & de la Torre, José R. & Zanakis, Stelios H. & Ring, Peter Smith, 2018. "Willingness to rely on trust in global business collaborations: Context vs. demography," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 373-391.
    13. Emily W. Choi & Özalp Özer & Yanchong Zheng, 2020. "Network Trust and Trust Behaviors Among Executives in Supply Chain Interactions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(12), pages 5823-5849, December.
    14. Rekha Krishnan & Inge Geyskens & Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp, 2016. "The effectiveness of contractual and trust-based governance in strategic alliances under behavioral and environmental uncertainty," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(12), pages 2521-2542, December.
    15. Bart S. Vanneste & Onesun Steve Yoo, 2020. "Performance of trust-based governance," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 9(1), pages 1-28, December.
    16. Arne Keller & Fabrice Lumineau & Thomas Mellewigt & Africa Ariño, 2021. "Alliance Governance Mechanisms in the Face of Disruption," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(6), pages 1542-1570, November.
    17. Nilsson, Magnus & Mattes, Jannika, 2013. "The spatiality of trust – Antecedents of trust and the role of face-to-face contacts," Papers in Innovation Studies 2013/16, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    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. Parola, Heather R. & Ellis, Kimberly M. & Jarvis, Lee C. & Nazrul, Toufiq, 2025. "Trust and corporate governance in interfirm negotiations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    20. Lyudmyla Starostyuk & Kay-Yut Chen & Edmund L. Prater, 2023. "Do looks matter in supply chain contracting? An experimental study," Business Economics, Palgrave Macmillan;National Association for Business Economics, vol. 58(1), pages 9-23, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:inm:ormsom:v:23:y:2021:i:4:p:974-988. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.