Interconnectedness of trust-commitment-export performance dimensions: A model of the contingent effect of calculative commitment

Ahamed, AFM Jalal; Noboa, Fabrizio Article Interconnectedness of trust-commitment-export performance dimensions: A model of the contingent effect of calculative commitment Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Ahamed, AFM Jalal; Noboa, Fabrizio (2022) : Interconnectedness of trustcommitment-export performance dimensions: A model of the contingent effect of calculative commitment, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 9, Iss. 1, pp. 1-20, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2088461 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/288948 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20 Cogent Business & Management ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oabm20 Interconnectedness of trust-commitmentexport performance dimensions: A model of the contingent effect of calculative commitment AFM Jalal Ahamed & Fabrizio Noboa To cite this article: AFM Jalal Ahamed & Fabrizio Noboa (2022) Interconnectedness of trust-commitment-export performance dimensions: A model of the contingent effect of calculative commitment, Cogent Business & Management, 9:1, 2088461, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2022.2088461 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2088461 © 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Published online: 15 Jun 2022. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 2315 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles MARKETING | RESEARCH ARTICLE Interconnectedness of trust-commitment-export performance dimensions: A model of the contingent effect of calculative commitment AFM Jalal Ahamed 1 * and Fabrizio Noboa 2 Abstract: This research on relationship marketing aims to revisit and reposition different foci of trust, commitment, and performance perception in the export/ import relationships and explore the interconnectedness effects. We have collected self-reported survey questionnaire responses from 142 non-oil exporters in Ecuador. The data were analyzed with SmartlPls 3.0 software. We found that calculative commitment negatively moderates inter-organizational trust and affective commitment relationships. The other significant findings include the indirect relationship (mediating effect) of affective commitment to financial export performance through relationship export performance. With these novel contributions, we also identify some expected relationshipsas both interpersonal and interorganizational trust positively affects affective commitment, and relationship export performance significantly predicts financial export performance. Cross-sectional data collection and responses from one side of the export-import dyad are one of this research’s limitations. However, they are not uncommon in export marketing literature. Giving a justified position of different dimensions of trust and commitment in the export-import equation is the novelty of this scholarship. Clarifying the affective commitment and export performance relationship is another contribution of this research. Nevertheless, the dimensional views of trust and commitment reestablished some known assumptions in a less researched country setting should also be considered a contribution. Subjects: Marketing Research; International Marketing; Marketing Management; Relationship Marketing Keywords: Interpersonal trust; inter-organizational trust; affective commitment; calculative commitment; Latin America 1. Introduction Trust and commitment are at the heart of relationship marketing (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). These sentiments are especially important for exporting firms that seek to establish, maintain, and leverage strong connections with foreign buyers over what may be considerable geographic, cultural, and institutional barriers. While there is a substantial literature base that focuses on how trust and commitment influence various performance measures (e.g., C. Bianchi & Saleh, 2020; Bloemer et al., 2013; Mahmoud et al., 2020; Styles et al., 2008), many of these studies convey that trust leads to greater commitment (e.g., T. Čater & Čater, 2010; B. Čater & Zabkar, 2009; Geyskens et al., 1996), which in turn enhances firm (export) performance (e.g., Alteren & Tudoran, 2016; Bloemer et al., 2013). However, this conceptualization may be too simplistic in that Ahamed & Noboa, Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2088461 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2088461 Page 1 of 20 Received: 15 February 2022 Accepted: 07 June 2022 *Corresponding author: AFM Jalal Ahamed, Associate Professor in Business Administration, School of Business, University of Skövde, Högskolevägen 8, SE-541 28 Skövde, Sweden E-mail: [email protected] Reviewing editor: Usama Awan, Industrial Engineering and Management, Lappeenrannan Teknillinen Korkeakoulu: LUT University, Finland Additional information is available at the end of the article © 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. it ignores the iterative nature of these constructs in ongoing exchange relationships (Dowell et al., 2015), thus underscoring the need to extend the extant literature. Consequently, several significant gaps still remain in the existing literature. Trust can be thought to exist in situations where one party is willing to rely on the actions of another (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). While there is a growing acceptance in the literature on trust’s multidimensional nature, much of the early research on trust found in business disciplines focused on interpersonal levels of trust, i.e., sentiments held by individuals toward others and the relative strengths of the trust dimensions has not been discussed sufficiently (Dowell et al., 2015). Cropanzano et al. (2017) contend that this may represent an overly narrow perspective. More recent trust conceptualizations recognize that trust can also be directed to social units, such as workgroups, departments, organizations, and even across organizational boundaries (Schilke & Cook, 2013; Zaheer & Harris, 2006). Consequently, we witness an increasing number of studies that incorporate multiple dimensions of trust, especially interpersonal and inter-organizational, and explore the interrelationship between these dimensions and how they influence other variables (Ashnai et al., 2016; Mouzas et al., 2007, 2007; Vanneste, 2016; Zaheer & Harris, 2006; Zaheer et al., 1998). Commitment, which is construed as an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship (Moorman et al., 1992; Morgan & Hunt, 1994), conveys the sense of an exchange partner’s attachment to another and motivation for continuity (Gilliland & Bello, 2002). While many of the early studies that incorporated commitment operationalized this construct in a unidimensional fashion, more recent conceptualizations recognize that commitment is multifaceted, although varying definitions and dimensions are found in the extant literature (Geyskens et al., 1996; B. Čater & Zabkar, 2009; Kim et al., 2011; Jain et al., 2014). The various types of commitment most frequently cited in the marketing and organizational science literature are affective commitment (based on