Learning of tacit knowledge in an interorganizational context is a process fraught with risks for the collaborating partners. Two conflicting perspectives on what motivates partners to cooperatively share tacit knowledge with each other emerge from extant literature: one based on calculative considerations and the other on trust-based considerations. This paper aims to show that the two perspectives can be reconciled if the unique learning-related roles of boundary spanners at the corporate and operating levels are taken into account. Operating-level boundary spanners are the primary agents of tacit knowledge learning across organizational borders, and we argue that trust is the primary determinant of knowledge sharing at that level. In contrast, the corporate-level boundary spanners shape the structures and systems of the collaboration and thus affect the extent of sharing that can take place between operating-level boundary spanners. In this role, we propose, their learning behavior is predominantly driven by calculative considerations of potential costs and benefits of knowledge sharing.

We examine how partners in an interorganizational relationship can repair violated trust, and if that is impossible, how they can preserve the collaborative relationship. We also consider under what circumstances exit from the relationship is the only viable option. We propose that the effectiveness of legalistic and non-legalistic measures in response to a trust violation is a function of the hierarchical level at which the violation occurred (corporate vs. operating), the character of the violation (competence vs. integrity), the frequency and severity with which it occurred, the organizational context in which boundary spanners are embedded, and the degree of dependence between the partners. Based on these factors, we explore how the way in which violation of trust is dealt with at one hierarchical level might affect trust at the other level. Our theoretical model reveals that prior findings on trust repair in inter-personal context may not hold in the interorganizational context. Copyright (c) Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2008.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract