The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Free to Be Trusted? Organizational Constraints on Trust in Boundary Spanners
Abstract
We present a view of trust in boundary spanners as explained by the extent of role autonomy, a multidimensional concept that reflects the discretion that agents have in interpreting and enacting their roles. We argue that, in a buyer-supplier context, purchasing managers will be trusted to a greater extent by supplier representatives when they are free from constraints that limit their ability to interpret their boundary-spanning roles. We conceptualize and measure three key components of role autonomy: Functional influence, tenure, and clan culture. Taken together, these components of role autonomy shape and define the purchasing manager's willingness and capacity to make and uphold commitments to supplier representatives. Role autonomy permits purchasing managers to engage in discretionary behaviors that allow supplier representatives to learn about their underlying motives and intentions. We test hypotheses linking the components of role autonomy to trust on a sample of 119 buyer-supplier relationships. We use a dyadic research design that combines data from purchasing managers and supplier representatives. The results suggest that granting purchasing managers greater autonomy enhances supplier representative trust in purchasing managers. By drawing attention to role autonomy as a feature of organizations that influences trust we highlight the importance of organizational context in contributing to a deeper understanding of trust.
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
Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995) · Games and Economic Behavior · doi:10.1006/game.1995.1027 · Cited by 5,548
Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2578601 · Cited by 4,163
From acts to dispositions the attribution process in person perception
Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60107-0 · Cited by 3,424
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.95 · Cited by 3,146 · cited 5×
“We developed a measure of the supplier representative’s trust in the purchasing manager based on a measurement instrument of trust in close, interpersonal relations, created and validated by Rempel et al. (1985).10 We adapted the original scale to make it more suitable for buyer-supplier relationships by modifying ite…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe social control of impersonal trust
Shapiro, S. P. (1987) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/228791 · Cited by 1,725
Boundary spanning roles and organization structure
Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1977) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/257905 · Cited by 1,518
The Role-Based Performance Scale: Validity Analysis of a Theory-Based Measure
Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256941 · Cited by 809
Role playing variations and their informational value for person perception.
Jones, E. E., Davis, K. E., & Gergen, K. J. (1961) · The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0048514 · Cited by 265
Cited by
Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206305279602 · Cited by 10,068
The Impact of Technostress on Role Stress and Productivity
Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., & Ragu-Nathan, T. S. (2007) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222240109 · Cited by 1,904
The dark side of buyer–supplier relationships: A social capital perspective⋆
Villena, V. H., Revilla, E., & Choi, T. Y. (2011) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2010.09.001 · Cited by 1,018
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
Brokerage, Boundary Spanning, and Leadership in Open Innovation Communities
Fleming, L., & Waguespack, D. M. (2007) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1060.0242 · Cited by 758
Metadata
- Authors
- Perrone, V., Zaheer, A., & McEvily, B.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2003-08
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 422-439
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2147190142
- Cited by
- 415
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 14.41
- 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: Free to Be Trusted? Organizational Constraints on Trust in Boundary Spanners. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/orsc.14.4.422.17487
- The paper
- Perrone, V., Zaheer, A., & McEvily, B. (2003). Free to Be Trusted? Organizational Constraints on Trust in Boundary Spanners. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.4.422.17487
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.