Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

Trust in the knowledge economy

Marco Tulio Zanini Michael Musante
Article information:
To cite this document:
Marco Tulio Zanini Michael Musante, (2013),"Trust in the knowledge economy", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 28 Iss 6 pp.
487 - 493
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-04-2013-0102
Downloaded on: 27 February 2016, At: 04:38 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 48 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1079 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Thomas Clarke, (2001),"The knowledge economy", Education + Training, Vol. 43 Iss 4/5 pp. 189-196 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/00400910110399184
Joanne Roberts, (2009),"The global knowledge economy in question", Critical perspectives on international business, Vol. 5 Iss 4 pp. 285-303
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:38 27 February 2016 (PT)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17422040911003033
Steve Paton, (2012),"Introducing Taylor to the knowledge economy", Employee Relations, Vol. 35 Iss 1 pp. 20-38 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/01425451311279393

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:365403 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how
to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for
more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290
journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer
resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Trust in the knowledge economy
Marco Tulio Zanini
Fundação Getúlio Vargas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and
Michael Musante
Springfield College, Springfield, Massachusetts, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide insights into the expanding role of trust in the knowledge economy. Specifically it aims to focus on
the unique nature of the knowledge economy and the importance of informal and social control provided by the development of trust.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper is conceptual and a literature review.
Findings – The intra- and inter-organizational dynamics of the knowledge economy require a unique focus on the development and maintenance of
trust. Marketing relationships within and across firms will change and require a renewed emphasis on trust to safeguard the key asset in the knowledge
economy, knowledge.
Originality/value – This article adds new insights on organizational trust, specifically under the paradigm of knowledge-based production systems
that characterize a knowledge economy.

Keywords Organizations, Trust, Knowledge economy, Social control

Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:38 27 February 2016 (PT)

Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction environment (e.g. Castells, 1996; Burton-Jones, 1999;

Trust has become the focus of many studies in organizational
and marketing research (Barber, 1983; Morgan and Hunt,
1994; Lane and Bachmann, 1998; Dirks and Ferrin, 2001;
Brashear et al., 2003; Schoorman et al., 2007; Cook et al.,
2009). As a result of such interest, contributions to the study
of intra- and inter-organizational trust has come from other
social sciences, including political science, sociology,
anthropology, psychology and economics (Cook et al.,
2009). Scholars affirm that, the existence of trust among
the members of an organization might contribute significantly
to increase the efficiency of many organizational tasks (Dirks
and Ferrin, 2001; Sako, 1998; Mainela and Ulkuniemi,
2013).
Intra-organizational trust is believed to enhance
organizational performance in a number of areas. For
example, trust enhances the knowledge transfer process
(Rolland and Chauvel, 2000; Roberts, 2000; Mesquita and
Lazzarini, 2008; Jensen and Webster, 2009), facilitates
organizational efficiency and productivity (Ouchi, 1980;
Bradach and Eccles, 1998; Mainela and Ulkuniemi, 2013),
and decreases transaction costs (Butter and Mosch, 2006;
Argyres and Mayer, 2007). While there is a bounty of research
that discusses trust with respect to various marketing tasks,
there are fewer examinations that assess the role that trust
plays in specific institutional environments.
Various scholars have addressed the various ways that
technological advancements and information intensive
activities stand to shape an institutional or organizational
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0885-8624.htm
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
28/6 (2013) 487– 493
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0885-8624]
[DOI 10.1108/JBIM-04-2013-0102]
Audretsch and Thurik, 2001; Adler, 2001; Argandona,
2003; Zanini, 2007; Santos-Vijande et al., 2013, Javalgi
et al., 2011). Some scholars have observed and characterized
the new institutional and organizational environment under
the heading of the knowledge economy (Castells, 1996;
Burton-Jones, 1999; Audretsch and Thurik, 2001; Adler,
2001; Argandona, 2003; Zanini, 2007). Companies operating
in the telecommunications, telematics, and computer science
industries have been agents responsible for the “revolution” of
the information and communication technologies which have
occurred in the last three decades. These companies present
singular characteristics due to the influence of a set of
institutional innovations.
