Is collaboration a better way to develop trust after opportunism? Distinguishing firm and boundary spanner opportunism

Chun Zhang, Xu(Vivian) Zheng*, Juan Julie Li

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Journal Publications and ReviewsRGC 21 - Publication in refereed journalpeer-review

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Building on equity theory, we integrate trust-repair and response-to-opportunism studies to distinguish individual boundary spanner opportunism from firm opportunism and examine how these two types of opportunism influence the effect of collaboration on post-opportunism trust restoration, a crucial yet challenging context for trust development. We further examine the effect of two alternative strategies to collaboration: tolerance, and aggression on post-opportunism trust restoration. Using 574 confidential reports of senior managers working for 287 industrial buyers, we find that collaboration is the most effective strategy for post-opportunism trust restoration. More importantly, our findings show that although collaboration restores trust under both types of opportunism, it fits better with individual boundary spanner opportunism than with firm opportunism. In comparison, tolerance has a positive effect on trust restoration under boundary spanner opportunism but negatively affects trust under firm opportunism, while aggression hinders trust restoration even more under firm opportunism than it does under individual boundary spanner opportunism.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)38-51
JournalIndustrial Marketing Management
Volume82
Online published17 Apr 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2019

Research Keywords

  • Boundary spanner opportunism
  • Firm opportunism
  • Collaboration
  • Aggression
  • Tolerance
  • Trust restoration

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Is collaboration a better way to develop trust after opportunism? Distinguishing firm and boundary spanner opportunism'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this