Journals / Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2007 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 1

THE IMPACT OF TRUST AND DISTRUST ON EXCHANGE PERFORMANCE IN BUYER-SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS: THE CASE OF ANKARA FURNITURE DISTRICT

ALICI-TEDARİKÇİ İLİŞKİLERİNDE GÜVEN ve GÜVENSİZLİĞİN MÜBADELE PERFORMANSI ÜZERİNE ETKİLERİ: ANKARA MOBİLYACILAR SİTESİ ÖRNEĞİ

Pages
5–38
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Empirical results suggest a significant positive association for trust and a significant negative association for distrust in their relationship with exchange performance.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study investigates the interaction between inter-firm trust, distrust and exchange performance in buyer–supplier exchanges in an industrial furniture district.
📊
Key Findings & Data:While a number of studies suggest that trust really matters for performance, another group of scholars suggest the opposite and argue that trust is not relevant for economic exchanges.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Empirical results suggest a significant positive association for trust and a significant negative association for distrust in their relationship with exchange performance.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study investigates the interaction between inter-firm trust, distrust and exchange performance in buyer–supplier exchanges in an industrial furniture district. While a number of studies suggest that trust really matters for performance, another group of scholars suggest the opposite and argue that trust is not relevant for economic exchanges. Further, since the status of distrust is not clear in the literature, this study attempts to provide empirical validation of the status of the relationship between trust and distrust by analyzing their impact on exchange performance. Empirical results suggest a significant positive association for trust and a significant negative association for distrust in their relationship with exchange performance. Additionally, confirmatory factor analysis of the two constructs show that they are distinct and separable.

Özet

Bu çalışma güven, güvensizlik ve mübadele performansı ilişkisini bir mobilya sanayi sitesi bağlamında mağazacı ve imalatçı firmalar arasındaki alıcı-tedarikçi ilişkileri çerçevesinde incelemektedir. Yazındaki bazı çalışmalar güvenin performans için önemli olduğunu söylerken diğer bazıları ise güvenin ekonomik mübadeleler için etkili olmadığını ileri sürmektedir. Güvensizliğin ise yazında tam olarak ne konumda olduğu açık değildir. Dolayısıyla bu çalışma, güven ve güvensizliğin mübadele performansı üzerine etkilerini inceleyerek bu iki kavramın konumları konusunda görgül dayanak sunmayı amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma sonuçları güven ve mübadele performansı arasında anlamlı olumlu bir ilişki olduğunu, güvensizlik ve mübadele performansı arasında ise anlamlı ve olumsuz bir ilişki olduğunu göstermektedir. Ayrıca doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonuçları güven ve güvensizliğin birbirinden ayrı iki olgu olduğunu göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ŞENGÜN, A. E. (2007). THE IMPACT OF TRUST AND DISTRUST ON EXCHANGE PERFORMANCE IN BUYER-SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS: THE CASE OF ANKARA FURNITURE DISTRICT. Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 1, 5–38. https://ajindex.com/articles/336538

References (15)

  1. Adler, P. S. ve Kwon, S. W. 2002. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1): 17-40.
  2. Anderson, E. ve Jap, S. D. 2005. The dark side of close relationships. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46: 75-82.
  3. Anderson, E. ve Weitz, B. 1989. Determinants of continuity in conventional industrial channel dyads. Marketing Science, 8(4): 310-23.
  4. Anderson, J. ve Narus, A. 1990. A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working relationships. Journal of Marketing, 48: 42-58.
  5. Armstrong, R. ve Yee, S. 2001. Do Chinese trust Chinese? A study of Chinese buyers and sellers in Malaysia. Journal of International Marketing, 9(3): 63-86.
  6. Arrow, K. 1974. The Limits of Organizations. New York: Norton. Barber, B. (1983). The logic and limits of trust. NJ: Rutgers University Press.
  7. Barney, J. ve Hansen, M. 1994. Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 175-190.
  8. Barney, J. B., Hesterly, W. S. 2008. Strategic Management and Competitive Advantage. New Jersey: Pearson. Bönte, W. 2007. Inter-firm trust in buyer-supplier relations: Are knowledge spillovers and geographical proximity relevant? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2006.12.004. Bradach, J. ve Eccles, R. 1989. Price, authority and trust: From ideal types to plural forms. Annual Review of Sociology, 15: 97-118.
  9. Butler, J. ve Cantrell, R. 1984. A behavioral decision theory approach to modeling dyadic trust in superiors and subordinates. Psychological Reports, 55:19-28.
  10. Carter, N. M. 1990. Small firm adaptation: Responses of physicians’ organizations to regulatory and competitive uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 307-333.
  11. Cho, J. 2006. The mechanism of trust and distrust formation and their relational outcomes. Journal of Retailing, 59(1): 112-120.
  12. Choi, C. J., Lee, S. H. ve Kim, J. B. 1999. A note on counter trade: Contractual uncertainty and transaction governance in emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(1): 189-202.
  13. Chow, S. ve Holden, R. 1997. Toward an understanding of loyalty: The moderating role of trust. Journal of Managerial Issues, 9: 275-98.
  14. Claro, D., Hagelaar G. ve Omta, O. 2003. The determinants of relational governance and performance: How to manage business relationships? Industrial Marketing Management, 32: 703-716.
  15. Crosby, L. A., Evans, K. R. ve Cowles, D. 1990. Relationship quality in services selling: An interpersonal influence perspective. Journal of M