In this line of reasoning, this article has the objective to add
new insights on organizational trust, specifically under the
paradigm of knowledge-based production systems that
characterize a knowledge economy. Therefore, in section 2
we will present an economic definition of trust and observe
the paradigm of the knowledge economy. In section 3 we
present some important aspects of the knowledge economy. In
section 4, we present some characteristics and work
conditions in the knowledge economy companies. Finally, in
section 5, we present our conclusions and outlook.
Trust and the knowledge economy
The economic analytical framework considers trust as a sub-
class of risk situations related to human behavior. It is
assumed that trust works as an informal mechanism in
economic systems which increase the effectiveness of
transactions, whether they take place in markets or within
hierarchies. It is commonly held premise that trust works as
an informal mechanism within economic systems to increase
the effectiveness of transactions. As Bradach and Eccles
(1998) argue that as trust often emanates from social norms
and personal relationships it has a role in economic
exchanges.

487
 Trust in the knowledge economy
Marco Tulio Zanini and Michael Musante
Modern economic contract theory proposes that every type
of exchange system or human interaction can be described as
a contractual relationship. Hence implying that every product
or service transaction has as part of its foundation either a
formal or informal contract, or a combination thereof (Wolff
and Huppert, 2002). Business exchange is a nexus of
contracts whether they be formal agreements that can be
enforced by third parties (courts), or informal contracts that
cannot be enforced by courts or verified by third parties.
Guided by corporate norms, trust is a highly valuable
instrument that creates an environment which favors
exchange among interactive partners. This is particularly
evident for informal contracts between parties.
It has been suggested that trust has become an increasingly
important factor in contemporary knowledge-based
production systems (Burton-Jones, 1999; Audretsch and
Thurik, 2001; ILO, 2001; Adler, 2001; Zanini, 2007; Zanini
et al., 2009). Production systems based on the intensive
application of knowledge have changed the nature and scope
of our contemporary economy. Lane and Bachmann (1998)
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:38 27 February 2016 (PT)
claim that as knowledge-based production systems require
greater sharing of sensitive information they function best
when strong cooperative partnerships exist. According to the
authors, the ability to develop and foster trusting relationships
becomes a competitive advantage in the new business
environment.
The innovation process in the information era is rooted in
using technologies to efficiently produce new products. In
many cases, given the sophistication of the task, organizations
must go outside of the company to access talent and
capabilities that will allow them to meet their objectives. It has
been argued that the accumulation of shared work
experiences, mainly by groups of specialists, is at the heart
of the innovation process in this new era (Castells, 1996).
This suggests that ongoing cooperation between strategic
partners is a vital component of breakthrough advancements.
Cowan et al. (2004) claim that cooperation in the new era
takes on the form of sharing knowledge, routines, and ways of
approaching problems.
Within any successful collaborative effort trust is most
always present. Coriat and Guennif (1998) argue that trust
among interactive partners is built through repetitive
interactions over time that result in reduced uncertainty and
the establishment of expected behavior. It could be easily
argued that cooperation is a cornerstone of the innovative
process. As Selznick (1957) comments, the intentional
behavior of individuals who are mutually committed with
common ends defines the process of distinctive intellectual
creation. Given the dynamics, it is seemingly fair to suggest
that the value placed on cooperation and trust increases as we
move from traditional production systems to knowledge-
based production systems.
Economic systems based on trusting relationships lessen the
need for formal monitoring and control mechanisms (and
their associated costs). Therefore, it may be argued that those
firms that recognize the value of cooperative partnerships and
promote trust within their corporate culture are well position
to reap rewards including greater productivity and
performance. However, some researchers suggest the path
to superior performance via trust is not that simple. While a
trusting environment is an enabling component for productive
transactions, studies have often suggested trust provides a
more moderating than direct effect on performances
488
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 28 · Number 6 · 2013 · 487 –493
outcomes (Dirks and Ferrin, 2001; Wolff, 2000; Zanini,
2007).