emotional attachments or social sentiments) and calculative commitment (based on rational economic calculations). Both forms of commitment reflect relatively stable attitudes and beliefs. However, the underlying motives of each and the mindsets that they evoke differ (Chang et al., 2012; Geyskens et al., 1996; Guo et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2007; Li et al., 2006). Gilliland and Bello (2002) have argued that while affective and calculative commitment may coexist, their distinct underlining motivations to maintain a relationship can have different effects on the trading partner’s behavior. Hence, viewing commitment as a universal construct risks oversimplification, potential bias, and confounding effects (Hessling et al., 2018; Jain et al., 2014; Styles et al., 2008; Vanneste, 2016). Despite the growing number of studies incorporating multiple dimensions of commitment, the influence of calculative commitment remains understudied in the context of export-import marketing despite its logical character and likely function as a rationale for parties to engage in and maintain business relationships. Nor has there been sufficient research that has addressed if there is a connection across the different types of commitment (Hessling et al., 2018). Furthermore, export-oriented relationship marketing studies grounded on relational exchange theory (RET) have often conceptualized trust and commitment as antecedents of export performance, which has typically been expressed in terms of financial and/or non-financial performance measures (Bloemer et al., 2013; Mahmoud et al., 2020; Mysen & Tronvoll, 2020; Styles et al., 2008). However, the importance of relationship performance has not received sufficient attention. For instance, some studies have included affective commitment to examine whether it enhances performance (Ashnai et al., 2016; Bloemer et al., 2013) but do not clarify what aspect of performance (i.e., financial and/or non-financial) represents such benefits. Other recent studies have taken a narrow view of the direct link between commitment and export performance (e.g., Alteren & Tudoran, 2016; Tan & Sousa, 2015) and have overlooked the role of relational performance, which represents a significant and problematic limitation of the current export marketing literature. Ahamed & Noboa, Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2088461 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2088461 Page 2 of 20 We aim to contribute to the export marketing literature by addressing these aforementioned gaps. Grounded on the commitment-trust theory (Morgan & Hunt, 1994), we develop and test a novel process model that includes multiple dimensions of trust, commitment, and export performance. In sum, this study seeks to refine our understanding of the roles of different trust and commitment dimensions on export relationships and financial performance. In particular, we examine the moderating role of calculative commitment on the interpersonal and interorganizational trust links with affective commitment. The theoretical contributions of this research are to be understood in light of the Relational Exchange Theory (RET) and Commitment -trust theory, where the different foci of trust, commitment, and performance are linked. We provide empirical evidence that interpersonal trust leads to inter-organizational trust by segregating the trust conceptualization. Further, we push the boundary for international exchange relationships research by specifying the moderating influence of calculative commitment on inter-organizational trust-affective commitment relationships. As for the managerial contributions, this research could work as a recipe for exporting managers, especially those in the developing countries where we advocate the network-based exchange relationships and building interpersonal trust; while keeping in mind the critical importance of calculative commitment. In the ensuing section, we provide our model, the theoretical underpinnings for it, and a series of hypotheses. Next, we summarize our data collection protocol, operational measures, and the methodology employed to validate our measures and empirically test our hypotheses and our findings. We conclude with a discussion of theoretical and managerial implications, limitations, and directions for future research. 2. Theory and hypotheses Relationship marketing has been a dominant paradigm that has guided research in marketing channels, international business, export-import, and other business disciplines. Trust and commitment are central themes within the relationship marketing literature because of their roles in developing and maintaining long-term exchange relationships (Gounaris, 2005; Morgan & Hunt, 1994). In their seminal paper, by investigating the nature of relationship marketing, Morgan and Hunt (1994) proposed that commitment and trust are the key moderating variables and initiated the research directions further to the commitment-trust theory domain. The underpinning theory of this research is Morgan and Hunt’s (1994) commitment-trust theory. We will discuss the theoretical underpinning and develop the research hypothesis in the preceding sections. 2.1. Trust and the interrelationship between its dimensions Mayer et al. (1995, p. 712) define trust as “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party.” Within the extant literature, there has been substantial attention dwelling on whether trust is an individual or organizational property and whether this construct is best conceptualized as being unidimensional or multidimensional (Möllering & Sydow, 2018; Zaheer et al., 1998). However, a consensus now exists that trust comprises two main dimensions: interpersonal and inter-organizational (Ashnai et al., 2016; Zaheer & Harris, 2006; Zaheer et al., 1998). Zaheer et al. (1998) argue that people may trust both other individuals as well as collectives, such that interpersonal trust is defined as that “placed by the individual boundary spanner in her individual opposite member” and interorganizational trust as “the extent of trust placed in the partner organization by the members of a focal organization” (p. 142). Thus, interpersonal and inter-organizational trust differ, both empirically and conceptually (Ashnai et al., 2016; Doney & Cannon, 1997; Nielsen, 2004). Ashnai et al. (2016) portray emotions as the source of interpersonal trust. Using a four-stage process model of trust development, Schilke and Cook (2013, p. 285) argue that “the focal organization’s boundary spanner is the starting point of the trust process.” Interactions between Ahamed & Noboa, Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2088461 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2088461 Page 3 of 20 boundary spanners are where valued information is exchanged, and negotiations occur, thus serving as the basis for interpersonal trust (Huang et al., 2016). Inter-organizational trust arises from rational and pragmatic considerations of interfirm adaptations and inter-organizational learning (i.e., has a cognition base), as well as other historical aspects of inter-organizational relationships, such as previous exchange performance, negotiations, or conflicts (Ashnai et al., 2016; Dowell et al., 2015; Geyskens et al., 1996; Nielsen, 2004). Prior research suggests that interpersonal trust affects inter-organizational trust, but not the other way around (Ashnai et al., 2016; Vanneste, 2016), at least in the earlier stages of the relationship development (Dowell et al., 2015). The positive interpersonal sentiment that interpersonal trust represents can have a ripple effect, such that “a common understanding regarding the trustworthiness of the partner organization develops and organizational alliance routines are established reflecting’ how things are done’ with this partner organization (i.e., the establishment and institutionalization of organization–organization trust occurs)” (Schilke & Cook, 2013, p. 285). Consequently, we hypothesize: H1: Interpersonal trust has a positive effect on inter-organizational trust. 