Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:40:52.631Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Opportunism, Identification Asymmetry, and Firm Performance in Chinese Interorganizational Relationships

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2020

Lucy Sojung Lee  and
Weiguo Zhong Open the ORCID record for Weiguo Zhong [Opens in a new window]
Lucy Sojung Lee*
Affiliation:
Seoul National University, South Korea Peking University, China
Weiguo Zhong
Affiliation:
Peking University, China
*
Corresponding author: Lucy Sojung Lee (soju621@snu.ac.kr)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Extant literature focuses on within-dyad opportunism (i.e., transgression of the norms of a specific business relationship) while neglecting pro-relational opportunism (i.e., transgression of societal norms to benefit the relationship), resulting in limited understanding of their different effects. We argue that opportunism is a significant threat to the identity of business partners and boundary spanners which results in different relational dynamics at different levels, that is, Type-I (i.e., interorganizational identification squeezing out interpersonal identification) and Type-II identification asymmetry (i.e., interpersonal identification dominating interorganizational identification). Identification asymmetry further mediates the effects of opportunism on exchange performance. Based on a matched manufacturer–supplier sample, we find strong support to the hypotheses. Moreover, distributive fairness aggravates the effect of pro-relational opportunism on identification asymmetry, while interactive fairness mitigates it. Our research provides more nuanced between-level findings on identification in interorganizational settings, and cautions against firms’ tendency toward Machiavellian reasoning when they face the temptation of complicit behavior for organizational gains.

摘要

摘要

现有企业间关系的文献大多关注关系内的机会主义行为（即违反特定商业关系的行为规范），而忽略了亲关系机会主义行为（即违反社会规范以利于企业间关系），从而缺乏对两种机会主义行为的影响及其机制的深入理解。我们认为，机会主义行为对商业伙伴在不同层次上造成不同的身份认同威胁。机会主义行为一方面显著影响商业伙伴的组织间身份认同，另一方面显著影响维护企业间关系的边界管理者的人际身份认同。我们提出两种身份认同不对称：一类认同不对称（组际身份认同压制人际身份认同）和二类认同不对称（人际身份认同主导组际身份认同）。身份认同不对称进一步中介了机会主义行为对企业间交易绩效的影响。基于匹配的制造商-供应商样本，我们对上述假设进行检验，并得到了有力的支持。我们还发现，分配公平加剧了亲关系机会主义行为对身份认同不对称的影响，而互动公平则缓解了身份认同不对称的负面效应。本文的贡献在于在企业间关系的背景中对机会主义行为和身份认同进行了更为细致的研究，并对企业面临共同利益时有马基雅维利式的合谋倾向提供了有效的管理启示。

Аннотация

АННОТАЦИЯ

В большинстве научных трудов основное внимание уделяется оппортунизму внутри диады отношений (т. е. нарушению норм в конкретных деловых отношениях), а не оппортунизму на благо отношений (т. е. нарушению общественных норм в пользу отношений), что ограничивают наше понимание различных последствий. Мы утверждаем, что оппортунизм представляет собой значительную угрозу для идентичности деловых партнеров и граничных условий, что приводит к различной динамике отношений на разных уровнях, а именно к идентификационной асимметрии первого типа (т. е. межорганизационной идентификации, которая вытесняет межличностную идентификацию) и идентификационной асимметрии второго типа (т. е. межличностной идентификации, которая доминирует над межорганизационной идентификацией). Идентификационная асимметрия также регулирует влияние оппортунизма на эффективность обмена. На основе спаренной выборки отношений между производителем и поставщиком, мы находим подтверждение этим гипотезам. Более того, распределительная справедливость усиливает влияние оппортунизма в пользу отношений на идентификационную асимметрию, а интерактивная справедливость уменьшает это влияние. Наше исследование предлагает более детальные межуровневые выводы по идентификации в межорганизационных условиях, а также предостерегает компании от хитрости Макиавелли, когда они сталкиваются с искушением сговора в интересах организации.

