Trust and Formal Contracts in Interorganizational Relationships - Substitutes and Complements

321 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

The Anatomy of Network Failure* (2011, background): “But most scholars portray confidence and competence as overlapping, indistinguishable, or “mutually reinforcing” (Mellewigt et al. 2007; Sako 1992:43) values or attributes whereas we treat them as contingent and potentially—if by no means invariably—inimical to each other.”
Choice and performance of governance mechanisms: matching alliance governance to asset type (2009, background): “…alliances are: the use of formal governance mechanisms and/or the use of relational governance mechanisms (Dekker, 2004; Martinez and Jarillo, 1989).2 The approaches are not exclusive; both may occur to varying degrees within the same alliance (Macneil, 2000; Mellewigt, Madhok, and Weibel, 2007).”
Competence- and Integrity-Based Trust in Interorganizational Relationships: Which Matters More? (2018, background): “If partners’ preexisting knowledge and experience engenders integrity-based trust, it will carry over to the new domain (Mesquita, 2007) because integrity-based trust induces positive attributions applied across domains (Kramer, 1994; Ullmann-Margalit, 2004).”
Performance and completeness in repeated inter-firm relationships: the case of franchising (2010, background): “So, since the franchisor needs to exert greater control over franchisees in order to protect its reputation and brand image, it will draw up more detailed contracts (Mellewigt et al. 2007).”