2.2. The relationships among trust and commitment dimensions In the realm of relationship marketing, the interrelated notions of trust and commitment are associated with positive collaborative benefits, such as uncertainty reduction, increased resource utilization efficiency, and value for both partners (Ashnai et al., 2016; Gounaris, 2005). A committed relationship is where the partners are “forward-looking” and want the relationship to endure indefinitely (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). While commitment was initially conceptualized and operationalized as a unidimensional construct, more recent conceptualizations recognize that commitment is multifaceted, albeit with varying conceptualizations of what dimensions exist. Two dimensions, affective commitment and calculative commitment are most prominent in the extant literature (Geyskens et al., 1996; Meyer et al., 2004; B. Čater & Zabkar, 2009; Kim et al., 2011; Jain et al., 2014). These dimensions imply that inter-organizational relationships can be viewed from two diametrically opposite perspectives. On the one hand, they can be seen as embedded institutions where the focus is on social sentiments, attributes, and bonds. Hence, the attention to affectional commitment. On the other hand, calculative commitment embodies a utilitarian perspective that reflects implicit or explicit cost-benefit analyses that serve as a pragmatic lens by which economic and strategic benefits of commencing and remaining in a current exchange relationship versus engaging an alternate partner are evaluated (Bansal et al., 2004; Dwyer et al., 1987; Gilliland & Bello, 2002; Lopes, 2016; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Styles et al., 2008). Hence, strong arguments exist that these two commitment dimensions are separate, leading to the call by Liu et al. (2010) for more research to investigate the link between these dimensions. Affective commitment arises from identification, common values, attachment, involvement, and similarity. It implies a positive motivation to continue the relationship because one party likes the other and enjoys working with them, thus reflecting favorable feelings, mindsets, and attitudes toward the trading partner and “wanting to” or having a desire to continue the relationship (Bansal et al., 2004; T. Čater & Čater, 2010; Geyskens et al., 1996; Gilliland & Bello, 2002; Lariviere et al., 2014; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001), which creates a sense of unity or attachment to the exchange partner. Affective commitment evolves over time. When grounded on trust, it signals a desire to maintain a relationship in order to attain a cooperative, mutually beneficial future. Thus, greater affective Ahamed & Noboa, Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2088461 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2088461 Page 4 of 20 commitment can be expected to lead to stronger relationship stability and continuity (Bloemer et al., 2013; Skarmeas et al., 2002). Based on the principle of generalized reciprocity from social exchange theory (Gounaris, 2005), we anticipate that the emotional attachment, identification, and sense of involvement that arises from interpersonal trust also contribute to exporters’ affective commitment to importers (Chang et al., 2012; Meyer & Allen, 1991). In the context of emerging markets, Park and Luo (2001) found that the interpersonal connections between the boundary spanners serve as a lubricant within exchange relationships. According to Sharma et al. (2006), familiarity, friendship, and personal confidence built through interpersonal interaction over time between two persons or groups initiate the desire to develop and strengthen a relationship that might lead to affective commitment. Hence, in line with previous research (Bloemer & Odekerken-Schröder, 2006; Chang et al., 2012), we predict that exporters’ interpersonal trust exerts a positive effect on affective commitment. Accordingly, we propose: H2: Interpersonal trust has a positive effect on affective commitment. Since inter-organizational trust refers to the collectively held confidence in the reliability and integrity of an exchange partner, this construct also implies expectations of the benefits that accrue from the exchange relationship and the partner’s ability and motivation to satisfy the buyer’s specific needs. Consequently, it can lead to the presence of predetermined ways to solve business problems jointly, thus allowing the focal organization to take risks that can strengthen the relationship and make it more likely to persist (Ashnai et al., 2016; Zaheer et al., 1998). Relationships across the different dimensions of trust and commitment rarely have been explicitly examined in export-import settings. A positive association between inter-firm trust and affective commitment has been reported in a meta-analysis performed by Delbufalo and Wilding (2012). In a recent study of UKbased buyer-supplier relationships, Ashnai et al. (2016) argued that the rational aspects of trust (i.e., inter-organizational trust) enhance commitment. Their study reported a statistically significant relationship between inter-organizational trust with a unidimensional measure of commitment, which on closer inspection actually denotes affective commitment. Thus, we expect that when inter-organizational trust exists, it too will positively influence affective commitment. H3: Inter-organizational trust has a positive effect on affective commitment. While RET highlights the importance of emotional bonds to maintaining valued business relationships, business enterprises’ profit-seeking and utility maximization nature also attest to a utilitarian rationale for interfirm exchange relationships (Heide & Wathne, 2006; Hessling et al., 2018). The calculative commitment represents a constraining force that binds exchange partners together, i.e., it reflects “having to,” or the perceived need to stay with the current exchange partner based on instrumental reasons, i.e., the relative availability of alternative exchange partners and the dispassionate assessment of tangible benefits versus the costs of leaving the current exchange relationships (T. Čater & Čater, 2010; Fischer & Mansell, 2009; Geyskens et al., 1996; Lariviere et al., 2014; Meyer & Allen, 1997). In the export marketing literature, calculative commitment has seldom been explicitly addressed, unlike affective commitment (Bloemer et al., 2013). Since sufficient empirical evidence is