The knowledge economy (KE)
Production systems based on the intensive application of
knowledge have changed the nature and scope of the human
work in the contemporary economy. Consequently, it has also
changed transaction costs in the productive activities. De
Alessi (1990) notes, a change in the transaction costs and
property rights systems implies in a change in the
consequences that individuals bear as a result of their
actions, and it systematically influences human behavior (De
Alessi, 1990, p. 47). According to Roberts and van der Steen
(2001), the increasingly importance of knowledge as
production factor and the human capital suggests that the
providers of this capital should be accorded more
representation in governance processes because they are
providing more of the total capital and these investments may
need protection (Roberts and Van Der Steen, 2001, p. 128).
It has created new demands for new control mechanisms in
economic exchange, more consensual, cooperative and
interdependent, based on mutual interests (Figure 1). Lane
and Bachmann (1998) claim that intensive knowledge-based
productive systems require greater sharing of sensitive
information as tacit knowledge built through consensual
relationships. Thus, according to the authors, trust
relationships become a highly desirable property, not only as
informal coordination mechanism, but also as a competitive
advantage in the new business environment. Figure 1 presents
the transition to knowledge-based production systems and the
respective change in the nature of the labor contracts.
The exponential rise in the use of technology by companies
to either become more efficient, or develop innovative
products and services, is the driving force behind what is
deemed the knowledge economy. The process by which the
knowledge economy has arisen might best be classified as
“creative destruction” as defined by Schumpeter. Schumpeter
(1942) characterized modern capitalism as being fueled by
continuous “creative destruction” leading to constant
competition.
Castells (1996) states that two economic production
paradigms exist, the traditional industrial model which is
based on intensive capital economies, and the new
informational model which is guided by information and
communication technology innovation. A core difference
between the companies operating in the knowledge economy
and those within traditional industries is the way in which
technological advancements creates opportunities. For
instance, steelworks, mining, and petrochemical companies,
though under increasing competitive pressures, experience
relatively stable demand. The same does not occur in the
telecommunications and computer industries where the
emergence of technological innovations regularly culminates
with incumbent products being replaced by more advanced
substitutes.
The knowledge economy may be better characterized by a
set of institutional innovations in a new macroeconomic
configuration that has as its means and motor the
advancement of information and communication
technologies (ICT). Such institutional innovations consist of
a set of elements that affect the national and international
economies, such as the opening of captive markets to foreign
 Trust in the knowledge economy
Marco Tulio Zanini and Michael Musante
Figure 1 Transition to knowledge-based production systems and the change in the nature of contracts
investment in several countries (deregulation), the world
capital flow, the privatization of state companies, the
expansion of multinational companies, the continuous
innovation of new technologies, and a high international
competition. The association of such factors provided the
emerging of new market opportunities, new technologies, new
producers and services, new organizational forms, and a new
human labor dynamics.
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:38 27 February 2016 (PT)
One of its consequences is the configuration of a new
business environment under a high level of uncertainty and
risk, requiring from the companies a continuous need for
adaptation to the exogenous and the endogenous changes in
their system. Three significant sources of inter-related
uncertainties can be identified in this new institutional
environment:
1 The uncertainties created by legal and political causes
relative to market deregulation, to the privatization of
state-owned companies, and to the regulation process of
competition between companies after the privatization
process. Very often, due to the regulation process, such
companies operate under market rules that are undefined
or undergoing definition.
2 The uncertainties relative to the constant technological
changes and the continuous technology innovation
process.
3 The uncertainties relative to the market conditions
characterized by a high competition, uncertain and
irregular demands, and the management of increasingly
more complex solutions in a short period of time. All such
sources of uncertainties derive from the aforesaid set of
institutional innovations under which the knowledge
economy companies operate.
Given this, firms must be prepared to address both inherent
exogenous and endogenous changes. We next analyze three
important aspects of the knowledge economy with respect to
instability and insecurity within markets and how they relate
to trust.
