
Parkhe (1998) has made some highly interesting observation regarding the concept of trust; trust as a
concept involves uncertainty by nature. Trust implies vulnerability i.e. the
risk of losing something valuable. The extent of value and the extent of this
potential loss are normally perceived under an ad hoc perspective. Trust is directly
proportional to behavioural functions meaning that it is placed upon a person
whose behaviour cannot be controlled from the outside. This means that trust is
put on something which cannot be directly controlled but potentially partly
influenced. Last but not least trust is “a
fragile entity based on a set of socially learned and socially confirmed
expectations that people have of each other” (Lauring and Selmer, 2010,
p.269).

Trust is a firm’s choice
within an interorganizational relationship. At the same time understanding the
institutional, cultural and societal norms can lead to a smoother facilitation
of the role trust, the extent of openness and performance. Firms need to invest
on trust since it is something that is not taken for granted especially in a
cross-cultural perspective. This puts the emphasis on the need to rebuild
trust. Trust investment can be affected by the national context per se since
lack of trust emerges the need of other mechanisms such as monitoring or
control systems leading the additional efforts and cost and resulting in a
relationship that is developed via surveillance and not mutual understanding
and confidence. This means that within an international collaboration trust
asymmetries may arise which stem from the different expectations, the extent of
openness and interaction and the differences in the institutional and cultural
environments in which is partner is embedded.
List of references
Lauring,
J., & Selmer, J. (2010). Multicultural organizations: Common language and
group cohesiveness. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management,
10 (3), 267–284.
Parkhe,
A. (1998). Understanding trust in international alliances. Journal of World
Business, 33(3), 219–240.
No comments:
Post a Comment