FACTORS AFFECTING THETRUST CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION:

THE CASE OF SERVICES INTER-FIRMRELATIONSHIP

Anass NidamFaculty of BusinessJean Moulin Lyon 3 University15 Quai Claude Bernard – BP 063869239 Lyon Cedex 02FrancePhone : (33) 4 72 72 21 58E -Mail : nidam@univ-lyon3.fr

ABSTRACT :This paper investigates the principal factors that determine trust in the context of servicesinter-firm cooperation. After discussing the specific characteristics of this relationship, wepresent our conceptual model and first empirical results.

INTRODUCTIONCompetition, globalization, the opening of frontiers and trade liberalization, such are themain features of our world. Manager are now concerned in maintaining and developing theacquired shares of market. As competition is becoming fiercer, wining over new customersseems more and more difficult and so firms are compelled to implement policies to developcustomers loyalty.

In the field of research, mechanisms meant to coordinate exchange and its development havebeen pointed out (Blau 1964; Rotter 1967; Luhmann 1988; Granovetter 1994). Marketingresearch has mainly moved towards inter-firm relations (e.g., Morgan and Hunt 1994;Moormann, Desphandé, Zaltman 1992; Anderson and Weitz 1989; Donney and Cannon1997). Pointing out the importance of trust and its setting up to develop and maintainexchanges is the common point of these various contributions. The research centered on theservice inter-organizational activities hasn’t really attracted researchers interest. For Eiglierand Langeard (1994), this observation field consists of the specifities of service and businessto business marketing. According to Flipo (1999), because of these two major factors, thepractice of marketing of services to business is moving away from what it was at thebeginning of marketing relating to the consumer goods which are the most bought.

Through this paper, we will try to present the different characteristics of a service inter-firmrelationship, without forgetting to pertain to its atmosphere, which is mostly influenced by itsactors behavior. In a first part, we will notice the main features of a serviceinterorganizational relation and the role of trust, as an important factor. Then, in a secondpart, our conceptual model concerning the determinants of capital trust, as well as the firstavailable results, will be exposed.

THE IMPORTANCE OF TRUST IN SERVICE INTER-FIRMRELATIONSHIPAs the interorganizational service relationship is the theme of our research, we have toobserve its main features. So, our thought will be centered on the contribution of marketingof service (service relationship) and on industrial marketing (inter-firm relationship). Then, inorder to explain the major role of “ trust” in maintaining and the development of this type ofrelation, we will use the contributions of relationship marketing.

The Service RelationshipEven if several research have dealt with the notion of “ service relation” , which has becomean inevitable reference for the management over the last years (Weller 1998), only fewdefinitions have been proposed. Gottman (1968) defines this relation as “an activity playingon a triangular relation in which a professional, an object to mend and its owner areinvolved”. Langead and Eiglier (1994) describes it as a relation, which doesn’t take place byaccident, between people who don’t know each other. For them, the information which isexchanged, is always a mix of data linked to the production of service and informalconversation, whose parts can vary significantly.

The specificity of the service activities is often described through many features, such asinviolability, consumption simultaneity and servuction, as well as the impossibility to stockit. Then, marketing is based on consumption linked to servuction and not to the result; thecustomer perceives this process as an important part of the service (Gronroos 1999). Thistype of interactive marketing has proved itself necessary for the firms, who wish to developcustomer loyalty. The works led by the Nordic School for services enabled to point out howthe customer’s participation is crucial, since he is considered in the same time as the actorand the beneficiary of the service177. Therefore, he plays an important part in the servuctionand becomes a determining element in the buyer-seller interdependence. Langeard andEiglier (1987) associate the service relationship to a system of interpersonal interactionsbetween the supplier, his employees and his customers.Then, Gronroos (1984) suggests toadd two new variables to the traditional 4P of marketing: the internal and the interactivemarketing relating to the perception of quality in service, which are strongly dependent onbuyer-seller interaction. The customers importance is really felt in the activities of service, inwhich most of the quality is perceived through this relation, between the "contact personnel"and the customer.

Then, to face this situation, the authors insist on the importance of staff’s interactional skills(Barret, 1998) which represent the necessary conditions so that this relation might besuccessful (Goffman, 1968). For Eiglier and Langeard (1987), the management can’t onlyrely on the "contact personnel" concerning all the relationships, it has to define it preciselyand exactly, like a play and its script, which has to specify the visible elements (physicalaspect, customer and hairstyles..), the body movements (smile, availability..) and words(polite phrases, vocabulary, courtesy of ton..). However, we must remain careful regardingthe malign effects of this policy. Alis (1998) conjures up either an eventual carelessness 177 : for veys (1991), service is considered as the result of the servuction process. This process take place withina servuction unit (the service provider: management consulting firm) inside of which we can find one or severalservuction cells (the different departments owned by the provider: marketing, strategy). Inside of a servuctioncell, we can find one or several servuction systems, that is to say a whole constituted of the customer and/or thestuff in touch, and/or instruments (according to eiglier et langeard 1987).

which results from the complexity of service relationships, either intra-psychologicalstruggles among the staff. Thus, the limits of such a rigid and normative approach of thebehaviors are emphasized in Sutton and Rafaeli’s works (1988). On studding the impact ofthe quality of service on the sales of a clothe shop chain, they observed that there was anegative correlation between the positive emotions showed by the staff and sales (good salesare associated to the absence of smile). For an efficient management of service relationship,the best solution doesn’t seem to be the control of staff’s behaviors. As Hochschils (1983)explains it, an emotive dissonance can be triggered off by the fact that the staff is compelledto pretend feelings they don’t feel, on a long period; a dissonance, which people try to reduceby stopping pretending (expressing their true feelings), or by really experiencing affectedfeelings. Therefore, maintaining a service relationships constitutes a complicated task, whichrequires some relational skills, as well as a large flexibility of behavior. In the second part ofthis paper, we’ll see why these qualities are so important for the creation of an atmospherewhere trust is favorable to an efficient management of the customer relationship.

