Exploring the Effects of Trust and Its Outcomes in B2B Relationship Stages: A Longitudinal Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The reviewed article concerns an interesting and little-researched topic, which is the dynamic approach to trust in business relationships.
In the introduction, short information about the research could be included.
The article is based on well-chosen literature. Although, due to the subject of time, I'm missing references to such authors as Chris Medlin (2004), Huang and Wilkinson (2013), Bachman and Inkpen (2011) or Jap and Ganesan (2000).
In the theoretical part, I'm missing reflections on trust itself. Trust is a very complex, multidimensional, and contextual construct. It determines relationships, is perceived as a component of relationships or it's effect. Hence, I would expect the author to justify his approach to trust.
The empirical part concerns start-ups. Are relationships in case of such companies unique, apart from being shorter? Are the stages of the relationship go through the same phases as in the case of mature companies?
The study was designed correctly and does not raise any doubts from the methodological point of view. In my opinion, it would be good to explain the following issues:
- why it is interesting to research Korean companies? What is so special about Korean start-ups?
- how the “partner” was defined in research? Was it a “key partner” (buyer? Investor?)?
- who were the respondents - what kind of position they have? The information about sex is not as important when we discuss B2B relationships.
- I agree with "the lengths of relationships" as a control variable. But why “3 years”? Was it the mean or median in the research?
- p. 189 and 193 are the same - should be improved
The main managerial implication is associated with the firm (or industry) type. But in the literature review, I couldn’t find anything that refers to this. And I would skip the example of Delta Airlines - it is not related to the topic or to the research (start-ups).
Author Response
We sincerely thank you for giving us this opportunity to further refine this manuscript and for taking the time to provide such thorough comments. Based on your highlights, we have paid careful attention to all of your comments and suggestions and feel that the revised version of the manuscript is a substantial improvement over the previous version. We have provided you a comment-by-comment overview of the changes made (In RED).
The reviewed article concerns an interesting and little-researched topic, which is the dynamic approach to trust in business relationships.
Our action: Thank you for your positive evaluation.
In the introduction, short information about the research could be included.
Our action: Thank you so much. We included short information about the research as follows:
The remainder of this study is structured as follows. First, we present the theoretical background and conceptual framework. Second, we discuss the methodology and study findings. Finally, we discuss the implications and limitations of the study.
The article is based on well-chosen literature. Although, due to the subject of time, I'm missing references to such authors as Chris Medlin (2004), Huang and Wilkinson (2013), Bachman and Inkpen (2011) or Jap and Ganesan (2000).
Our action: Thanks again. We cited the following two recent references (5,6) in Introduction.
Huang, Y., and Wilkinson, I.F. (2013). The dynamic and evolution of trust in business relationships. Industrial Marketing Management. 42, 455-465.
Bachman, R., and Inkpen, A.C. (2011). Understanding institutional-based trust building processes in inter-organizational relationships. Organization Studies. 32, 281-301.
In the theoretical part, I'm missing reflections on trust itself. Trust is a very complex, multidimensional, and contextual construct. It determines relationships, is perceived as a component of relationships or it's effect. Hence, I would expect the author to justify his approach to trust.
Our action: Thank you for your valuable comments. We justified your suggestion as follows:
…Trust is a complex, multidimensional, and contextual construct [20]. Trust is perceived as a component of the B2B relationship [12]. In this study, we apply this premise…
The empirical part concerns start-ups. Are relationships in case of such companies unique, apart from being shorter? Are the stages of the relationship go through the same phases as in the case of mature companies?
Our action: Thank you. To cope with your concerns, we addressed this issue in the section of research limitations as follows:
The start-ups were useful for a complete understanding of B2B relationships. Some concerns are remarked about relationship stages as B2B relationship stages vary from the developing stage to the maturing stage. Thus, future studies should focus on different relationship stages to elaborate on the current findings of the study.
The study was designed correctly and does not raise any doubts from the methodological point of view. In my opinion, it would be good to explain the following issues:
- why it is interesting to research Korean companies? What is so special about Korean start-ups?
Our action: Thank you so much. We also addressed your suggestion as follows (the section of data collection):
…We examine how firms are increasingly important in Korea owing to the rapid growth of new start-ups and the dynamic B2B relationship paradigm.
- how the “partner” was defined in research? Was it a “key partner” (buyer? Investor?)?
Our action: Thanks again. We also explained this issue as follows:
…We operationally defined a partner as a key party (e.g., buyer or supplier), working together with a start-up firm to deliver success for both parties.
- who were the respondents - what kind of position they have? The information about sex is not as important when we discuss B2B relationships.
Our action: Thank you. As you mentioned earlier, respondents that had relationships with their partner firms for at least a two-years were selected (see the section of data collection). Their position was added and the gender information was deleted.
In the sample, 64% of the respondents were managerial position (36% were sales position).
- I agree with "the lengths of relationships" as a control variable. But why “3 years”? Was it the mean or median in the research?
Our action: Thanks again. The main criterion of the use of 3 years was the mean of relationship length (M=3.02).
- p. 189 and 193 are the same - should be improved
Our action: Yes, two sentences were the same. However, we kept the following sentence: “Respondents with at least two-year relationships with their partners were selected”. This is because it clearly says who the respondents are.
The main managerial implication is associated with the firm (or industry) type. But in the literature review, I couldn’t find anything that refers to this. And I would skip the example of Delta Airlines - it is not related to the topic or to the research (start-ups).