Resumen

RESUMEN

La literatura existente se enfoca en el oportunismo dentro de la díada (es decir, transgresión de las normas de una relación de negocios especifica) mientras que descuida el oportunismo pro-relacional (es decir, la transgresión de las normas sociales para beneficiar la relación), resultado esto en un entendimiento limitado de sus diferentes efectos. Discutimos que el oportunismo es una amenaza significativa para la identidad de los socios comerciales y los que transcienden los límites, lo que resulta en diferentes dinámicas relacionales a diferentes niveles, o sea, Tipo I (es decir, la identificación organizacional que exprime la identificación interpersonal), y la asimetría de identificación Tipo II (es decir, la identificación interpersonal que domina la identificación interorganizacional). La asimetría de identificación media aún más los efectos del oportunismo en el desempeño del intercambio. Basándonos en una muestra emparejada de fabricante-proveedor, encontramos fuerte apoyo para las hipótesis. Además, la equidad distributiva agrava el efecto del oportunismo pro-relacional en la asimetría de la identificación, mientras que la equidad interactiva lo mitiga. Nuestra investigación proporciona hallazgos entre niveles más matizados sobre la identificación en entornos interorganizacionales, y advierte contra la tendencia de las empresas hacia el razonamiento Maquiavélico cuando se enfrentan a la tentación de un comportamiento cómplice de ganancias organizativas.

Keywords

exchange performanceidentification asymmetrymanufacturer-supplier relationshippro-relational opportunismwithin-dyad opportunism关系内机会主义行为亲关系机会主义行为制造商-供应商关系身份认同不对称企业间交易绩效эффективность обменаидентификационная асимметрияотношения между производителем и поставщикомоппортунизм на благо отношенийоппортунизм внутри диадыdesempeño de intercambioasimetría de informaciónrelación fabricante-proveedoroportunismo pro-relacionaly oportunismo dentro de la díada
Type
Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , October 2020 , pp. 825 - 865
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 The International Association for Chinese Management Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Accepted by Deputy Editor Peter Ping Li