The Interorganizational RelationshipIn a paper in which the evolution of the industrial purchase behavior is analyzed, Cova andSalle (1992) wonder whether the analysis unit is valid, which was chosen after the firstcomprehension tests had been made to understand the specificity of industrial relations. ForJohnston (1981) “ most research works used stimulus–answer approaches and focused on theindividual, either on the purchasing manager only, either on the other involved individuals.According to several researchers, the most successful research approach has to exploit theanalysis made on the dyads (two individuals, two groups, two organizations) at the level of agroup of people “. The first researches on the industrial purchase behavior were limited to onthe development of the buying process, but they paid no attention to a deepening of thedescriptive knowledge concerning the buying process (Woodside, Vyas 1987). In spite of thedecomposition of the different phases which constitute the buying process (founder models)and their combination with decision center agents and also with the various criteria andselection rules that are used (Woodside and Vyas’ Supplier Choice Model 1987, Moller’sMatbuty Model 1981), this research movement has been criticized for the credibility of itsanalysis unit. The latest research works, which are concerned with industrial marketing havecommitted themselves going in this direction of research. Taking into account that the mostpertinent analysis was the relation binding the customer to the supplier (Guillet andMontboux 1975), the interactive movement has standed out as being the new paradigm forthe modelization of the industrial purchase. As fundaments of this thesis, we find on the onehand the dyadical model proposed by Bonoma and Johnston (1978), who consider purchaseas an interactive process and the buyer-seller interdependence as the main analysis unit oftransactions; on the other hand, we have the interaction model designed by the IMP group,which not only emphasizes the refutation of the separate analyses for the customer and thesupplier, but also the fact that these relations are analyzed in a long-term perspective and notas a succession of quasi-independent transactions (Cova and Salle 1992). The importance ofthe interaction processes is admitted, so now let’s identify its different levels. Gadrey (1994)point out that the operational interactions of "co-production" are different from the socialrelationships of control and action regulation, which is defined as being a “copilotage”.Marion and Carrel-Billard (1996) have analyzed the different collaboration modes ininterorganizational services, and they insist on the various roles given to the involved agents .For them, the global relation is composed of two types of interactions: on the one hand, thoselinked to the commercial management of the relation, and on the other hand, the interactionsrelating to the working out of the service including operational "copilotage" interactions

(provision definition and monitoring), and co-production interactions (provisionimplementation).

The various features we have mentioned enable us to understand the complexity to analyze aservice inter-firm relationship. It includes difficulties generated by service and industrialmarketing (Langeard and Eiglier 1994). Indeed, when we observe industrial markets, wenotice there is a link, often steady, between the agents, in view at the high change costs(Williamson, 1975) as well as the customer’s active role, which conters on it a stronger andstronger involvement, considered as reversed marketing by Leender and Blenkhorn (1988).Industrial markets don’t really conform to the dogma of the perfect market and ischaracterized by few bidders and few applicants. It can’t be illustrated by a logic based on arelation created during the interaction process between the provider and customers(Flambard-Ruaud 1997), rather than by a logic based on a transaction which separates thelink between the customer and the supplier. The model which is proposed by the IMP groupperfectly illustrates the chief part of the interaction process when there is an exchange inindustrial circles, the importance of social relationships between the agents who are involvedand at last the acceptance by the fact that the management of these favorable links are firms’main concerns. On this last point, we will try to understand why and how the agents involvedin an interorganizational service exchange have to pay attention to the atmosphere of theirrelation. We’ll try to find an answer to this issue, by taking into account the maincontributions brought to relationship marketing.

Role and importance of trustThe supply is abundant, and so buyers who consume goods or services are more and moredemanding and they no longer hesitate to change sources of supply to satisfy their needs andtheir wishes. The trade which concerns goods or services is no longer considered as atransaction, but becomes synonymous with relationship, the consumer becomes an agent inthe trade and the link is more important than goods (Cova 1996). All debates are nowcentered on relationship marketing and there are more and more publications dealing withthis subject. Even if it may seem an excessive fad (Perrien 1998), this new vision onmarketing is aimed at enriching the first contributions, which can’t of course be ignored,thanks to an emphasize on some variables which become more and more significant, in viewof the change in context, in which firms are now developing. At the moment, the debatewhich opposes the concepts of transaction and relation, the short and long term vision, thecasual to the partner customer, anyway the relationship to transactional marketing is infashion. Considered as an extent of marketing field, this new paradigm is based on theseconcepts: relational trade, satisfaction, loyalty, trust and commitment. Morgan and Huntmodel (1994), which presents the concept of trust and commitment as mediating variablesbetween five antecedents and five consequences, is one of the most eminent and admittedcontribution to this subject. For them, relationship marketing consists of all the activitiesmanaged by the firm, so as to establish, develop and maintain a successful relational trade. Asthey inspired by some research works dealing with social psychology, most marketingresearchers agree with the theory according to which trust exercise a major and positiveinfluence over commercial interactions and especially at the interpersonal level (Schurr andOzanne 1985). Trust is considered as being extremely influential on interpersonal and intergroup behaviors, and so it has become a central variable to explain the behaviors relating tothe decision making process (Dwyer, Schurr and Oh 1987). As Guibert (1999) emphasizes it,the concept of interpersonal trust has been implemented a lot in the issues concerningnegotiation and sales, but especially in inter-firm exchanges. As a consequence, we don’thave to justify why such a research on the construction of trust is important, we will try in the

second part of this paper to present a conceptual model of the determinants involved in thetrust capital, on the occasion of service interorganizational exchange178.

THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL CONCERNING THE DETERMINANTSINVOLVED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TRUST CAPITALAfter defining what trust capital means, the main variables of our model will be presented aswell as the hypothesis inherent in its structure. Afterwards, the methodology used to test thismodel and the first expected results will be discussed.

Trust capital definitionIn literature, trust is defined as “ a good will to rely on somebody, whom we believe “(Dwyer and Lagace 1986); “ a behavioral intention which reflects the dependence to apartner.., a strong belief in the fact that the other can be relied on, is highly upright,benevolent and honest “ (Larzerele and Huston 1980), “ a strong belief in the fact that thepromises of the other will be kept “ (Botter 1971)… Siriex and Dubois (1999), on studyingtrust in the brand, talk of “ a belief in the brand, which takes place before the intention of thebuying back behavior. On the one hand, trust is based on the firm’s credibility, which ownsthis brand, and on the other hand, it is based on the interest, the firm takes in its customers’satisfaction. This various definitions aim at pointing out the interest of the main aspects thebuilding of trust is made of. Trust has been seen as a personality feature, a belief, a behavioralintention. Moorman, Desphande and Zaltman (1993)even attribute to it two of the threedimensions “ trust fits to all the expectations, the beliefs on the one hand, and on the otherhand to a behavioral intention “. However, we think that the most revealing conceptconcerning the definition of this factor is the one which is revealed by Rempel (1985) “predictability, which is the absence of fears about the fact that the other behaves in a differentway as he used to “. As it is shown in the first table, trust can be objective and/or subjective(Eucken 1994); moral or technical (Bidault and Jarillot 1995); auto-referential, interpersonalor interorganizational (Amann, Allouche 1998). It is important for the reduction of theperceived risk, in so far as it is considered as a behavioral moderating factor (Filser 1998).The interactive processes which is generated by a service interorganizational meeting is oneof the main features of this meeting. Then, the processes supposes that the customer is facedwith a series of different experiences. This will bring about consequences on the way theprovider’s credibility and the quality of the service, is perceived. Therefore, we can talk at adynamic trust, rather than of a static one. For a service relationship, we consider trust as astate whose affective and/or cognitive dimension have its roots in an ex-ante of the perceptionof all understanding and skill cues, which will be faced with validation and evidenceelements ex-post. The confrontation of the exchange promises to the expected results, endowstrust with a dynamic character, which can be compared with a capital, whose amount varyaccording to the different phases of this relation. The trust capital, which originally stemsfrom subjective elements, supplies during the relational exchange with a series of pieces ofevidence, which endows it with objectivity and which is more en more similar to a certainty.The trust capital enables a priori to stimulate a positive expectation regarding the respect ofthe exchange obligations, and ensures a posteriori the quality of the relation and its continuitythrough commitment.

178 : we don’t pretend to question the models we have already proposed (morgan and hunt, 1994; moorman andall..), but we’d rather draw our inspiration from their contribution to try and enrich our reflection on this subject.

TABLE 1: THE MAIN FEATURES OF THE TRUST CAPITAL

Nature(Eucken 1994)

Objective (trust in the expert’s report)Subjective (charismatic trust)

Acceptances(Bidault and Jarillot 1995)

Moral: the feeling that the other part will behave withoutopportunism, that is to say with honesty. This trust results inthe belief in an acceptable behavior from his partnerTechnical: the belief in the fact that the partner owns thenecessary competence to carry out the expected service.

Dimensions CognitiveAffective

Agents The granter (the one who grants)The assignee (the one who is the beneficiary)

Field(Amann and Allouche 1998)

Auto-referentialInterpersonalInterorganizational

Role(Filser 1998)

Reduce the perception of risk and moderate attitude

Means (Resources) Maintained beliefsIntensity Variable according to the maintained beliefs: it deals with a

mechanism

The hypotheses of the researchResearches in economics and management insist on the specific characteristic of the serviceactivities. Most of the models pertaining to buying proceedings and selection and assessmentmethods within the framework of industrial marketing don’t seem to concern services(Gallouj 1996). Besides their direct transposition has not been spared by significant critics(Shostack 1977; Cowell 1987..). In a study on the advice market, Wittreich (1966) noticesthat the customer generally buys valuation, experience and most frequently the promise of areduction in uncertainty which concerns the involved field decisions. For Gadrey (1992), theoutput of the advice activity can be considered as a process of placing at disposal, oftransformation and of knowledge transfer. The service purchase always includes a part ofchange (Mitchell 1994), Which is increase the customer’s uncertainty feeling. As Gallouj(1996) notices it, this uncertainty feeling is raised by the risk of a “ supplier’s opposingselection “179. De Bandt (1995) considers that “ as the customer doesn’t have enoughknowledge on the competence’s suppliers who are in competition and on the conceptionswhich stem from both suppliers, he risks not to choose the most appropriate supplier”. Itshould be added to the “moral hazard’s problem “ which means the difficulties linked to thebuyer’s inability to observe and/or to supervise the supplier’s actions (Cahuc 1993).