Coordination in relationship networks
The production capabilities for companies operating within
the knowledge economy are largely dependent on effective
coordination within relationship networks. Such coordination
is critical given the need to constantly adapt to volatile, highly
uncertain environments. A well-developed network allows for
greater production flexibility and information availability. It is
the effective coordination within networks has permitted firms
within the information and communications technology
industries to be on the forefront of innovation. In ICT
industries rapid adaptation to unpredictable conditions amid
489
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 28 · Number 6 · 2013 · 487 –493
economic and technological changes is necessary (Castells,
1996).
Many of the successful firms thriving in the new era have
skillfully managed their cluster of informal network
relationships. According to Fukuyama (2000), the
importance of informal networks is that they provide an
alternative channel for information flow between and within
organizations. Such networks may aid in the access, storage,
processing, and distribution of information both inside and
outside of the company. An established network allows a firm
to approach business activities from a difference perspective.
For example, what distinguishes a simple material supply
contractual relation, or outsourcing, from such an activity
coordinated with an informal network is that the latter will be
developed under less formal, more equalitarian,
interdependent, and cooperative conditions. While a partner
relationship may begin as one based on a formal contract, in
many cases the relationship may evolve to take on more
informal properties as trust between the parties becomes
more established. This suggests that the greater the reliance
on informal networks, the greater the reliance on trust as an
operative function for the firm.
New work and relationship dynamics
The second component we highlight addresses the emergence
of new work dynamics that are based on intensive knowledge
and high specialization. This was well characterized by
Castells (1996) in his comparative analysis between the
industrialism and the informationalism paradigms.
Informationalism in this respect refers to the accumulation
of knowledge and the greater levels of complexity in
information processing. Knowledge application in
meaningful ways promotes a process of systemic continuous
improvement. Increasingly efficient production systems that
yield technological developments are the blueprints for
advancements in the informational age.
While presenting a launching pad for the development and
implementation of new ideas, new work dynamics within the
knowledge economy presents two potential problems. The
first of which is the consideration of the property rights of
work output. Argandona (2003, pp. 13-14) poses the
question: “to whom does knowledge belong?” The author
notes that the question can be easily addressed when
knowledge is externally provided, for instance, when
accessed via a database. But the answer to the question
becomes much more complex when such knowledge (as well
as skills, attitudes, and values) is acquired in a tacit way. The
second problem relates to the great difficulty in measuring
individual performance in collaborative settings. It is often the
case that individual contributions cannot be clearly defined in
the creative process. How to measure individual contributions
 Trust in the knowledge economy
Marco Tulio Zanini and Michael Musante
in the development of technological solutions or in the
implementation of complex information processes is a
managerial challenge. Traditional models that appropriately
quantify and reward effort and input are not easily applied in
sophisticated, multi-layered processes where contributions
come from many sources. An unfortunate outcome is that the
misattribution of recognition and rewards may lead to
dissatisfaction and ultimately the loss of commitment by
employees (Ouchi, 1980).
Given the challenge of fairly attributing intellectual
contributions, one can appreciate the belief that trust must
be present in the new work dynamic in order to achieve
sustainable functionality. Only under the pretense that
attributions, recognition, and rewards will be fairly
apportioned will harmony exist in the system. In this respect
all parties must possess an adequate level of trust in their
organization, and the system as a whole, that accolades and
rewards will be distributed fairly and equitably.
New business dynamics
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:38 27 February 2016 (PT)
An era beset by high technological and market volatility has
led to new business dynamics. The new environment is not
only wrought with technological uncertainty and risk, it is also
highly competitive. Only those companies that can
outperform their competitors in delivering superior solutions
for their target markets will realize success.
Technologies are often viewed as information and/or
communication “solutions” rather than as a products or
services. In order to be embraced by the market, tech
solutions must provide value through their ability to either
reduce costs or improve quality. However, given shortening
cycles found in the knowledge economy, technology solutions
are often quickly leapfrogged. To provide the superior
solution is a fleeting concept in the new environment. Thus,
a firm’s success is highly correlated with its ability to quickly
develop and market new products. In this dynamic
marketplace where new offerings must improve upon
existing models, continuous technological innovation is
inherent.
