No abstract

Extant trust research champions 3 different centers of action that determine perceptions of trust: the trustor (the individual rendering trust judgments), the trustee (the party being trusted), and the trustor-trustee dyad. We refer to the centers of action as loci of trust. Thus far, researchers have investigated determinants residing within each locus independently but have not concurrently investigated all 3 loci. Thus, the relative influence of each locus on perceptions of trust is unknown. Nor is it known how the influence of each locus changes with time. Where is the dominant locus of trust? And how does it change over time? We address these questions by examining the influence of trustors, trustees, and dyads on perceived ability, benevolence, and integrity. We find that trustor influence decreases over time while trustee and dyadic influences increase. We also find that the trustor is the dominant locus for perceived ability, benevolence, and integrity initially, but over time the trustee becomes the dominant locus for perceived ability and integrity. For perceived benevolence, the trustor remains the dominant driver over time.

Teams scholars have historically conceptualized and measured intragroup conflict at the team level. But emerging evidence suggests that perceptions of intragroup conflict are often not uniform, shared, or static. These findings suggest important questions about the microfoundations of intragroup conflict: Where does conflict within teams originate? And how does it evolve over time? We address these and other questions in three abductive studies. We consider four origination points—an individual, dyad, subgroup, or team—and three evolutionary trajectories—conflict continuity, contagion, and concentration. Study 1, a qualitative study of narrative accounts, and Study 2, a longitudinal social networks study of student teams, reveal that fewer than 30 percent of teams experience team-level conflict. Instead, conflict more commonly originates and persists at individual, dyadic, or subgroup levels. Study 2 further demonstrates that traditional psychometric intragroup conflict scales mask the existence of these various origins and trajectories of conflict. Study 3, a field study of manufacturing teams, reveals that individual and dyadic task conflict origins positively predict team performance, whereas traditional intragroup task conflict measures negatively predict team performance. The results raise serious concerns about current methods and theory in the team conflict literature and suggest that researchers must go beyond team-level conceptualizations of conflict.

PurposeTrust is a vital ingredient in modern supply chain (SC) alliances. Yet, most measures of trust are rather simplistic. This paper aims to review the trust literature to identify the different facets of SC trust. A multi‐faceted measure of trust is then developed and used to benchmark the extent to which trust signals are used in alliance management.Design/methodology/approachMulti‐method: 50 preliminary interviews were conducted and 189 surveys were collected.FindingsBenchmarking buyers' trust‐building strategies reveals that most companies lack the know‐how and ability to develop high levels of trust. Most companies have implemented strategies to signal their performance capability, leading to a level of transactional trust. However, few companies have recognized the need to signal to their SC partners their commitment to the relationship – leaving them without the ability to establish the trust levels needed to drive breakthrough collaboration.Originality/valueThe paper introduces the importance of signaling trustworthiness in a SC context. It develops relationship commitment as an important dimension of trust, and explains the trust cycle within the context of an exchange cycle. It also takes steps toward developing a more robust and meaningful measure of SC trust.

Research Summary How does interfirm cooperation in innovation ecosystems evolve in the face of conflict? We theorize that conflict propels firms to reconfigure cooperative relationships while maintaining and even increasing cooperation with aggressors because cooperation is the primary mechanism for value creation in such ecosystems. To empirically test our arguments, we study patent litigation and subsequent cooperation between mobile telecommunications firms within the 3GPP standards development organization. We find evidence of a dual cooperative strategy in the face of conflict: while cooperation increases between litigants, defendants also enhance cooperation with others to steer standards away from aggressors. We also highlight the contingent roles of technological complementarities and relational position underpinning cooperation after conflict. Our findings demonstrate that in innovation ecosystems, cooperation with adversaries persists despite conflict. Managerial Summary Firms in innovation‐driven industries cooperate to develop interoperability standards and compatible technologies. Yet, cooperative firms may disagree about what constitutes fair, reasonable, and non‐discriminatory terms for licensing intellectual property. Thus, conflict and patent litigation arise even as firms cooperate to build technologies and industry standards. We find that in innovation ecosystems, firms commonly increase cooperative efforts in response to conflict. Less‐connected firms or those with valuable complementary technologies will likely expand cooperation than well‐connected firms or technological competitors. Well‐connected firms may pursue alternative cooperative opportunities. We suggest that defendant firms' managers can adopt a dual cooperative strategy: (a) identify private and shared benefits from the joint development of complementary technologies with aggressors and (b) invest in alternative technological partnerships to influence the direction of future standards development.