Bauer (1967) has introduced the risk in the research on the consumer behavior. This concepthas enabled him to explain some phenomena as the information research, the loyalty to thebrand and the resort to someone else in the buying process. Salle and silvestre (1992) regardthe risk as the major piece of the industrial buyer’s behavior. According to them risk is linkedto the transactions, the relation between the customer and his provider as well as the

179 : akerlof (1970) deals with a situation where the supplier has an advantage concerning information about anexogenous element.

customer’s place faced with the offer market. In order to avoid this situation, the supplier willtry to insist on a set of reducing agents of this perceived risk. Holmstrom (1985) referred tomany institutions: certification, reputation, contract guarantees, contingent contracts and thevarious quality signs. These different elements enable the customer to assess the supplier’sability to provide the service and so enable him to believe in this supplier promise.Concerning the interorganizational services, these skill cues include both organizationalcharacteristics and human skills. In that case the "contact personnel" is essential forpersuading the customer of the proposal advantage. Flipo (1999) reveals the interpersonalfactors influence on the running of services to companies. Experience and availability are twoof the qualities that this staff has to emphasize. Availability has been described byParasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1990) as a factor which exercises an influence on theservice quality. Bush and Wilson (1976) founded that the consumers who are under theimpression of a good valuation are more inclined to trust. Cowles (1990) has presented thatthe perception of an insurer’s valuation is a significant determinant for the customer’s trust.The literature principally reveals two types of variables about the organizationalcharacteristics: reputation and the supplier’s size. For De Bandt (1995) reputation is a way tomake good the market deficiencies because as the customers refer to the gained reputations,they will make good their lack of information. Stock and Zinszer (1987) have presentedreputation as an essential source of information for the buying of services which are of theadvice type. In this way the empirical studies accept a link between reputation and trust.Ganesan (1994) has noticed in his study on the industrial channels that a perception of a goodreputation for the supplier increases the credible character of his promise. Anderson andWeitz’s research (1989) has also committed itself in this way (a positive interrelationbetween the trust given to the provider and his good reputation). However, at our point ofview, these different organizational and personal characteristics are not directly linked to trustbut rather to a concept which can not be directly observed but which is very important for thetrust capital building: this making concerns skills cues.

H1: THE SKILL CUES ARE NEGATIVELY RELATED TO PERCEIVED RISK

The agent who’s in direct contact with the customer is frequently the only person whom thecustomer gets in touch with; the running of this interaction is the major determinant for thecustomer’s thought of the company (Barret 1998). The customer/contact personnelrelationship atmosphere depends on some seller's individual characteristics. For Thevenet(1998) the service relation problems result firstly from people. Psychologists have provedthat some personality characters like the ability to get in touch with someone or sociabilityenable a lot to differentiate individuals. Likability, similarity as well as the magnitude of thesocial interaction between the actors of the service relation are some of these interactionqualities. Rotter (1980) has found that buyers behave positively towards the people they like.Swan and Nolan (1985) have borne out their hypothesis on the positive link between thebehavioral intention and courtesy. Donney and Cannon (1997) think that the buyer who seethe seller similar to him will have some thoughts and appropriate behaviors. So at this timethe trust process can be settled since the buyer will be able to understand the seller’sintentions and motivations. For Brock (1965) the seller’s capacity of convincing depends onhis reference power, which means his ability to enable the buyer to identify himself in theseller. The magnitude of the social interaction between the protagonists of the service relationshould be added to these two qualities. Crosby and Ewand and Cowls (1990) have provedthat communication frequency is essential for maintaining the working relations in theassurance field. So kindness, similarity and frequent contacts can be defined as agreementsigns between the buyer and contact personnel. This relationship is also positive for the

buyer’s attachment to the "contact personnel". It leads us to the attachment theory defined bythe researchers in social psychology as the human beings tendency to create strong affectivelinks with other people (Bowlby 1969). Binding to people is involved in the vas context ofthe relationship system; these relations appear all the individuals’ daily life long (Lacoeuille1998). For Wetzel and Insko (1992), attachment is a way to see what proximity there is in apartnership relation and this binding originates from the research of an individual who issimilar (the need of security) and/or complementary (the need of completion). So theagreement signs are advantageous for these link which are principally emotional. Asagreement signs have people think that the supplier’s promise is true, they cut the perceptionof a risk in the service buying. However, it shouldn’t be forgotten that interaction is asignificant part of servuction, whose quality is partly constituted agreement establishedbetween the actors of this relation.

