Does familiarity breed trust? Revisiting the antecedents of trust

Abstract

This paper investigates how the history of interaction between organizations and between organizational boundary spanners contributes to the formation of trust between firms. Our findings, using data on the supplier-buyer relationships of two major US auto manufacturers, suggest that history affects trust formation in a complex non-linear fashion, involving a period of ambivalence early in a relationship. We show that certain kinds of exchange partners can systematically reap differential returns from a common history of interaction. Organizational similarity significantly enhances the ability of exchange partners to translate the benefits of the joint history of interaction into a stock of trust.

Contacts and Contracts: Cross-Level Network Dynamics in the Development of an Aircraft Material

“…Existing studies of the role of interpersonal relationships were limited to dyads of organizations (e.g., Barden and Mitchell 2007, Gulati and Sytch 2008, Rosenkopf et al 2001, Zaheer et al 1998. We broadened the analysis from the dyad to the network.…”

“…Firms are connected by interpersonal relations at all levels where transactions take place (Granovetter 1985), and these multiple contacts provide potentially different experiences (Barden and Mitchell 2007). Mechanisms of embeddedness may operate both at the interpersonal and interorganizational levels (Barden andMitchell 2007, Gulati andSytch 2008). For example, boundary-spanning individuals may trust a partner organization as a whole, or they may trust a specific counterpart in that organization (Zaheer et al 1998).…”

“…Within existing interorganizational relations, interpersonal experiences have been found to transform into interorganizational trust (Zaheer et al 1998, Gulati andSytch 2008), whereas a lack of "chemistry" may subvert interorganizational bonds (de Rond 2003). Moreover, personal ties between senior executives support the creation of formal relations between organizations (Browning et al 1995, Capaldo 2007, Ring and Van de Ven 1994, Westphal et al 2006.…”

“…However, few empirical studies have investigated the interaction between interorganizational networks and interpersonal networks (Brass et al 2004, Gulati 2007, Marchington and Vincent 2004. Those studies that looked at the interplay of the two levels have been limited to cross-level effects in existing interorganizational collaborations (Gulati and Sytch 2008, Seabright et al 1992, Zaheer et al 1998 and the role of personal relations in the formation of dyadic interorganizational relations (Barden and Mitchell 2007, Gulati and Westphal 1999, Rosenkopf et al 2001. In this paper, we aim for more comprehensive understanding of the network dynamics resulting from these multiple levels of embeddedness.…”

Determinant factors in dynamics of global manufacturing virtual networks

“…En redes con pocos agujeros estructurales, en cambio, se reducen las posibilidades de conductas oportunistas entre sus actores, consiguiendo una mayor productividad en la colaboración bajo la perspectiva de una utilización compartida de recursos, aunque el acceso a información nueva será menor. La existencia de agujeros estructurales constituye un factor fundamental para conseguir una red de información eficiente y una posición privilegiada para el actor nodal del agujero estructural al constituir un potente mecanismo de poder tácito, tal y como han corroborada muchos autores (Gulati & Sytch, 2008;Windahl & Lakemond, 2006;Lechner et al, 2006;Obstfeld, 2005). Luego, los OEMs utilizarán los agujeros estructurales como fuente de innovación en la red y como mecanismos de poder tácito en las RVFGs.…”