References

REFERENCES

Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S-W. 2002. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1): 17–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, S., Ashforth, B. E., & Dutton, J. E. 2000. Organizational identity and identification: Charting new waters and building new bridges. Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. 1985. Organizational identity. In Cummings, L. L. & Staw, B. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior : 263–295. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. 1992. The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment in distribution channels. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(1): 18–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. C., Håkansson, H., & Johanson, J. 1994. Dyadic business relationships within a business network context. Journal of Marketing, 58(4): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arendt, H. 1963/2006. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Arino, A., & Ring, P. S. 2010. The role of fairness in alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 31(10): 1054–1087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aron, A., & Aron, E. 2000. Self-expansion motivation and including other in the self. In Ickes, W. & Duck, S. (Eds.), The social psychology of personal relationships: 109–128. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ashforth, B. E., & Johnson, S. A. 2001. Which hat to wear? The relative salience of multiple identities in organizational contexts. In Hogg, M. A. & Terry, D. J. (Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational contexts: 31–48. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1): 20–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. 2008. Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3): 325–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashforth, B. E., Rogers, K. M., & Corley, K. G. 2011. Identity in organizations: Exploring cross-level dynamics. Organization Science, 22(5): 1144–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachmann, R. 2001. Trust, power and control in trans-organizational relations. Organization Studies, 22(2): 337–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsky, A. 2008. Understanding the ethical cost of organizational goal-setting: A review and theory development. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(1): 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, V. M., Pierce, L., Snyder, J. A., & Toffel, M. W. 2013. Customer-driven misconduct: How competition corrupts business practices. Management Science, 59(8): 1725–1742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bercovitz, J., Jap, S. D., & Nickerson, J. A. 2006. The antecedents and performance implications of cooperative exchange norms. Organization Science, 17(6): 724–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. 2003. Consumer-company identification: A framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2): 76–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonner, J. M., Kim, D., & Cavusgil, S. T. 2005. Self-perceived strategic network identity and its effects on market performance in alliance relationships. Journal of Business Research, 58(10): 1371–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brass, D. J., Butterfield, K. D., & Skaggs, B. C. 1998. Relationships and unethical behavior: A social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23(1): 14–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brickson, S. L. 2005. Organizational identity orientation: Forging a link between organizational identity and organizations' relations with stakeholders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(4): 576–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, C. R. 2000. Ethical issues in international buyer-supplier relationships: A dyadic examination. Journal of Operations Management, 18(2): 191–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G., Masclet, D., & Villeval, M. C. 2014. The dark side of competition for status. Management Science, 60(1): 38–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, C. C., Chen, Y.-R., & Xin, K. 2004. Guanxi practices and trust in management: A procedural justice perspective. Organization Science, 15(2): 200–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corsten, D., Gruen, T., & Peyinghaus, M. 2011. The effects of supplier-to-buyer identification on operational performance-An empirical investigation of inter-organizational identification in automotive relationships. Journal of Operations Management, 29(6): 549–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crosno, J. L., & Dahlstrom, R. 2008. A meta-analytic review of opportunism in exchange relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(2): 191–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jong, M. G., Pieters, R., & Fox, J-P. 2010. Reducing social desirability bias through item randomized response: An application to measure underreported desires. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(1): 14–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drori, I., Wrzesniewski, A., & Ellis, S. 2013. One out of many? Boundary negotiation and identity formation in postmerger integration. Organization Science, 24(6): 1717–1741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyer, J. H., & Chu, W. 2003. The role of trustworthiness in reducing transaction costs and improving performance: Empirical evidence from the United States, Japan, and Korea. Organization Science, 14(1): 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. 2000. Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3): 345–367.3.0.CO;2-N>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. 2007. Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellegaard, C. 2012. Interpersonal attraction in buyer-supplier relationships: A cyclical model rooted in social psychology. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(8): 1219–1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N., & Ybema, S. 2010. Marketing identities: Shifting circles of identification in inter-organizational relationships. Organization Studies, 31(3): 279–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsbach, K. D., & Bhattacharya, C. B. 2001. Defining who you are by what you're not: Organizational disidentification and the national rifle association. Organization Science, 12(4): 393–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farh, J. L., Tsui, A. S., Xin, K., & Cheng, B. S. 1998. The influence of relational demography and guanxi: The Chinese case. Organization Science, 9(4): 471–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. 1989. Effects of procedural & distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1): 115–130.Google Scholar
Ganesan, S. 1994. Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 58(2): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganesan, S., Brown, S. P., Mariadoss, B. J., & Ho, H. 2010. Buffering and amplifying effects of relationship commitment in business-to-business relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(2): 361–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gino, F., Moore, D. A., & Bazerman, M. H. 2008. See no evil: When we overlook other people's unethical behavior. Harvard Business School Negotiation, Organizations and Markets Working Paper No. 08–045.Google Scholar
Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. 1991. Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6): 433–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulati, R., & Sytch, M. 2007. Dependence asymmetry and joint dependence in interorganizational relationships: Effects of embeddedness on a manufacturer's performance in procurement relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1): 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulati, R., Lavie, D., & Madhavan, R. 2011. How do networks matter? The performance effects of interorganizational networks. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31: 207–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handley, S. M., & Angst, C. M. 2015. The impact of culture on the relationship between governance and opportunism in outsourcing relationships. Strategic Management Journal, 36(9): 1412–1434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handley, S. M., & Benton, W. C. Jr. 2012. The influence of exchange hazards and power on opportunism in outsourcing relationships. Journal of Operations Management, 30(1/2): 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havila, V., & Wilkinson, I. F. 2002. The principle of the conservation of business relationship energy: Or many kinds of new beginnings. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(3): 191–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heide, J. B. 2003. Plural governance in industrial purchasing. Journal of Marketing, 67(4): 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heide, J. B., & John, G. 1990. Alliances in industrial purchasing: The determinants of joint action in buyer-supplier relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(1): 24–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, J. A., Eckerd, S., Wilson, D., & Greer, B. 2009. The effect of unethical behavior on trust in a buyer-supplier relationship: The mediating role of psychological contract violation. Journal of Operations Management, 27(4): 281–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hite, J. M., & Hesterly, W. S. 2001. The evolution of firm networks: From emergence to early growth of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3): 275–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. 2000. Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, M. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Rast, D. E. 2012. Intergroup leadership in organizations: Leading across group and organizational boundaries. Academy of Management Review, 37(2): 232–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homburg, C., Wieseke, J., & Hoyer, W. D. 2009. Social identity and the service-profit chain. Journal of Marketing, 73(2): 38–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, F., & Rice, J. 2012. Firm networking and bribery in China: Assessing some potential negative consequences of firm openness. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(4): 533–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Husted, B. W., & Folger, R. 2004. Fairness and transaction costs: The contribution of organizational justice theory to an integrative model of economic organization. Organization Science, 15(6): 719–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hwang, K. K. 1987. Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology, 92(4): 944–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingram, P., & Yue, L. Q. 2008. Structure, affect and identity as bases of organizational competition and cooperation. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1): 275–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ireland, R. D., & Webb, J. W. 2007. A multi-theoretic perspective on trust and power in strategic supply chains. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2): 482–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jap, S. D., & Anderson, E. 2003. Safeguarding interorganizational performance and continuity under ex post opportunism. Management Science, 49(12): 1684–1701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jap, S. D., Robertson, D. C., Rindfleisch, A., & Hamilton, R. 2013. Low-stakes opportunism. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(2): 216–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. 1993. Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3): 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, M. 2006. Should we stay or should we go? Accountability, status anxiety, and client defections. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(1): 97–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonsson, S., Greve, H. R., & Fujiwara-Greve, T. 2009. Undeserved loss: The spread of legitimacy loss to innocent organizations in response to reported corporate deviance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(2): 195–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaynak, R., & Sert, T. 2012. The impact of service supplier's unethical behavior to buyer's satisfaction: An empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(2): 219–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khanna, T., & Rivkin, J. W. 2006. Interorganizational ties and business group boundaries: Evidence from an emerging economy. Organization Science, 17(3): 333–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, P. H., Dirks, K. T., & Cooper, C. D. 2009. The repair of trust: A dynamic bilateral perspective and multilevel conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 34(3): 401–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1996. What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Organization Science, 7(5), 502–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koza, M. P., & Lewin, A. Y. 1999. The coevolution of network alliances: A longitudinal analysis of an international professional service network. Organization Science, 10(5):638–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishnan, H. A., Miller, A., & Judge, W. Q. 1997. Diversification and top management team complementarity: Is performance improved by merging similar or dissimilar teams? Strategic Management Journal, 18(5): 361–374.3.0.CO;2-L>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, N., Scheer, L. K., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. 1995. The effects of supplier fairness on vulnerable resellers. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(1): 54–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, N., Stern, L. W., & Anderson, J. C. 1993. Conducting interorganizational research using key informants. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6): 1633–1651.Google Scholar
Lamin, A., & Zaheer, S. 2012. Wall street vs. Main street: Firm strategies for defending legitimacy and their impact on different stakeholders. Organization Science, 23(1): 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, D., & Washburn, N. T. 2012. Understanding attributions of corporate social irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 37(2): 300–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, P. P. 2007. Social tie, social capital, and social behavior: Toward an integrative model of informal exchange. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24(2): 227–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, P. P. 2015. Both converging toward and diverging from global paradigms: The perspective of Yin-Yang balancing for the unity-in-diversity duality. Management and Organization Review, 11(4): 807–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, J., Yang, J. Y., & Yue, D. R. 2007. Identity, community, and audience: How wholly owned foreign subsidiaries gain legitimacy in China. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1): 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, D., Lu, J., Li, P. P., & Liu, X. 2015. Balancing formality and informality in business exchanges as a duality: A comparative case study of returnee and local entrepreneurs in China. Management and Organization Review, 11(2): 315–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. 2001. Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1): 114–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luo, Y. 2001. Antecedents and consequences of personal attachment in cross-cultural cooperative ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2): 177–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, Y. 2006. Opportunism in inter-firm exchanges in emerging markets. Management & Organization Review, 2(1): 121–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, Y. 2007. The independent and interactive roles of procedural, distributive, and interactional justice in strategic alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3): 644–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, Y. 2008. Procedural fairness and interfirm cooperation in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 29(1): 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusch, R. F., & Brown, J. R. 1996. Interdependency, contracting, and relational behavior in marketing channels. Journal of Marketing, 60(4): 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchington, M., & Vincent, S. 2004. Analysing the influence of institutional, organizational and interpersonal forces in shaping inter-organizational relations. Journal of Management Studies, 41(6): 1029–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLane, P., Bratic, W., & Bersin, B. K. 1999. Potentially devastating events: How three companies managed and survived a crisis. Corporate Reputation Review, 2(3): 268–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, T. L., Triana, M. D. C., Reutzel, C. R., & Certo, S. T. 2007. Mediation in strategic management research: Conceptual beginnings, current application, and future recommendations. Research Method in Strategic Management, 4: 295–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, C., & Gino, F. 2013. Ethically adrift: How others pull our moral compass from true North, and how we can fix it. Research in Organizational Behavior, 33: 53–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narayandas, D., & Rangan, V. K. 2004. Building and sustaining buyer-seller relationships in mature industrial markets. Journal of Marketing, 68(3): 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, A., & Cragg, W. 2012. Interorganizational favour exchange and the relationship between doing well and doing good. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(1): 53–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, R. J. 1997. Toward understanding joint venture performance and survival: A bargaining and influence approach to transaction cost. Academy of Management Review, 22(1): 203–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, M. W., & Heath, P. S. 1996. The growth of the firm in planned economies in transition: Institutions, organizations, and strategic choice. Academy of Management Review, 21(2): 492–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879–903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poppo, L., & Zhou, K. Z. 2014. Managing contracts for fairness in buyer-supplier exchanges. Strategic Management Journal, 35(10): 1508–1527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raffaelli, R., & Glynn, M. A. 2014. Turnkey or tailored? Relational pluralism, institutional complexity, and the organizational adoption of more or less customized practices. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2): 541–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, H., Davis, G. F., & Ward, A. 2000. Embeddedness, social identity and mobility: Why firms leave the NASDAQ and join the New York stock exchange. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(2): 268–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riketta, M., & Van Dick, R. 2005. Foci of attachment in organizations: A meta-analytic comparison of the strength and correlates of workgroup verses organizational identification and commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(3): 490–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rindfleisch, A., Malter, A. J., Ganesan, S., & Moorman, C. 2008. Cross-sectional versus longitudinal survey research. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(3): 261–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ring, P. S., & Van De Ven, A. H. 1994. Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19(1): 90–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salk, J. E., & Shenkar, O. 2001. Social identities in an international joint venture: An exploratory case study. Organization Science, 12(2): 161–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweitzer, M. E., Ordonez, L., & Douma, B. 2004. Goal setting as a motivator of unethical behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3): 422–432.Google Scholar
Seggie, S. H., Griffith, D. A., & Jap, S. D. 2013. Passive and active opportunism in interorganizational exchange. Journal of Marketing, 77(6): 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheng, S., Zhou, K. Z., Li, J. J., & Guo, Z. 2018. Institutions and opportunism in buyer–supplier exchanges: The moderated mediating effects of contractual and relational governance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(6): 1014–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. 2007. Relational identity & identification: Defining ourselves through work relationships. Academy of Management Review, 32(1): 9–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. 2008. How relational and organizational identification converge. Organization Science, 19(6): 807–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steenkamp, J-B. E. M., de Jong, M. G., & Baumgartner, H. 2010. Socially desirable response tendencies in survey research. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(2): 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, R. L., & Heide, J. B. 1996. Controlling supplier opportunism in industrial relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 33(4): 431–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trevino, L. K. 1986. Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11(3): 601–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. 2010. Unethical behavior in the name of the company: The moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4): 769–780.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Voss, Z. G., Cable, D. M., & Voss, G. B. 2006. Organizational identity and firm performance: what happens when leaders disagree about ‘who we are?’ Organization Science, 17(6): 741–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wathne, K. H., & Heide, J. B. 2000. Opportunism in interfirm relationships: forms, outcomes, and solutions. Journal of Marketing, 64(4): 36–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Whetten, D. A. 2007. A critique of organizational identity scholarship. In Bartel, C. A., Blader, S. L., & Wrzesniewski, A. (Eds.), Identity and the modern organization: 253–272. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Whetten, D. A., & Mackey, A. 2002. A social actor conception of organizational identity and its implications for the study of organizational reputation. Business & Society, 41(4): 393–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wieseke, J., Kraus, F., Ahearne, M., & Mikolon, S. 2012. Multiple identification foci and their countervailing effects on salespeople's negative headquarters stereotypes. Journal of Marketing, 76(3): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, O. E. 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. 1998. Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9(2): 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, M. 2006. Conducting R&D in countries with weak intellectual property rights protection. Management Science, 56(7): 1185–1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G. Jr, & Chen, Q. 2010. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2): 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, K. Z., & Poppo, L. 2010. Exchange hazards, relational reliability, and contracts in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(5): 861–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckerman, E. W. 1999. The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology, 104(5): 1398–1438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar