When Does Trust Matter to Alliance Performance

By R. Krishnan, Xavier Martin, Niels Noorderhaven. 2006

1,084 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/65c2d6388d85af1e7d2605037c31b9caa4582883

How researchers see this paper

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

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

The end of the opportunism vs trust debate: Bounded reliability as a new envelope concept in research on MNE governance (2009, background): “Krishnan et al. (2006) have suggested that reduced alertness may stem from trust’s encouragement of economic actors to minimize redundancies in the search process as they rely on the partner’s purported expertise to engage in specialized search.”
Effects of cultural ethnicity, firm size, and firm age on senior executives’ trust in their overseas business partners: Evidence from China (2011, background): “Prior organizational research has consistently identified trust as a key solution to interorganizational coordination problems (Gulati & Singh, 1998; Gulati & Sytch, 2007; Krishnan & Martin, 2006, Thompson, 1967).”
Integrating variable risk preferences, trust, and transaction cost economics – 25 years on: reflections in memory of Oliver Williamson (2021, positive): “…will be influenced by the level of trust in the relationship, has also found strong support in a range of studies, suggesting that it is vulnerable to the risk of opportunistic behaviour that leads to a contracting party’s reliance on trust (see, e.g. Krishnan et al., 2006; Rousseau et al., 1998).”
Capabilities as a mediator linking resources and the international performance of entrepreneurial firms in an emerging economy (2010, methodology): “Assessment of Common Method Bias As our data were collected based upon self-reports, there existed the potential for the occurrence of common method bias (Krishnan et al., 2006).”
Understanding the impact of relational capital and organizational learning on alliance outcomes (2010, methodology): “Some dimensions such as relationship duration (Anderson & Dahlqvist, 2002; Krishnan et al., 2006; Simonin, 1999), size (Kotabe et al.”
Ready to Be Open? Explaining the Firm-Level Barriers to Benefiting from Openness to External Knowledge (2017, positive): “Trust is the expectation that one partner will not exploit the vulnerabilities of the other when faced with an opportunity to do so (Krishnan et al., 2006) and has been shown to be important in achieving efficient and equitable outcomes in interfirm partnerships (Ring and Van de Ven, 1994).”
Measures for Dealing with Competence and Integrity Violations of Interorganizational Trust at the Corporate and Operating Levels of Organizational Hierarchy (2009, positive): “There are many benefits to sustaining trusting relationships between organizations (e.g. Becerra et al., 2008; Das and Teng, 1998; Krishnan et al., 2006; Mohr and Spekman, 1994; Parkhe, 1998; Perez-Nordtvedt et al., 2008; Saxton, 1997; Zaheer and Venkatraman, 1995; Zaheer et al., 1998).”