Effects of supplier trust on performance of cooperative supplier relationships

By D. Johnston, David M. McCutcheon, F. Stuart, Hazel Kerwood. 2004

819 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management Information Systems, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1cc94ff2d54122fcf2549aeb0f351c4a21e84fce

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Management Information Systems

1. Baofeng Huo
2. John Antonakis
3. C. Mcintosh
4. Mark A. Jacobs
5. Wantao Yu
6. Mikko Rönkkö
7. Anand Nair
8. Willem J. Selen

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

1. John Antonakis
2. C. Mcintosh
3. Mikko Rönkkö
4. Arun Rai
5. J. Edwards
6. Eric T. G. Wang
7. Gary Garrison
8. Carlos M. P. Sousa

In Strategy and Management

1. Baofeng Huo
2. Carlos M. P. Sousa
3. Wantao Yu
4. Mark A. Jacobs
5. John Antonakis
6. C. Mcintosh
7. Willem J. Selen
8. Anand Nair

Citations in the corpus

• Success factors for deploying cloud computing (2012, background): “Organizations looking to build strong, trusting relationships tend to be effective in their cooperative efforts with strategic partners.(10) Since trust is a key factor in interorganizational relationships, we define it as a specific relational capability and worth examining in its role in cloud dep”
• Does Trust Still Matter? Research on the Role of Trust in Inter-Organizational Exchange (2006, background): “Further, Johnston et al. (2004) found that competence trust was positively related to the performance of buyer-supplier relationships (through its effect on bilateral governance as noted above).”
• A critical review of survey-based research in supply chain integration (2008, background): “At the other extreme, there are a few papers that relate the level of integration in a single relationship to the performance of that particular relationship (Benton and Maloni, 2005; Duffy and Fearne, 2004; Humphreys et al., 2004; Johnston et al., 2004; Giménez and Ventura, 2003, 2005).”
• Process Innovation: Open Innovation and the Moderating Role of the Motivation to Achieve Legitimacy (2018, background): “Exchanges of information and R&D are more effective when they are based on trust (Johnston et al., 2004), but are also at risk of breaching contractual relationships with other parties (Belderbos et al.”
• The dark side of buyer–supplier relationships: A social capital perspective⋆ (2011, background): “Further, previous studies have limited the analysis of social capital to its relational dimension (Cousins et al., 2006; Johnston et al., 2004), structural dimension (Capaldo, 2007), or a combination of the two (Autry and Griffis, 2008; Lawson et al., 2008).”
• Strategic purchasing, supply management, and firm performance (2004, background): “In doing so, they also expect to improve their customer responsiveness ( Johnston et al., 2004 ).”
• The relative impact of attribute, severity, and timing of psychological contract breach on behavioral and attitudinal outcomes (2013, background): “Factors such as trust (ByoungChun et al., 2011; Johnston et al., 2004), cooperation (Jiang, 2009; Tangpong et al., 2010), and communication (Eckerd and Hill, 2012; Prahinski and Benton, 2004) are all found to influence decisionmaking behavior.”
• The path of innovation: purchasing and supplier involvement into new product development (2015, neutral): “Competent buyers can significantly contribute to NPD by identifying and selecting valuable supplier knowledge and consequently fostering promising supplier collaboration (Johnston, 2004; Knudsen, 2007).”