Our action: Thank you for your valuable comments again. We modified the managerial implication as follows:
The findings also provide evidence about the significance of trust associated with a firm type (or industry type). Compared with manufacturing start-ups, the role of firm type is more important for service start-ups to establish trust. Specially, it can come with uncertain outcomes of future performance. As a result, partners may consider aspects of the trust-based relationship that suggest a service organization is aligned with the partner’s future needs and goals [52]. Therefore, service organizations can maintain trust with their partners. Given the propensity of trust-based relationships, service organizations may play a substantial role in improving trust and enhancing positive performances. For example, Socar, the major firm in car-sharing services in Korea, collaborated with Hyundai Motor in 2018 to increase the value of revenue-generating services based on the existing strong trust between the two parties. Thus, managers can create shared value for positive performance if they have built trust with a partner during their B2B relationship.
Finally, our revision work has been proofread by a native speaker again.
Reviewer 2 Report
Honestly, I cannot find any link between this manuscript and the field of sustainability.
Moreover, the research question is quite an old one. Research on the impact of trust was en vogue more than 20 years ago.
Author Response
We sincerely thank you for giving us this opportunity to further refine this manuscript and for taking the time to provide such thorough comments. Based on your highlights, we have paid careful attention to all of your comments and suggestions and feel that the revised version of the manuscript is a substantial improvement over the previous version. We have provided you a comment-by-comment overview of the changes made (In RED).
Honestly, I cannot find any link between this manuscript and the field of sustainability.
Our action: Thank you for your comments. We may find any link between our paper and the field of sustainability. However, the fundamental purpose of B2B business is to make a sustainable performance. Our longitudinal study reflects these sustainable characteristics. Furthermore, one of our colleagues (the first author) is familiar with the research direction of this journal, Sustainability, because he/she now serves as an editorial board of Sustainability.
Moreover, the research question is quite an old one. Research on the impact of trust was a vogue more than 20 years ago.
Our action: Thanks again. As you mentioned, the trust literature has been well developed. However, the evolution of B2B trust is still in its infancy. Furthermore, other two reviewers say that the reviewed article concerns an interesting and little-researched topic, which is the dynamic approach to trust in business relationships.
Reviewer 3 Report
I found this paper to be well written with an impressive research approach. The longitudinal perspective was very insightful. Some recommended fixes and elaboration include the following:
- After concluding some meaningful findings, I found the managerial implications disappointing. Why not elaborate on what the waning trust --> performance (over stages) means for service providers or other partners? i.e., What steps should partners take to maintain high performance in these mature phases. Otherwise readers may conclude that trust reinforcement matters little to firm performance due to carryover effects. Is it possible that affective trust overtakes the need for calculative or cognitive trust in later stages? Without some explanation, researchers or managers are not provided a meaningful and study-relevant recommendation for future action.
- Shouldn't the cultural context be explained in the limitations or a brief section on future research? For example, I believe a number of studies suggest that the trust-->performance relationship varies across cultures (e.g., collectivist or individualistic) and institutional environments (formal or informal dominated).
- Please fix minor wording changes on line 46 (missing word), line 421 (dynastic?), and line 433 (specifically misspelled).
Author Response
We sincerely thank you for giving us this opportunity to further refine this manuscript and for taking the time to provide such thorough comments. Based on your highlights, we have paid careful attention to all of your comments and suggestions and feel that the revised version of the manuscript is a substantial improvement over the previous version. We have provided you a comment-by-comment overview of the changes made (In RED).
I found this paper to be well written with an impressive research approach. The longitudinal perspective was very insightful. Some recommended fixes and elaboration include the following:
Our action: Thank you so much for your positive evaluation.
- After concluding some meaningful findings, I found the managerial implications disappointing. Why not elaborate on what the waning trust --> performance (over stages) means for service providers or other partners? i.e., What steps should partners take to maintain high performance in these mature phases. Otherwise readers may conclude that trust reinforcement matters little to firm performance due to carryover effects. Is it possible that affective trust overtakes the need for calculative or cognitive trust in later stages? Without some explanation, researchers or managers are not provided a meaningful and study-relevant recommendation for future action.
Our action: Thank you so much for your valuable comments. We added the following managerial implications:
The analysis reveals that the relationship between trust and performance decreases over stages. The desirable approach for managers is that firms with high performance derive benefit from B2B mature phases. Since the carryover effects of performance increase over stages, maintaining high performance with their partners is critical for sustainable relationships. While studies on the B2B relationship highlight the importance of affective trust during the B2B relationship stages, our empirical findings show that the overall effect of trust is limited and decreases over stages. In contrast, the effect of firm performance as a calculative construct increases during these phases, suggesting the importance of managing performance at later stages.
- Shouldn't the cultural context be explained in the limitations or a brief section on future research? For example, I believe a number of studies suggest that the trust-->performance relationship varies across cultures (e.g., collectivist or individualistic) and institutional environments (formal or informal dominated).
Our action: Thanks again. We added the cultural context in the section of limitations based on your suggestions.
Besides, future studies should consider the cultural context, suggesting that the relationship between trust and firm performance varies across cultures (e.g., collectivist vs. individualistic) and institutional environments (formal or informal dominated).
- Please fix minor wording changes on line 46 (missing word), line 421 (dynastic?), and line 433 (specifically misspelled).
Our action: Thanks again. Line 46: firm-level changes in trust; line 421: temporal dynamics are correct; line 433: Specifically.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I still think that the manuscript does not have any link with Sustainability. I would ask the authors to submit the article elsewhere.Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Many thanks for your evaluations again. If our revision is rejected to the editor, we will submit the manuscript to another possible target journal.
Best regards,
Hong-Youl Ha, PhD
Professor of Marketing
Deaprtment of International Trade
Dongguk University, Seoul
Korea
