Contextualising the coevolution of (dis)trust and control – a longitudinal case study of a public market

Abstract

Research into the dynamics of trust-control is still inconclusive. In this paper, we offer an in-depth understanding of how (dis)trust and control coevolve as embedded in multiple dimensions of context. The paper focuses on public markets, a context which is underrepresented in extant studies on trust and control. Our analysis is based on a longitudinal case study of interorganisational relationships (IOR) between boundary spanners representing purchaser and providers on a customer choice market for home care in a midsized municipality in Sweden. We identify, narrate and analyse critical incidents during seven years of the process. A conceptual framework contextualising the trust-control nexus of a public-private IOR is developed and utilised. We find that while the public-private IOR context requires control, control only enables deterrence trust from the municipal officers and only in individual providers. Interferential rather than symbiotic coevolution of trust and control is the dominating pattern. In addition, we find what we denote as mixed coevolution, where control simultaneously has positive and negative impact on trust. In our case in point, control enables trust in specific providers but this trust is not reciprocated due to experienced distrust on the category level.ARTICLE HISTORY

The challenges of commissioning home care for older people in England: commissioners’ perspectives

“…Trust, as a distinctive element of relational contracting, included components such as interdependency and the exercise of discretion in making decisions about care packages. Trust within a contractual relationship is fundamental to successful practice between commissioners and providers (Hudson, 2004; Rubery et al ., 2013; Högberg et al ., 2018). For instance, research from the Netherlands reported that most of their municipalities have adopted a relational contractual approach to social care rather than a competitive tendering model, which was cited as a source of conflict in the past (Uenk and Telgen, 2019).…”

Sector-Specific Associations, Trust, and Survival of PPPs: A Behavioral Experiment Based on the Centipede Game

“…With this focus, our study is particularly relevant to the nascent stages of PPPs, when partners have only little information about each other and mutual trust has yet to develop (Schilke and Cook 2013;Högberg et al 2018). In this state of increased uncertainty, simple heuristics are more salient than at later stages of the PPP, when assumptions about the partners are increasingly saturated with practical evidence from the partnership and trust interferes to a growing extent with institutional factors from the environment.…”

Multilevel trust: A theoretical and practical imperative

“…Korsgaard et al (2018) offer a compelling case for understanding trust dynamics and a practical guide to one of the methods. Högberg et al (2018) as well as Karhapää and Savolainen (2018) demonstrate the utility of longitudinal qualitative data analysis. The temporal dimensionwhether within-individual or between-organisationforms a specific level of analysis that can provide important insights that cannot be gleaned at another level.…”

“…We begin the Special Issue with a paper by Korsgaard, Bliese, Kautz, Samson, and Kostyszyn (2018) focusing on trust dynamics over time. Next, continuing with the attention to time, two papers by Karhapää and Savolainen (2018) and by Högberg, Sköld, and Tillmar (2018) examine trust development in a merger and between public and private sectors. These are followed by Wang, Mather, and Seifert (2018) investigating job insecurity and trust in an economic downturn.…”

“…Second, attending to the nuances of a given context can provide new insight for theory and more practical relevance. Three of the papers in this Special Issue (Högberg et al, 2018;Karhapää & Savolainen, 2018;Wang et al, 2018) focus on specific contexts. Johns (2006) defined context as 'situational opportunities and constraints that affect the occurrence and meaning of organizational behavior as well as functional relationships between variables' (p. 386).…”