The competitive advantage in such markets will be a lot
related to human capital, as the management capacity to
stimulate an intensive and continuous, knowledge-based
innovation process, with a high sensibility for the
competitive market. This requires a skill to conciliate the
management of distinct temporal processes, such as the
solution development time and the time for its
commercialization, requiring a full coordination of
specialized tasks in internal and external networks. The
growing complexity of the offered solutions requires not only
a type of specific knowledge, but also a set of information on
converging technologies. In this way, such companies are
often led to form partnership and association networks with
other supplier and distribution companies. The quickness in
strategically synchronizing the development of technological
solutions, forming and keeping alliances and partnerships,
and the capacity to negotiate with clients and suppliers in due
time are success factors that may secure such companies’
survival.
Such dynamics often happens in an environment of high
uncertainty about future demands and about the potential
extension of the solution life cycle and unsuccessful cases are
frequent. What can be noticed is the transference of short
term transactional perspectives of the market dynamics into
490
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 28 · Number 6 · 2013 · 487 –493
these companies. As Dantas (2002) states, such companies
are often committed to short term investment and return
perspectives due to the risk capital nature (venture capital),
used a lot in the development of technology companies since
the 1950s. Additionally, the strategies adopted by such
companies follow the same dynamics. Earlier Cyert and
March (1992) observed that scenarios of greater uncertainty
as to the future suggest the adoption of short term strategies.
That creates two problems for such companies: the first is that
the evolution of such technologies is usually out of proportion
with the company’s adaptation capacity. It is constant the
need for quick reorganization, re-dimensioning, and re-
disposition of resources internally, and externally, for
instance, through the formation of partnership networks.
The decision process in the choice for a certain technology
has an impact on the choice and contracting of suppliers, on
the quality and quantity of the contracted resources, and on
the investments for new products development and launching.
The result is an organizational management through constant
restructuring and layoffs of the workforce. Such practices
establish a less co-dependent relationship between employer
and employee under more short term perspectives and,
consequently, it affects the internal relationships based on
trust which can be built over time. What occurs
simultaneously is a loss of monitoring capacity and the
implementation of formal and informal rules due to constant
reorganization of rules. Here we see a paradox, especially
because such companies have work routines in which
individuals must constantly interact and share knowledge as
sensitive information, common ideas and tasks as part of the
productive process. It suggests a greater dependence on
relationship-based, informal contracts. However, in that
context, trust becomes a rare element for the promotion of
spontaneous cooperation.
Knowledge economy companies and work
environments
The knowledge economy is not considered a sector
phenomenon, but rather a fundamental restructuring of the
economy. Yet, we perhaps too conveniently associate the
knowledge economy only with companies that are similar in
their technologically-oriented scope. Argandona (2003) noted
that the knowledge economy has affected commerce in
general, but to different degrees of intensity among industries.
According to the author, while the KE is in essence a
universal phenomenon, the companies most identified with
the knowledge economy are those associated with providing
goods and services based on ICT. While ICT firms may differ
in focus (e.g. Information production, storage, or
distribution), they all have as their marketable product a
technological solution.
As noted previously, the knowledge economy is
characterized by uncertainties. This uncertainty extends to
the workforce. A challenge for companies competing in the
new environment is adapting to keep pace with the demands
of the market. Given this, firms are faced with the constant
need to quickly reorganize and redeploy internal resources. At
times the result is organizational action that requires
restructuring and layoffs within the workforce. The threat of
reorganization has a negative effect on internal relationships
and a detrimental impact on trust between the employer and
its workforce.
 Trust in the knowledge economy
Marco Tulio Zanini and Michael Musante
While companies operating in the KE need to be nimble,
they must also be conscious to manage personnel in such a
way that will mitigate negative outcomes when change is
necessary. It is those organizations that strive for a more stable
environment have the best chance to be witness to a more
trusting workforce. The outcome of elevated levels of trust
within an organization is a more committed, reliable, and
productive employee base. In this case effective human
resource management grounded in fostering employee trust
may be considered a competitive advantage in the new
economy.
Commentary and outlook
The current study sought to identify and highlight the role
that trust plays for companies operating within the knowledge
economy. Knowledge economy companies are generally
characterized as organizations that perform more complex
and specialized tasks based on the application of information
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:38 27 February 2016 (PT)
and knowledge. These companies encounter unique
challenges as they operate in an environment of great
market uncertainty, risk, and competition. In order to stay
competitive, the companies are faced with a constant need to
be innovative in their development and delivery of technology
solutions. A consideration for these firms is the importance of
time in the management of a continuous innovation process
that features a reduced lifecycle for products and services.
This challenge is further complicated by uncertain and
irregular demands. Thus, the need to be efficient and market
responsive in such a market is paramount. To this end, a
greater reliance on partnerships and informal contracts is
important in order to cope with the highly variable market
conditions. Given the necessity of effective collaboration, trust
as a social mechanism within relationships takes on increased
importance for KE companies.
While trust is an important variable when collaborating
with outside organizations, it is equally important within the
organization itself. It has been suggested, however, that within
KE companies lower levels of trust exist (Zanini et al., 2009).
It is the norm for KE company workers to more frequently be
faced with layoffs given the constant re-dimensioning of the
workforce (Argandona, 2003). With the ever-present prospect
of reorganizing and redeploying their resources, KE
companies are challenged to develop of an effective
corporate culture that more adequately handles the potential
negative consequences associated with constant change.
Given the importance to better understand inter and intra-
company dynamics for knowledge economy companies more
research highlighting these issues is necessary. For example,
further work examining the connection between trust and
performance should be assessed. According to Milgrom and
Roberts (1992), employee commitment results from a set of
incentives. Some may suggest that while trust is an important
employee-company variable, it is not enough to escalate
employee commitment levels (which are commonly related to
other incentives such as bonuses and rewards). However, one
must consider that interpersonal trust stands to act as a
motivational element and thus potentially have a strong
positive relationship with commitment. The extent to which
trust influences commitment and perhaps overall company
performance in dynamic markets is an interesting question for
KE companies.
491
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 28 · Number 6 · 2013 · 487 –493
The knowledge economy is characterized by constant
change and innovation. It is important for researchers to
explore other underlying forces that may impact the market
responsiveness capabilities of KE companies. This
understanding is especially critical given the speed at which
these companies must efficiently execute their strategies
(Ribeiro et al., 2009) in order to be successful. Ultimately, it
may be suggested that performance depends not only on the
capacity to create marketable goods and services, but also on
the capacity to adapt to environmental changes in a way that
maximizes workforce operations.
References
Adler, P.S. (2001), “Market, hierarchy, and trust: the
knowledge economy and the future of capitalism”,
Organizational Science, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 215-234.
Argandona, A. (2003), “The new economy: ethical issues”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 3-22.
Argyres, N. and Mayer, K. (2007), “Contract design as a firm
capability: an integration of learning and transaction cost
perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 4,
pp. 1060-1077.
Audretsch, D.B. and Thurik, A.R. (2001), “What’s new about
the new economy? Sources of growth in the managed and
entrepreneurial economies”, Industrial and Corporate
Change, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 267-315.
Barber, B. (1983), The Logic and Limits of Trust, Rutgers
University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.
Bradach, J.L. and Eccles, R.G. (1998), “Price, authority and
trust: from ideal types to plural forms”, in Thompson, G.
(Ed.), Markets, Hierarchies and Networks – The Coordination
of Social Life, Sage, London, pp. 277-292.
Brashear, T.G., Brooks, C.M., Boles, J.S. and Bellenger, D.N.
(2003), “An empirical test of trust building processes and
outcomes in sales manager – salesperson relationships”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 189-200.