absent from the export-import marketing literature to support whether there is a direct Ahamed & Noboa, Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2088461 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2088461 Page 5 of 20 relationship between calculative and affective commitment, we instead rely on these two concepts’ purported separability as indicated in previous research (e.g., Geyskens et al., 1996). In inter-organizational relationships, calculative commitment refers to a structural bonding reflecting a trading partner’s rational concern for instrumental gain and thus is seen as representing a negative motivation for continuing an exchange relationship (T. Čater & Čater, 2010; Geyskens et al., 1996; Liu et al., 2010). An inter-organizational relationship is expected to have minimal odds of survival based solely on calculative commitment (De Ruyter et al., 2001). Previous research suggests a strong positive association of trust with affective commitment, while a negative association with calculative commitment prevails (see, B. Čater & Zabkar, 2009 for a review). However, a more recent study of export-import relationships (Bloemer et al., 2013) contends that trust is positively linked with affective commitment only. While many past studies have investigated trust as an antecedent to commitment dimensions, the reality is that in ongoing exchange relationships, trust and commitment are interrelated in a reciprocal cycle, meaning that they iteratively influence one another (Styles et al., 2008). But merely transposing the sequence of trust and commitment may not be sufficient. Another way of thinking about calculative commitment’s interrelationship with trust is to view it as a potential moderator (Kim et al., 2011), which may mitigate the effect of the two trust dimensions on affective commitment. Given that affective commitment is seen as a positive motivation for seeking to prolong an exchange relationship and that both trust dimensions are expected to foster affective commitment, we posit that calculative commitment and its connotation of being a negative motivation can serve to moderate the positive relationship of the trust dimensions on affective commitment. Since both trust dimensions and affective commitment are phenomena that occur after an exchange relationship commences, they implicitly reflect the perception of the moral hazard risk that the exporter faces. On the other hand, calculative commitment can be construed as an evaluation of the adverse selection hazard faced before engaging the exchange partner and one that continues explicitly or implicitly throughout the interfirm relationship (Bergen et al., 1992). Thus, calculative commitment may exacerbate the exporter’s perceived vulnerability to trusting and relying on a focal importer and hinder the inter-organizational relationship (Liu et al., 2010). In sum, it may impede the positive effect of both trust dimensions on affective commitment. Hence, we propose: H4a: Calculative commitment moderates the link between interpersonal trust and affective commitment. H4b: Calculative commitment moderates the link between inter-organizational trust and affective commitment. 2.3. Export performance and how its dimensions are influenced by trust and commitment dimensions Export performance is another multifaceted concept, usually classified along the lines of financial and non-financial aspects (Bloemer et al., 2013; Lages, 2000). Financial export performance has typically been assessed using objective indicators such as export sales and growth, export profit levels and growth, return on investment, and achieved market share (Lages, 2000). Non-financial export performance refers to more subjective indicators of outcomes and the relationship’s efficacy, such as goal achievement, satisfaction, and perceived success. It has also been operationalized as customer, employee, and shareholder’s satisfaction and loyalty (Bloemer et al., 2013; Lages, 2000). Relationship performance stems from a specific set of non-financial export performance measures that seek to assess inter-organizational relational dynamics attributed to a focal exchange Ahamed & Noboa, Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2088461 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2088461 Page 6 of 20 partner (e.g., level of efficiency, productivity, and contribution toward achieving financial goals; Luo et al., 2015; O’Toole & Donaldson, 2002). Another definition of relationship performance refers to a particular dyad’s perceived economic performance relative to expectations within a broader network of exchange relationships (Medlin, 2003), which can be instrumental to sales growth, market positions, marketing support, or qualified services for the parties involved. Others have used satisfaction as a proxy for relational performance (Lui et al., 2009; Saxton, 1997). Successful inter-organizational relationships can enhance firms’ financial performance by leveraging partners’ environmental scanning efforts, capabilities, and resources to compete effectively. Prior research has found that trust fosters positive sentiments to stay in the relationship, propelling financial performance (C. C. Bianchi & Saleh, 2011). Beyond the direct effect of strong interfirm relationships on sales and profits (Palmatier et al., 2006), they encourage increased cooperation and reduced conflict, so they also can benefit from innovation efforts, expanded markets, and reduced costs (C. C. Bianchi & Saleh, 2011). Bloemer et al. (2013) note that trust and affective commitment energize this performance. According to Lee et al. (2007), affective commitment also leads to relationship performance through altruistic benevolence. Dowell et al. (2015), also found a positive effect of commitment on relationship performance. Thus, we predict that affective commitment has a central role in determining relationship outcomes (Ashnai et al., 2016; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Palmatier et al., 2006), which ultimately facilitates financial performance through relationship performance. Medlin (2003) suggests that relationship performance can directly lead to economic outcomes without relying on mediating indicators (e.g., level of satisfaction or cooperation). Formally, based on the internationalization process model (Johanson & Vahlne, 1990), we hypothesize that pro-social attitudes, namely interpersonal trust, inter-organizational trust, and affective commitment, are determinants of enhanced relationship performance, which in turn propels financial export performance: H5a: Interpersonal trust has a positive effect on relationship export performance. H5b: Inter-organizational trust has a positive effect on relationship export performance. H5c: Affective commitment has a positive effect on relationship export performance. H6: Relationship performance has a positive effect on financial export performance. 