Trust in interfirm exchange has traditionally been treated as mutually held and jointly determined by the two parties in a relationship. Yet, the expectations of exchange partners can, and routinely do, differ with respect to the goals, preferences, and vulnerabilities in their shared relationship. To account for such differences in expectations, we propose a broadened conceptualization of the sources of interorganizational trust as dyadic. Viewing the sources of trust as dyadic expands the conventional focus on mutual elements to further emphasize exclusive features of an exchange relationship. To substantiate our theory, we examine a key source of interorganizational trust, exchange hazards, and assess the extent to which its effects vary as a function of (1) the locus of exchange hazards (own versus other) in the dyad, (2) the degree of power imbalance in the dyad, and (3) each party’s power position in the dyad. To assess the validity of our claims, we devise a matched dyad research design and collect identical information from both buyers and suppliers in a given exchange relationship. Based on our results, we make three unique observations consistent with the notion of dyadic sources of trust. First, the same exchange hazards have contrasting effects on trust (enhancing versus diminishing) across the dyad. Second, the degree of power imbalance has opposing effects across the dyad. Third, the relative significance of partners’ exchange hazards varies based on their respective power positions. The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1102

Research by Dyer and Chu (2000) suggests that trust in exchange varies significantly across borders and influences the level of trust in cross-border exchange dyads. However, while a good start, research has yet to develop the concept that not only can the countries of origin of the partners to the exchange influence the nature and outcomes of dyadic trust, but also the country where the exchange dyad is located. Furthermore, such home and host country differences may interact with dyad-level differences in trust creation capabilities and influence trust violation and repair. We develop a framework and propositions along these lines.

Many studies of interorganizational relationships assume that trust between organizations is symmetric. In this essay, we explore the origins of this assumption and examine relevant quantitative and qualitative evidence from the literatures on strategy, marketing, supply chain management, and information systems. We conclude that no systematic evidence currently exists to support the assumption that interorganizational trust is typically symmetric. We explore how the possibility of asymmetry complicates interpretation of previous research on the effects of interorganizational trust. We encourage further research to identify conditions under which symmetry is likely, and offer a variety of strategies that scholars may use to deal with potential asymmetry.

T he public-private partnership (PPP) is a popular strategy for creating global sustainable value. However, many PPPs struggle to realize their value-added potential. Why do some public-private partnerships succeed while others fail, and how may those struggling succeed? Combining supply-chain integration and social dilemma perspectives into the conversation of PPPs, we examine the dynamics and psychology of cooperation necessary for PPP success. Addressing the first part of our research question, we recognize three social dilemmas that can manifest while managing PPP supply chains: a give-some dilemma, a take-some dilemma, and a give-or-take-some dilemma. To address the second part of our research question, we present a taxonomy of strategies resolving these PPP social dilemmas through the enhancement of trust, selfefficacy, and social responsibility. We discuss implications for PPPs, supply-chain, and social dilemma literatures.

The study of intragroup dynamics in management studies views conflict as a contingency process that can benefit or harm a group based of characteristics of the group and context. We review five models of intragroup conflict in management studies. These models include diversity-conflict and behavioral negotiation models that focus primarily on conflict within a group of people; social exchange and transaction cost economics models that focus primarily on conflict within a group of firms; and social dilemma models that focus on conflict in collectives of people, organizations, communities, and generations. The review is constituted by summarizing the insights of each model, foundational papers to each model; the most recent uses and developments of the models in the last decade; the complementarity of these models; and the future research directions.