H2 :THE AGREEMENT SIGNS ARE NEGATIVELY RELATED TO PERCEIVEDRISK

H2A:THE AGREEMENT SIGNS ARE POSITIVELY RELATED TO THEINTERPERSONAL ATTACHMENT

H2B:THE AGREEMENT SIGNS ARE POSITIVELY RELATED TO SERVICEQUALITY PERCEPTION

H3 : THE INTERPERSONAL ATTACHMENT IS POSITIVELY RELATED TOSERVICE QUALITY PERCEPTION

In addition to the supplier’s promise perception, the customer also refers to a lot of evidencewhich let him think he has taken a good purchase decision. At our point of view this evidenceis validation elements observed during the service delivery process. It is principally somequalities that the supplier (contact personnel) emphasizes in the interaction process. One ofthese major qualities is the contact personnel's ability to lower the uncertainty involved in theaccomplishment of the asked service. By studding the superior service case, Moorman andZaltman (1988) suggest that the researchers, who are able to cut this uncertainty thanks totheir experience and their creative spirit, give a real added value to their provision. Blattbergand Hoch’s (1990) have found that people who use the marketing theories and their intuitionmake more interesting decisions than people who just use one of this elements. Giving apiece of evidence to the former promise is also for honesty. Many researches prove thathonesty is one major determinant for a trust atmosphere (eg.. Crosby , Evans and Cowles1990; Rotter 1967). In that case the durability of an exchange process can’t exist withoutrespecting the information communicated by the actors who are involved in this process. Theperception of the words’ confidentiality is a determinant element of the social exchange andof trust (Aguilar 1984). The collective orientation is an other significant characteristic whichenable the supplier to prove how good listener he is and his interest for the customer. Thisorientation is defined by Zaltman and Moorman (1988) as the perception of willingness tocooperate with the customers. Anderson and Weitz (1990) have proved that people are moredisposed to get in touch with someone who seems to be cooperative and no individualist.Macneil (1980) associates this orientation with a certain relational reliability on the partner.In addition to that, there is the quality of interaction between the customer and his supplier.As Eiglier end Langeard (1994) notice it, the perception of the service efficiency is directlylinked to the interaction process which comes from this offer service. The way a provision isrunning is not in any case apart from the final result. During the provision the customer

notices and keeps in mind a good many signs which impact is the most determinant for thefinal result. However some provisions include goods in addition to the given service. Forexample the advice provisions in management are often subjected to study reports. Thequality of this document (content and form) can also be significant for the perception of thegiven service.

H4: THE VALIDATION ELEMENTS ARE POSITIVELY RELATED TO THESERVICE QUALITY PERCEPTION

At our point of view the service quality is a good way to know the supplier’s opportunism.For williamson (1975), the perceived opportunism is “ the own interest which is researchedby deceiving”. An opportunist behavior is when you break an explicit or implicit promiseyou have made about an adopted or required behavior by deceiving (John 1984). The Morganand Hunt’s research (1994) consider this kind of behavior as a significant barrier to trust. Thishypothesis has been so many times confirmed by other studies that we don’t really think toquestion it. Indeed the piece of evidence, that the supplier brings as an answer to his firstpromise, enable the customer to have elements to judge the service quality, to be sure thatthere is none opportunist behavior and so to increase his trust. According to Jameux (1998)the feeling of trust in people is based in one hand on the elements which are used to validateand prove the real contract which is signed, and on the other hand on the ability of individualsand collectivity to keep in mind, without which trust can’t be conserved a long time. Trustingsomeone is to grant credit terms, it’s to believe, to hope.. That’s a gift for potentiality orpower which only wants to become real (Trepo and Dumond 1998). If the donor perceives anopportunist behavior it will negatively influence him; it will have consequences on his trustcapital and his attachment to the donor. When people commit themselves it is a wish tomaintain an efficient relation for a long time (Mooramn, Desphande and Zaltman 1992;Morgan and Hunt 1994). For Ngoala (1998) the commitment is a psychological state which isthe sign of a need, a wish and/or the obligation for the agent to go on, to put a lot into therelation and to accept some efforts in the short run. This kind of commitment may bebeneficial for communication between the involved agents. Anderson and Narus (1990)define the mutual communication as the share of formal or informal information betweencompanies. In that case this variable becomes determinant for trust. For us it results from thecommitment in relations, the interpersonal attachment and from the lack of perceived risk,which is linked to the service relation consequences.

H5 : A GOOD SERVICE QUALITY PERCEPTION IS NEGATIVELY RELATEDTO THE PERCEIVED OPPORTUNISM

H6 : PERCEIVED OPPORTUNISM IS NEGATIVELY RELATED TO THE TRUSTCAPITAL

H6A: PERCEIVED OPPORTUNISM IS NEGATIVELY RELATED TO THEINTERPERSONAL ATTACHMENT

H7 : RELATIONSHIP COMMITMENT IS POSITIVELY RELATED TO THECOMMUNICATION OPENNESS

H8 : INTERPERSONAL ATTACHMENT IS POSITIVELY RELATED TO THECOMMUNICATION OPENNESS

H9 : COMMUNICATION OPENNESS IS POSITIVELY RELATED TO THETRUST CAPITAL

So the service interaction is determinant for the trust making between the involved actors. Aswe explained it, the organizational, individual and interpersonal characteristics are decisivefor the atmosphere of this relation. The appendix (B) resumes our conception of the trustcapital determinants.

SOME METHOD ELEMENTS (RESEARCH DESIGN, DATACOLLECTION AND FIRST MEASURES)As we currently running the empirical study of our research, we are just able to present thefirst phases of our method plan. From a literature analysis we have noticed the main scalesused to estimate the variables we have chosen. The table under presents the principalcharacteristics of these different scales.

VARIABLENUMBEROF ITEMS SOURCE SCALE

RELIABILITYCompetencesigns

ReputationSizeAvailabilityExpérience

3333

Donney & Cannon (1997)Donney & Cannon (1997)Moormann et al. (1993)Donney & Cannon (1997)

0.780.830.790.79

RelationshipSigns

LikabilitySimilarityExtent of social interaction

337

Donney & Cannon (1997)Donney & Cannon (1997)Donney & Cannon (1997)

0.90.9ND180

Validationelements

Uncertainty reductionSincerityConfidentialityQuality of InteractionQuality of Associated GoodCollective Orientation

3335133

Moormann et al. (1993)Moormann et al. (1993)Moormann et al. (1993)Moormann et al. (1993)Deshpande and Zaltman (1982)Moormann et al. (1993)

0.570.920.89NDND0.7

Importance Of Risk 5 Laurent & Kapferer (1986) 0.72Interpersonal Attachment 4 Adapted from Lacoeuille

(1999)0.81

Service Quality 14 Adapted from Parasuraman,Zeithaml and Berry (1990)

ND

Perceived Opportunism 3 John (1984) NDRelationship Commitment 7 Adapted from Morgan and

Hunt (1994)0.89

Communication openness 7 Smith and Barclay (1997) 0.84Trust Capital 5 Moormann, Desphande and

Zaltman (1993)0.84

We must notice that the difficulty at this time was linked to the origin of these scales. Must ofthem were created in Anglo-Saxon context. So we had to do a retro-translation in order to usethem. After having checked the sense of the different items we have chosen after translation

180 : NO AVAILABLE

(127) and after having adapted them to our observation: Researcher – CustomerRelationship. Our questionnaire has been sent to 200 companies in France and 100 inMorocco, in order to test the various used scales. About the evaluation of the variables wehave respected the choice of the authors who were at the origin of the former measures. Ascale in four points has been used (which generally goes from "not all in agreement" to"absolutely in agreement"). As to avoid all the effects caused by the method, (effects whichare due to an automatism in responses) the evaluation of certain items has been reversed.

The investigation was running from June to September 1999. The significant number ofevaluated variables was not easy for us. The questionnaire included 10 pages of questionswhich marketing managers, product managers or sales managers had to answer. After aperiod when we phoned these persons to invite them to answer the questionnaire, we havefinally obtained 105 questionnaires181 (60 in France and 45 in Morocco).

For the moment there has been done a study on these 50 questionnaires which is based on thefactor structure (analysis on principal components) and on the loyalty coefficient (AlphaCrombach) of the different used scales. Appendix (A) presents the items hold for eachvariable as well as the hoped results. Most of these results satisfy us al lot. Since only 5 onthe 20 evaluated variables have a loyalty coefficient lower than the level generally requiredfor this kind of research (0.6). Nevertheless some items have been a little bit changed in orderto increase the quality of the scales which were not enough satisfying to bring our final studyto a successful conclusion.

CONCLUSIONThis paper deals principally with the specific characteristics of an interorganizationalservuction and with the importance of its atmosphere. After having brought to the fore thecustomer's major place in the servuction process, we have especially described thedeterminants of the trust capital making. As we are not able to present the test results of ourstructural model yet, we have emphasized its theoretical justification as well as the firstanalysis on our questionnaire. Contrary to what the suppliers can think, the trust capital is asite we have to build. As Flipo (1999) emphasized it " the suppliers often think that trust willcome naturally from their customers in order to create a perpetual relation. Yet it's often anerror to think that because there is a fierce competition on the markets and the customers arenot very glad when suppliers think they have won over these customers..". Certainly theresults of our final study182 will enable us to check if what we say is true; nevertheless wehope to have emphasized in this paper the specific characteristics of the interorganizationalservice relation as well as the social and professional skills necessary to increase its activity.A theoretical model is defined as simplified and limited reality representation, so we hopethat the one we presented can make easier the complexity of a concept as trust capital.

181 : A response rate of 30%182 : 1000 questionnaires has been sent to marketing executives of French companies working with firms specialized in market studies and500 to Moroccan companies . For the moment, the response rate is at 10%. We hope to improve this rate by phoning these marketingexecutives in order to invite them to answer the questionnaire. If we want a right statistic analysis, we need a minimum of 250 responses(this figure is necessary as there are a great number of makings and correlation's to validate). We'll do after a confirmatory factor analysisand Path analysis (using SEPATH and PLS).

REFERENCESAlis.D (1998), Relations de services: des compétences à développer, des conflits à gérer,Education permanente, 137, 4, 71-81.

Anderson.J.C, Narus.J.A (1990), A Model of Distributor Firm and Manufacturer FirmWorking Parterships, Journal of marketing, January, 42-58.

Baret.C (1998), Organisation du temps de travail et amélioration de la qualité de la relationde service: paradoxe et solutions, Education permanente, 137, 4, 129-145.

Bergadaa.M, Graber.S, Mûhlbacher.H (1999), La confiance dans la relation tripartie Vendeur- Client - Entreprise, Communication au 15ème congrès de l’Association Française duMarketing, Strasbourg, 283-299.

Bidault.F (1998), Comprendre la confiance: la nécessité d’une nouvelle problèmatique,Economie et Sociétés, Série Sciences de gestion, XXXII, 8-9, 33-46.

Bidault.F, Gomez.P.Y, Marion.G (1995), Confiance Entreprise et Société, Paris, Eska.

Boussard.V (1998), L'évaluation des relations de service: outil de mesure ou de régulation?,Education permanente, 137, 4, 95-105.

Cova.B (1996), Le lien plus que le bien, Futuribles, 214, 5-17.

Cova.B, Salle.R (1992), L’evolution de la modèlisation du comportement d’achat industriel:panorama des nouveaux courants de recherche, Recherche et applications en marketing,7,2,84-106.

Cowles.D.L (1997), The Role of Trust in Customer Relationships: Asking the RightQuestions, Management decision, 35, 4, 273-282.

Craswell.R (1993), On the Uses of Trust : Comment on Williamson, Calculativeness, Trust,And Economic Organisation , Journal of Law & Economics, 36, April, 487-502.

Crié.D (1996), rétention de clientèle et fidélité des clients, Décision marketing, 7

Crosby.L.A, Evans.K.R, Cowles.D (1990), Relationship Quality in Services Selling : AnInterpersonal Influence Perspective, Journal of Marketing, July, 68-81

Desphandé, Zaltman (1987), A comparaison of factors affecting use of marketinginformations in consumer and industrial firms, Journal of marketing research,24

Desphandé, Zaltman.G (1982), Factors affecting the use of market research information : APath Analysis , Journal of marketing research, 19, 14-31.

Doney.P.M, Cannon.J.P (1997), An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-sellerrelationship, Journal of marketing, 61, 35-51.

Dwyer.F.R, Schurr.P.H, Oh.S (1987), Developing Buyer-Seller Relationships , Journal ofMarketing, 51, April, 11-27.

Flambard-Riaud.S (1997), Les évolutions du concept de marketing, décision marketing

Flipo.J-P (1999), Activités de service et relations interentreprises: vers une gestionstratégique des facteurs relationnels et des éléments d'interface, Revue française dumarketing, 171, 1, 63-76.

Gadrey.J, Gallouj.F (1999), L'interface dans les services de conseil, Revue française dumarketing, 171, 1, 105-114.

Gadrey.J, Gallouj.C, Gallouj.F, Martinelli.F, Moulaert.F, Tordoir.P (1992), Manager leconseil: stratégies et relations des consultants et de leurs clients, Paris, EdiscienceInternational.

Gallouj.C (1996), Asymétrie d'information et relation de service: la question de la selection etde l'évaluation du prestataire, 4th International Research Seminar in Service Management,IAE d'Aix-en-Provence, Université d'Aix Marseille III, 292-313.

Gallouj.C, Gallouj.F (1996), L’innovation dans les services, Paris, Economica

Gallouj.F (1994), Les déterminants de l’innovation dans les activités de conseil, Revuefrançaise du marketing, 149, 33-51.

Ganesan.S (1994), Determinants of Long-Term Orientation in Buyer-Seller Relationships ,Journal of Marketing, 58, April, 11-19.

Gronroos.C (1999), La marketing des services: consommation et marketing de processus,Revue française du marketing, 171, 1, 9-20.

Gronroos.C (1993), From Marketing Mix to Relationship Marketing: Towards a ParadigmShift in Marketing, Management Decision, 32, 2, 4-20.

Guibert.N (1999), La confiance en marketing: fondements et applications, Recherche etApplications en Marketing, 14, 1, 1-19.

Guibert.N (1999), Relations client-fournisseur: portée et limites de la confiance en contextefrançais, Revue française du marketing, 173-174, 3-4, 155-168.

Gundlach.G T, Achrol R S, Mentzer J T (1995), The Structure of Commitment in Exchange,Journal of Marketing, 59, 78-92.

Lacoeuille.J (1999), Proposition d’une échelle de mesure de l’attachement à la marque,Communication au 15ème congrès de l’Association Française du Marketing , Strasbourg.

Langeard.E, Eiglier.P (1994), Relation de service et Marketing, Décision Marketing, 2, 13-21

Luhmann, Niklas (1988), Familiarity, Confidence, and Trust, in Diego Gambetta (ed.), Trust:Making and Breaking Cooperative Relationships, Oxford: Blackwell, 94-107.

Marion.F, Carrel-Billard.J-H (1996), Modes de collaboration dans les servicesinterorganisationnels, Décisions Marketing, 8, Mai-Aout, 23-30.

Moorman.C, Desphandé.R, Zaltman.G (1993), Factors Affecting Trust in Market ResearchRelationship, journal of marketing, 57, 81-101.

Moorman.C, Desphandé.R, Zaltman.G (1992), Relationships Between Providers and Users ofMarket Research : The Dynamics of Trust Within and Between Organizations, Journal ofmarketing research, 29, 314-329.

Morgan.R.M, Hunt.S.D (1994), The commitment trust theory of relationship marketing,Journal of marketing, 58 , 20-38.

Parasuraman.A, Zeithaml.V.A, Berry.L.L (1990), SERVUQUAL : une échelle multi-itemsde mesure des perceptions de la qualité de service par les consommateurs, Recherche etApplications en Marketing, 5, 1, 19-42.

Perrien.J (1998), Le marketing relationnel : oui mais…, Décisions marketing, 13, 85-88.

Rotter.J.B (1967), A New Scale for the Measurement of Interpersonal Trust, Journal ofPersonality, 34, 4, 651-665.

Shapiro.S P (1987), The Social Control of Impersonal Trust, American Journal of Sociology ,93, 3, 623-658.

Sirieix.L, Dubois.P-L (1999), Vers un modèle qualité-satisfaction intègrant la confiance?,Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 14, 3, 1-22.

Smeltzer.L.R (1997), The Meaning and Origin of Trust in Buyer-Seller Relationships,International journal of purchasing and materials management, Winter, 40-48.

Smith.J.B, Barclay.D.W (1997), The effects of organisational differences and trust on theaffectiveness of selling partner relationships, Journal of marketing, 61

Thévenet.M (1998), Les dimensions oubliées de la relation au client, Education permanente,137, 4, 121-128.

Trepo.G, Dumont.J-P, Alexandre.F (1998), La confiance est-elle gérable ?, Economie etSociétés, Série Sciences de gestion, 32, 8-9, 181-198.

Veys.P (1995), L’offre du prestateur : approche analytique et stratégique, Revue française dumarketing, No 155, 100-112.

Veys.P (1991), Le secteur tertiaire, Evreux, Vuibert gestion.

Weller.J-M (1998), Abuse-t-on de la notion de relation de service?, Education permanente,137, 4, 9-21.

Zaltman.G, Moorman.C (1988), The Importance of Personal Trust in the Use of Research,Journal of Advertising Research, October-November, 16-24.