3. Methodology 3.1. Sample and data collection Data for this study were collected from active, non–oil exporting companies operating from Ecuador. Our country choice was influenced, in part, by recent criticisms that have indicated that export-import studies have been conducted mainly in North America, Europe, and Asia, which has led to calls for more research involving firms from developing nations (Aykol & Leonidou, 2018; Samiee & Chirapanda, 2019). Furthermore, research involving Latin American firms has been deemed to be inadequate, especially studies addressing internationalization processes among Latin American firms (C. Bianchi & Saleh, 2020; Fastoso & Whitelock, 2011; Paul & Mas, 2019). Brazil, Chile, and Mexico, and to a lesser extent, Argentina and Colombia, have predominantly been the context when Latin companies have been studied (Fastoso & Whitelock, 2011; Paul & Mas, 2019). We patterned our data collection procedures on the World Bank’s data collection protocol for its Enterprise Survey 2017. A list of non-oil product exporting companies published by the Ecuadorian Ministry of Foreign Trade (Ministerio de Comercio Exterior; 2014) was the sampling frame of this study. Data were obtained using a telephone survey conducted by an external research company Ahamed & Noboa, Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2088461 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2088461 Page 7 of 20 interrelated. Further, we found that interpersonal trust, directly and indirectly, influences affective commitment (i.e., its effect is partially mediated by inter-organizational trust). We found that interpersonal trust and affective commitment are positively linked with the export relationship performance, supporting H5a and H5c. These findings, i.e., that the positive sentiments that arise from interpersonal relationships between boundary spanners (interpersonal trust) and the social motivation for continuity (affective commitment) increase relationship performance, which is aligned with conceptualizations that economic actions are embedded in interpersonal ties and relations (Granovetter, 1985; Huang et al., 2016; Peng & Luo, 2000). It also attests to a foundational premise of relationship marketing theory that positive interpersonal sentiments between managers can enhance performance (C. C. Bianchi & Saleh, 2011; Skarmeas et al., 2002). However, we found no statistically significant direct relationship between inter-organizational trust and relationship performance (H5b). This finding contends with some of the previous research where it is argued that cognitive trust maximizes the relational benefits (Mayer et al., 1995). However, it seems that this result, coupled with support for H3 and H5c, suggests that interorganizational trust still facilitates relational performance, but indirectly, i.e., its effect is mediated by affective commitment. Implying that an emotional/affectional concept mediates the effect of cognition-based trust, resulting in relational benefits (Dowell et al., 2015). As expected, relationship performance positively influences financial performance (H6), which is indicative that relationship performance channels the influence of affective commitment and its trust dimension facilitators to financial performance. This finding also supports the premise that pro-social forces are complementary to economic forces (Lee et al., 2007; Luo et al., 2015). Collectively, interpersonal trust, inter-organizational trust, and affective commitment can be viewed as energizing forces (Vanneste, 2016) that stimulate relational performance and financial performance. Each represents a “form of motivation that binds individuals or organizations to actions and decisions that have relatively long-term implications” (Bloemer et al., 2013, p. 364). 5.2. Moderating hypotheses While calculative commitment is an underlying motive for establishing an exchange relationship at the outset, the results of comparative assessments that continue thereafter mean that this dimension can represent a negative motivation to maintain an exchange relationship (T. Čater & Čater, 2010; Geyskens Table 4. Hypothesis tests Hypothesized relationships Result Main Effects H1: Interpersonal trust → Inter-organizational trust Supported H2: Interpersonal trust → Affective commitment Supported H3: Inter-organizational trust → Affective commitment Supported H5a: Interpersonal trust → Relationship performance Supported H5b: Inter-organizational trust → Relationship performance Not Supported H5c: Affective commitment → Relationship performance Supported H6: Relationship performance → Financial performance Supported Moderating effects H4a: Calculative commitment moderates the link of interpersonal trust and affective commitment Not Supported H4b: Calculative commitment moderates the link of inter-organizational trust and affective commitment Supported Ahamed & Noboa, Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2088461 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2088461 Page 14 of 20 et al., 1996; Liu et al., 2010). We found that calculative commitment had no moderating effect relative to the interpersonal trust-affective commitment relationship (H4a), whereas calculative commitment negatively moderated the effect of inter-organizational trust on affective commitment (H4b). Given the emotional and social basis of interpersonal trust versus the rational and pragmatic considerations of inter-organizational trust (Ashnai et al., 2016; Geyskens et al., 1996; Nielsen, 2004), the non-significant moderating effect of calculative commitment on interpersonal trust may be a reflection of a lack of alignment between emotional sentiments versus asocial, rational assessments. Oliveira and Lumineau (2019) argue that calculative commitment helps organizations stay focused and avoid adverse effects stemming from an excessive trust, emotional attachments, and other social bonds. This underscores the notions of gesellschaft versus gemeinschaft rationales for the continuity of exchange relationships. The former, represented by calculative commitment, focuses on rational assessments and task-oriented actions that lead to economic gains or achievement of instrumental goals that do not consider the emotion or sentiments of the partner. The latter, relating to affective commitment, is more concerned with emotional content and recognizing, valuing, and preserving an existing relationship (Gilliland & Bello, 2002). Reflecting the gesellschaft rationale for calculative commitment suggests that this commitment dimension negatively regulates the effect of inter-organizational trust on affective commitment as the organization considers pragmatic aspects, such as losing an existing importer or the possible loss of any dedicated one investments. In line with previous research, this negative moderating effect implies that despite indicating an attachment, calculative commitment does not guarantee any pro-social attitudes or behaviors between the exporting-importing firms. In other words, the linkage of two pro-social constructs (i.e., inter-organizational trust and affective commitment) appears to be regulated by pragmatism and the cognition-driven utilitarian evaluation of the exchange partner (Gilliland & Bello, 2002). We do not find any significant moderating effect of calculative commitment on the interpersonal trust–affective commitment link, though (H4b). We posit that the social foundations of interpersonal trust and affective commitment might become so strong that calculative commitment has no room to exert a further effect. Further, this might also be linked with the boundaryspanning attributes of top executives of the exporting organizations who play a bridging role that includes information processing (i.e., decoding, filtering, and translating the information) and problem-solving. From the boundary spanners’ perspectives, calculative commitment might be perceived as having a weak influence on the interpersonal ties between the exporting-importing managers (Huang et al., 2016). 