Burton-Jones, A. (1999), Knowledge Capitalism – Business
Work, and Learning in the New Economy, Oxford University
Press, London.
Butter, F.A.G. and Mosch, R.H.J. (2006), “Trade, trust and
transaction costs”, Department of Economics, Vrije
Universiteit Amsterdam, and Tinbergen Institute,
discussion paper, October, available at: www.handelsland.
nl/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Tratrutra7.pdf (accessed
20 January 2012).
Castells, M. (1996), “The rise of the network society”, The
Information Age – Economy, Society and Culture, Vol. 3,
Blackwell, Oxford.
Coriat, B. and Guennif, S. (1998), “Self-interest, trust and
institutions”, in Lazaric, N. and Lorenz, E. (Eds), Trust and
Economic Learning, Edward Elgar, London.
Cook, K.S., Levi, M. and Hardin, R. (2009), Whom Can We
Trust: How Groups, Networks, and Institutions Make Trust
Possible, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY.
Cowan, R., Jonard, N. and Zimmermann, J. (2004),
“Strategic alliances, innovation and emergence of
organized proximity”, working paper, Elsinore, June 14-
16, available at: http://greqam.univ-mrs.fr/IMG/working_
papers/2004/2004-36.pdf (accessed 20 January 2012).
 Trust in the knowledge economy
Marco Tulio Zanini and Michael Musante
Cyert, R.M. and March, J.G. (1992), A Behavioral Theory of
the Firm, 2nd ed., Blackwell Publishing, Hoboken, NJ.
Dantas, M. (2002), A Lógica do Capital-Informacao, 2nd ed.,
Contraponto, Rio de Janeiro.
De Alessi, L. (1990), “Development of the property rights
approach”, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics,
Vol. 146, pp. 6-23.
Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2001), “The role of trust in
organizational settings”, Organization Science, Vol. 12 No. 4,
pp. 450-467.
Fukuyama, F. (2000), The Great Disruption, Free Press, New
York, NY.
ILO (2001), World Employment Report 2001: Life at Work in the
Information Economy, International Labour Office, Geneva.
Javalgi, R.G., Gross, A.C., Joseph, W.B. and Granot, E.
(2011), “Assessing competitive advantage of emerging
markets in knowledge intensive business services”, Journal
of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 171-180.
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:38 27 February 2016 (PT)
Jensen, P. and Webster, E. (2009), “Knowledge management:
does capture impede creation?”, Industrial and Corporate
Change, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 701-727.
Lane, C. and Bachmann, R. (1998), Trust Within and Between
Organizations – Conceptual Issues and Empirical Applications,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Mainela, T. and Ulkuniemi, P. (2013), “Personal interaction
and customer relationship management in project
business”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 103-110.
Mesquita, L. and Lazzarini, S. (2008), “Vertical and
horizontal relationships in developing economies:
implications for smes’ access to global markets”, Academy
of Management Journal, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 359-380.
Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J. (1992), Economics, Organization
and Management, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, NJ.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-
trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Ouchi, W.G. (1980), “Markets bureaucracies and clans”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 129-141.
Ribeiro, Á.H.P., Brashear, T.G., Monteiro, P.R. and
Damázio, L.F. (2009), “Marketing relationships in Brazil:
trends in value strategies and capabilities”, Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 24 Nos 5/6,
pp. 449-459.
Roberts, J. (2000), “From know-how to show-how?
Questioning the role of information and communication
technologies in knowledge transfer”, Technology Analysis and
Strategic Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 429-443.
Roberts, J. and Van den Steen, E. (2001), “Human capital
and corporate governance”, in Schwalbach, J. (Ed.),
Corporate Governance Essays in Honor of Horst Albach,
Springer, pp. 128-143.
Rolland, N. and Chauvel, D. (2000), “Knowledge transfer in
strategic alliances”, in Despres, C. and Chauvel, D. (Eds),
Knowledge Horizons: The Present and the Promise of Knowledge
Management, Butterworth Heinemann, Boston, MA,
pp. 225-236.
Sako, M. (1998), “Does trust improve business
performance?”, in Lane, C. and Bachmann, R. (Eds),
492
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 28 · Number 6 · 2013 · 487 –493
Trust within and between Organizations, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Santos-Vijande, M.L., González-Mieres, C. and López-
Sánchez, J.A. (2013), “An assessment of innovativeness in
KIBS: implications on KIBS’ co-creation culture,
innovation capability, and performance”, Journal of
Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 86-102.
Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R.C. and Davis, J.H. (2007), “An
integrative model of organizational trust: past, present, and
future”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 2,
pp. 344-354.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1942), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy,
Harper & Row Publishers, New York, NY.
Selznick, P. (1957), Leadership in Administration – A
Sociological Interpretation, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Wolff, B. (2000), Kalkül und Vertrauen –
Zur Institutionalisierung von Moral in der Ökonomik,
Vertrauen in Gesellschaft und Organisationen,
Tagungsdokumentation, in Universität Witten/Herdecke
und Evangelische Akademie Tutzing (Hg.).
Wolff, B. and Huppert, W. (2002), “Governance by
contractual rules – improving service relations in
irrigation”, Zeitschrift für Bewässerungswirtschaft, Vol. 37
No. 2, pp. 139-153.
Zanini, M.T.F. (2007), Trust within Organizations of New
Economy – A Cross-Industrial Study, DUV, Wiesbaden,
Alemanha.
Zanini, M.T.F., Lusk, E. and Wolff, B. (2009), “Confiança
dentro das organizações da nova economia: uma análise
empı́rica sobre as consequências da incerteza institucional”,
Revista de Administração Contemporânea, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 72-91.
Further reading
Gulati, R. and Nickerson, J. (2008), “Interorganizational
trust, governance choice, and exchange performance”,
Organization Science, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 688-708.
Kramer, R.M. and Cook, K.S. (2006), Trust and Distrust
within Organizations, Russell Sage Foundation, New York,
NY.
Tosi, H.L., Rizzo, J.R. and Carroll, S.J. (1994), Managing
Organizational Behaviour, 3rd ed., Blackwell Publishers,
Cambridge, MA.
Whitener, E.M., Brodt, S.E., Korsgaard, M.A. and Werner,
J.M. (1998), “Managers as initiators of trust: an exchange
relationship framework for understanding managerial
trustworthy behavior”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 513-530.
Williamson, O.E. (1996), The Mechanisms of Governance,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Williamson, O.E. (1998), “Transaction cost economics: how
it works; where it is headed”, De Economist, Vol. 146 No. 1,
pp. 23-58.
Wolff, B. (1996), “Constitutional contracting and corporate
constitution”, in Picot, A. and Schlicht, E. (Eds),
Perspectives on Contract Theory, Springer, Berlin, pp. 95-108.
Zanini, M.T.F. (2005), “Relações de Confiança nas Empresas
da Nova Economia Informacional – uma avaliação dos
efeitos da incerteza sobre o comportamento
organizacional”, Cadernos da Ebape.br, No. 4, December.
 Trust in the knowledge economy Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Marco Tulio Zanini and Michael Musante Volume 28 · Number 6 · 2013 · 487 –493

About the authors appeared in Revista de Administração Contemporâne, HSM

Marco Tulio Zanini is Professor and Program Director of the
Executive Master in Business Management at the Brazilian
School of Public and Business Administration (EBAPE) at
Fundação Getúlio Vargas, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. His research
interests include organizational trust, leadership, management
of organizational intangibles, and high performance teams
and special operations. He is the author of four books
including Intergrated Management of Intangible Assets
(Qualitymark, Rio de Janeiro, 2009). His research has
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:38 27 February 2016 (PT)
Management and Valor Econômico. Marco Tulio Zanini is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at:
marco.zanini@fgv.br
Michael Musante is Assistant Professor at Springfield
College. His research interests include services marketing,
business-to-business marketing, and brand management. His
research has appeared in the Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management and
Sport Marketing Quarterly.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

493