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX AScaleName

Scale Item Description Loading183

F MRELIABILITYF M

Reputation- your consulting firm has the reputation for being honest- your consulting firm is known for the interest it takes to its customers- your consulting firm has a bad reputation on the market

Size- your consulting firm is a large company- your consulting firm is the leader on the advice market- your consulting firm is a small actor on the advice market

Availability- He usually accommodates your last minute requests- He is punctual in meetings deadlines- He returns phone calls promptly-

Experience - your consultant is very knowledgeable- your consultant masters the different methods he uses perfectly well

Likability

- your consultant is not an expert- - he is friendly- he is always pleasant with you- you like working with him

Similarity - he shares similar interests with people in your firm- he has values similar to people in your firm- he is very similar to people in your firm

Extent of socialinteraction

- meetings outside of the context t of work- private subjects of discuss (family, sport..)- meetings at breakfast, lunch or dinner-

Sincerity- your researcher is sincere in his/her promises- your researcher is honest with you- your researcher will act sincerely in future dealings

Confidentiality

- the information you share with your researcher will not be shared withcompetitors- your research findings are safe with your researcher- beyond the study, he will perceive the confidentiality of all the pieces ofinformation that he will have access to, concerning your organization

Quality ofinteraction

- during your meetings for work, he shows an efficient strategical comprehension for your affair- he is very careful during your work meetings- your meetings are productive

CollectiveOrientation

Importance ofrisk

- he has a team spirit- he is flexible in meeting your needs even if it sometimes means sacrificing methodological perfection- he makes wise judgements concerning when to express his/her opinions and when to allow you to do things your way

_When you choose a consulting firm , it isn’t important if you make a mistake-It’s really annoying to buy a provision which doesn’t really sort to your needs-After having bought a provision if your choice revealed itself bad, it wouldannoy you a lot

0.77 0.730.65 0.87

0.7 0.770.87 0.820.75 0.910.78 0.890.7 0.750.8 0.870.79 0.55

0.72 0.830.79 0.90.83 0.75

0.84 0.860.73 0.710.68 0.78

0.74 0.740.88 0.90.8 0.86

0.74 0.890.79 0.750.73 0.83

0.84 0.910.9 0.90.84 0.83

0.6 0.76

0.91 0.72

0.84 0.82

0.87 0.880.89 0.920.74 0.82

0.93 0.72

0.34 0.83

0.9 0

0.75 0.440.75 0.830.79 0.79

0.5 0.68

0.71 0.84

0.64 0.56

0.67 0.73

0.61 0.69

0.73 0.77

0.62 0.74

0.82 0.84

0.7 0.63

0.76 0.84

0.59 0.24

0.62 0.44

183 : f: french results / m; moroccan results

APPENDIX A (Continued)ScaleName

Scale Item Description Loading184

F MRELIABILITYF M

INTERPERSONALATTACHMENT

- working with this consultant provides you a lot of pleasure- working with this consultant gives you confort- working with this consultant please you

0.83 0.88

SERVICE

QUALITY

TANGIBLEELEMENTS

HELPFULNESS

Empathy

- the consulting firm owns recent facilities- your consulting firm's material installation are obviously attractive- The employees are correctly dressed and look kiddy- The aspect of the consulting firm's material installations is in keeping with the type of service he provided

- your consultant don't say precisely when the services are provided- the consulting firm's employees are not always willing to help thecustomers- the consulting firm's employees are too busy to answer the customersat once

- the consulting firm's employees don't grant you personal attention- the consulting firm's employees are not aware of your needs- the consulting firm's employees work hours are not convenient for you

0.78 0.77

0.72 0.62

0.59 0.77

PERCEIVEDOPPORTUNISM

- he slightly alters facts- he promises to do certain things, without doing it afterwards- he doesn't provide you the support he had committed himself with

R C E O L M A M T I I T O M N E S N H T I P

MAINT.

IMPORT.

- you are really involved in this relationship- for your firm's interest, you will involve yourself to try and develop this relationship- this relationship is worth maintaining

- for your firm, this relation is of the customer importance- your firm is thinking of maintaining this relationship for a long time- your firm takes great interest in this relationship

0.73 0.71

0.58 0.31

0.7 0.72

COMMUNICATIONOPENNESS

-you frequently talk about new opportunities of collaboration- you give him information you don't intend to transmit to somebodyelse- you candidly talk together

0.41 0.55

TRUST CAPITAL - if you or someone from your firm could not be reached by yourresearcher, you would be willing to let your researcher make importantresearch decision without your involvement- you trust your researcher to do things you can't do yourself- you trust your researcher to do things your department can't do itself

0.96 0.880.76 0.850.88 0.95

0.8 0.770.79 0.80.74 0.77

0.78 0.73

0.63 0.55

0.85 0.880.9 0.84

0.75 0.90.87 0.8400.59 0.73

0.79 0.580.8 0.90.83 0.89

0.650.73

0.56

0.810.850.72

0.81 0.80.47 0.51

0.72 0.84

0.73 0.77

0.87 0.940.81 0.95

0.76 0.86

184 : f: french results / m; moroccan results

+

+

+

-

+

+

-

+

+

-

-

-

+

-

+

CONCEPTUAL MODEL CONCERNING THE DETERMINANTS OF TRUSTCAPITAL

- REPUTATION- SIZE- AVAILABILITY- EXPERIENCE

- LIABILITY- SIMILARITY- EXTENT OF SOCIAL

INTERACTION

- INCERTITUDEREDUCTION

- SINCERITY- CONFIDENTIALITY- COLLECTIVE

ORIENTATION

SKILLCUES

AGREEMENTSIGNS

Validation

Elements

IMPORTANCEOF

RISK

Interpersonal

Attachment

SERVICEQUALITY

Communication

Openness

Relationship

Commitment

Perceived

Opportunism