The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Information Processing Moderators of the Effectiveness of Trust-Based Governance in Interfirm R&D Collaboration
Abstract
It is generally assumed that improved outcomes accompany the use of trust as a governance mechanism in an interfirm relationship. Briefly, trust is a social lubricant that reduces the friction costs of existing trade and/or serves to increase the scope of trade. In contrast to this universalistic view, we posit that the performance of trust-based governance is contingent on the ability of trading partners to “read” each other and learn about counterpart behavior. These information-processing abilities allow firms to assess partner trustworthiness better, which reduces the risk of misplaced trust. The increased efficacy of communication and learning from one another also enables them to better capitalize from the adaptation and revision possibilities uncovered through trust-based governance during the task-execution phase. Given the central role of these cognitive requirements, we assess these contingent effects with data from a knowledge-intensive task setting. Using a sample of 129 firms that have engaged outside contractors on client-sponsored R&D projects, we find strong support for our thesis. Specifically, we find that trust-based governance has a larger positive impact on task performance when the client is more skilled at understanding the outsourced tasks at hand, the task itself requires skills that are relatively more readily taught (less tacit), and the task itself is organized in parallel with work being done at the contractor as well as the client. As a corollary, we also find that firms adopt trust-based governance to a greater extent as these information-processing abilities increase, as well as with the colocation of the contractor and client. Suggestions for engineering trust-based governance are offered.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
An integrative model of organizational trust
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258792 · Cited by 10,736
Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures
Huber, G. P. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.88 · Cited by 8,072
Knowledge of the Firm and the Evolutionary Theory of the Multinational Corporation
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1993) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490248 · Cited by 3,967
Price, Authority, and Trust: From Ideal Types to Plural Forms
Bradach, J. L., & Eccles, R. G. (1989) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.so.15.080189.000525 · Cited by 1,990
Cited by
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909 · Cited by 2,606
Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.51.3.451 · Cited by 1,152
At What Level (and in Whom) We Trust: Trust Across Multiple Organizational Levels
Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206312439327 · Cited by 886
Srinivasan, M., Mukherjee, D., & Gaur, A. S. (2011) · European Management Journal · doi:10.1016/j.emj.2011.02.004 · Cited by 294
Vlaar, P. W. L., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2007) · Group & Organization Management · doi:10.1177/1059601106294215 · Cited by 277
Metadata
- Authors
- Carson, S. J., Madhok, A., Varman, R., & John, G.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2003-02
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 45-56
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2091597451
- Cited by
- 233
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 15.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Information Processing Moderators of the Effectiveness of Trust-Based Governance in Interfirm R&D Collaboration. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/orsc.14.1.45.12811
- The paper
- Carson, S. J., Madhok, A., Varman, R., & John, G. (2003). Information Processing Moderators of the Effectiveness of Trust-Based Governance in Interfirm R&D Collaboration. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.1.45.12811
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.