5.3. Managerial implications This research also offers implications for managers and policymakers, especially in less developed countries. In general, choosing ongoing exchange relationships with importers rather than opting to forward integration can be an effective strategy to penetrate foreign markets and achieve performance goals. A network-based approach through exporter-importer dyads can help firms grow by granting them market access and additional information, knowledge, and resources (Riddle & Gillespie, 2003). In developing countries like Ecuador, formal business network structures are apt to be less wellestablished, so firms tend to rely on informal managerial ties or interpersonal relationships to foster organizational performance (Peng & Luo, 2000). Thus, when venturing beyond home markets, enacting strategies that embody building and maintaining solid relationships with importer exchange partners is not only an extension of exporters’ domestic approach but appears to be a more pronounced need. Our findings underscore that fostering a positive interfirm social climate through both trust dimensions and affective commitment creates favorable relationship dynamics that further facilitate financial performance. However, exporters should not focus solely on social aspects but must balance them against pragmatic considerations, where calculative commitment comes into play. Ahamed & Noboa, Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2088461 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2088461 Page 15 of 20 6. Limitations and future research directions We would be remiss if we did not acknowledge the several limitations of this study and directions that future research could address. We collected data from exporting members of export-import dyads and thus lack insights from importers’ perspectives. Future studies could comprise research designs to gather data on sentiments and behaviors from both exporters and importers. Another limitation is that we only collected data from a single country, which constrains the extent to which we can generalize from the findings of this study to other developing nations; still, another limitation is that our study employed a cross-sectional design. Thus, while we present a plausible and logical sequence to the variables, we cannot establish causality with certainty. Future research could employ longitudinal data to support time-series analyses that provide more insights. Future research could continue to explore the contingent effect of calculative commitment. What remains unknown is whether there might be an ideal level of calculative commitment or a tipping point above which an excessive degree of calculative commitment could convey a wrong signal that might overwhelm the effect of inter-organizational trust on affective commitment. This might be investigated using novel techniques like the response surface approach (Kim & Hsieh, 2003). Another direction of future research could be to take a relationship lifecycle approach and test the interaction of these relational and cognitive variables at different stages of the E-I relationship (Dowell et al., 2015; Shen et al., 2020). Another direction for research could be to investigate whether other moderator relationships exist. For example, is there an interactive effect between the two commitment dimensions relative to performance outcomes? Nevertheless, this study contributes to the export relationship marketing literature by providing a novel refinement to the trust–commitment–performance framework. We have offered a more nuanced portrayal of this chain by taking a multidimensional perspective of each of these constructs and testing for contingent effects. Funding The authors received no direct funding for this research. Author details AFM Jalal Ahamed 1 E-mail: [email protected] Fabrizio Noboa 2 1 School of Business, Hogskolan i Skovde, Sweden. 2 USFQ Business School, Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Ecuador. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Citation information Cite this article as: Interconnectedness of trust-commitment-export performance dimensions: A model of the contingent effect of calculative commitment, AFM Jalal Ahamed & Fabrizio Noboa, Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2088461. Endnotes 1. The items for each of these scales are available on request. 2. As part of our mediation analysis, an alternative model with direct paths from the interpersonal trust, interorganizational trust, and affective commitment to financial performance was run, revealing that none of these added paths were significant and gave additional credence to full mediation. References Ahamed, A. J., & Skallerud, K. (2013). Effect of distance and communication climate on export performance: The mediating role of relationship quality. Journal of Global Marketing, 26(5), 284–300. https://doi.org/10. 1080/08911762.2013.830170 Alteren, G., & Tudoran, A. A. (2016). Enhancing export performance: Betting on customer orientation, behavioral commitment, and communication. International Business Review, 25(1), 370–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2015.07.004 Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402. https://doi.org/10. 1177/002224377701400320 Ashnai, B., Henneberg, S. C., Naudé, P., & Francescucci, A. (2016). Inter-personal and inter-organizational trust in business relationships: An attitude–behavior–outcome model. Industrial Marketing Management, 52(4), 128–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.05. 020 Aykol, B., & Leonidou, L. C. (2018). Exporter-importer business relationships: Past empirical research and future directions. International Business Review, 27 (5), 1007–1021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev. 2018.03.001 Bansal, H. S., Irving, P. G., & Taylor, S. F. (2004). A three-component model of customer to service providers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(3), 234–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0092070304263332 Ahamed & Noboa, Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2088461 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2088461 Page 16 of 20 Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relations, 61(8), 1139–1160. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0018726708094863 Bergen, M., Dutta, S., & Walker, O. C., Jr. (1992). Agency relationships in marketing: A review of the implications and applications of agency and related theories. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 1–24. https:// doi.org/10.1177/002224299205600301 Bianchi, C. C., & Saleh, M. A. (2011). Antecedents of importer relationship performance in Latin America. Journal of Business Research, 64(3), 258–265. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.11.010 Bianchi, C., & Saleh, M. A. (2020). Investigating SME importer– foreign supplier relationship trust and commitment. Journal of Business Research, 119(14), 572–584. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.07.023 Bloemer, J., & Odekerken-Schröder, G. (2006). The role of employee relationship proneness in creating employee loyalty. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 24(4), 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 02652320610671342 Bloemer, J., Pluymaekers, M., & Odekerken, A. (2013). Trust and affective commitment as energizing forces for export performance. International Business Review, 22(2), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ibusrev.2012.05.002 Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 135910457000100301 Čater, B., & Zabkar, V. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of commitment in marketing research services: The client’s perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(7), 785–797. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.indmarman.2007.10.004 Čater, T., & Čater, B. (2010). Product and relationship quality influence on customer commitment and loyalty in B2B manufacturing relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(8), 1321–1333. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.02.006 Chang, S.-H., Wang, K.-Y., Chih, W.-H., & Tsai, W.-H. (2012). Building customer commitment in business-to-business markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(6), 940–950. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.indmarman.2011.11.026 Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In V. Esposito Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods and applications in marketing and related fields (pp. 655–690). Springer. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8_29 Chin, W. W., Thatcher, J. B., Wright, R. T., & Steel, D. (2013). Controlling for common method variance in PLS analysis: The measured latent marker variable approach. In Abdi, H., Chin, W.W., Esposito Vinzi, V., Russolillo, G. and Trinchera, L. (Eds.), New perspectives in partial least squares and related methods (pp. 231–239). Springer. Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E. L., Daniels, S. R., & Hall, A. V. (2017). Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 479–516. https://doi.org/10.5465/ annals.2015.0099 De Ruyter, K., Moorman, L., & Lemmink, J. (2001). Antecedents of commitment and trust in customer– supplier relationships in high technology markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 30(3), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(99)00091-7 Delbufalo, E., & Wilding, R. (2012). Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships: A systematic literature review and a meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17(4), 377–402. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 13598541211246549 Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 35–51 https://doi.org/10. 1177/002224299706100203. Dowell, D., Morrison, M., & Heffernan, T. (2015). The changing importance of affective trust and cognitive trust across the relationship lifecycle: A study of business-to-business relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 44(1), 119–130. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2014.10.016 Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 002224298705100202 Ecuadorian Ministry of Foreign Trade (Ministerio de Comercio Exterior). (2014). Plan Estratégico Institucional. Retrieved February 26, 2018, from. https://www.comercioexterior.gob.ec/wp-content /uploads/downloads/2015/07/Plan-EstrategicoInstitucional-2014-2017-4.pdf Fastoso, F., & Whitelock, J. (2011). Why is so little marketing research on Latin America published in high quality journals and what can we do about it? Lessons from a Delphi study of authors who have succeeded. International Marketing Review, 28(4), 435–449. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 02651331111149967 Fischer, R., & Mansell, A. (2009). Commitment across cultures: A meta-analytical approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(8), 1339–1358. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.14 Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B. E., Scheer, L. K., & Kumar, N. (1996). The effects of trust and interdependence on relationship commitment: A trans-atlantic study. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(4), 303–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8116(96) 00006-7 Gilliland, D. I., & Bello, D. C. (2002). Two sides to attitudinal commitment: The effect of calculative and loyalty commitment on enforcement mechanisms in distribution channels. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(1), 24–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 03079450094306 Gounaris, S. P. (2005). Trust and commitment influences on customer retention: Insights from business-to-business services. Journal of Business Research, 58(2), 126–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(03)00122-X Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510. https://doi.org/ 10.1086/228311 Guo, L., Chen, C., & Xu, H. (2016). Forging relationships to coproduce: A consumer commitment model in an extended service encounter. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 31(1), 380–388. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.05.004 Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/ MTP1069-6679190202 Hair, J. F., Jr, Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR10-2013-0128 Ahamed & Noboa, Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2088461 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2088461 Page 17 of 20 Hayes, A. F., & Scharkow, M. (2013). The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of the indirect effect in statistical mediation analysis: Does method really matter? Psychological Science, 24(10), 1918–1927. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613480187 Heide, J. B., & Wathne, K. H. (2006). Friends, businesspeople, and relationship roles: A conceptual framework and a research agenda. Journal of Marketing, 70 (3), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.70.3.090 Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8 Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116 (1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382 Hessling, V., Åsberg, M., & Roxenhall, T. (2018). Relationship commitment and value creation in sponsorship relationships. Journal of Business-toBusiness Marketing, 25(2), 137–160. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/1051712X.2018.1454646 Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10705519909540118 Huang, Y., Luo, Y., Liu, Y., & Yang, Q. (2016). An investigation of interpersonal ties in interorganizational exchanges in emerging markets: A boundary-spanning perspective. Journal of Management, 42(6), 1557–1587. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0149206313511115 Jain, M., Khalil, S., Johnston, W. J., & Cheng, J. M. S. (2014). The performance implications of power–trust relationship: The moderating role of commitment in the supplier–retailer relationship. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 312–321. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.indmarman.2013.09.001 Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. (1990). The mechanism of internationalisation. International Marketing Review, 7(4), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 02651339010137414 John, G., & Reve, T. (1982). The reliability and validity of key informant data from dyadic relationships in marketing channels. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 517–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 002224378201900412 Johnston, D. A., McCutcheon, D. M., Stuart, F. I., & Kerwood, H. (2004). Effects of supplier trust on performance of cooperative supplier relationships. Journal of Operations Management, 22(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2003.12.001 Kemp, E. A., Borders, A. L., Anaza, N. A., & Johnston, W. J. (2018). The heart in organizational buying: Marketers’ understanding of emotions and decision-making of buyers. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 33(1), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-06-2017-0129 Kim, S. K., & Hsieh, P.-H. (2003). Interdependence and its consequences in distributor-supplier relationships: A distributor perspective through response surface approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(1), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.40.1.101.19130 Kim, S. K., Hibbard, J. D., & Swain, S. D. (2011). Commitment in marketing channels: Mitigator or aggravator of the effects of destructive acts? Journal of Retailing, 87(4), 521–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jretai.2011.09.006 Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration (IJEC), 11(4), 1–10 doi:10.4018/ijec.2015100101. Krause, D., Luzzini, D., & Lawson, B. (2018). Building the case for a single key informant in supply chain management survey research. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 54(1), 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12159 Krishnan, T., & Poulose, S. (2016). Response rate in industrial surveys conducted in India: Trends and implications. IIMB Management Review, 28(2), 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2016.05.001 Lages, L. F. (2000). A conceptual framework of the determinants of export performance: Reorganizing key variables and shifting contingencies in export marketing. Journal of Global Marketing, 13(3), 29–51. https://doi.org/10.1300/J042v13n03_03 Lariviere, B., Keiningham, T. L., Cooil, B., Aksoy, L., & Malthouse, E. G. (2014). A longitudinal examination of customer commitment and loyalty. Journal of Service Management, 25(1), 75–100. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/JOSM-01-2013-0025 Lee, D., Lee, M., & Ulgado, F. M. (2007). The effects of cultural familiarity and value similarity on benevolence in the export-import relationship. Seoul Journal of Business, 13(1), 99–123. https://doi.org/10.35152/ snusjb.2007.13.1.005 Li, D., Browne, G. J., & Chau, P. Y. (2006). An empirical investigation of website use using a commitmentbased model. Decision Sciences, 37(3), 427–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5414.2006.00133.x Liu, Y., Su, C., Li, Y., & Liu, T. (2010). Managing opportunism in a developing interfirm relationship: The interrelationship of calculative and loyalty commitment. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(5), 844–852. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.indmarman.2009.09.004 Lopes, H. (2016). Agency theory and social interactions at work. Review of Social Economy, 74(4), 349–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2016.1171381 Lowry, P. B., & Gaskin, J. (2014). Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) for building and testing behavioral causal theory: When to choose it and how to use it. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 57(2), 123–146. https://doi.org/10. 1109/TPC.2014.2312452 Lui, S. S., Wong, Y., & Liu, W. (2009). Asset specificity roles in interfirm cooperation: Reducing opportunistic behavior or increasing cooperative behavior? Journal of Business Research, 62(11), 1214–1219. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.08.003 Luo, Y., Liu, Y., Yang, Q., Maksimov, V., & Hou, J. (2015). Improving performance and reducing cost in buyer– supplier relationships: The role of justice in curtailing opportunism. Journal of Business Research, 68(3), 607–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.08.011 Mahmoud, M. A., Adams, M., Abubakari, A., Commey, N. O., & Kastner, A. N. A. (2020). Social media resources and export performance: The role of trust and commitment. International Marketing Review, 37(2), 273–297. https:// doi.org/10.1108/IMR-02-2019-0084 Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10. 2307/258792 Medlin, C. J. (2003). Relationship performance: A relationship level construct. In I. Snehota & R. Fiocca (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Annual IMP Conference: 2003 (Lugano, Switzerland.) (pp. 1–13). Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Ahamed & Noboa, Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2088461 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2088461 Page 18 of 20 Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Sage Publications Ltd. Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11(3), 299–326. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S1053-4822(00)00053-X Möllering, G., & Sydow, J. (2018). Trust trap? Selfreinforcing processes in the constitution of interorganizational trust. In M. Sasaki (Ed.), Trust in Contemporary Society (pp. 141–160). Brill. Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships between providers and users of market research: The dynamics of trust within and between organizations. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 314–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 002224379202900303 Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 002224299405800302 Mouzas, S., Henneberg, S., Naudé, P., & Arnott, D. C. (2007). Trust and reliance in business relationships. European Journal of Marketing, 41(9/10), 1016–1032. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560710773327 Mysen, T., & Tronvoll, B. (2020). The influence on export performance of performance ambiguity among foreign sales agents. European Business Review, 32(2), 277–296. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-02-2018-0041 Nielsen, B. B. (2004). The role of trust in collaborative relationships: A multi-dimensional approach. M@n@gement, 7(3), 239–256. https://doi.org/10. 3917/mana.073.0239 O’Toole, T., & Donaldson, B. (2002). Relationship performance dimensions of buyer–supplier exchanges. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 8(4), 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0969-7012(02)00008-4 Oliveira, N., & Lumineau, F. (2019). The dark side of interorganizational relationships: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 45(1), 231–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318804027 Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., Grewal, D., & Evans, K. R. (2006). Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.70.4.136 Park, S. H., & Luo, Y. (2001). Guanxi and organizational dynamics: Organizational networking in Chinese firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22(5), 455–477. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.167 Paul, J., & Mas, E. (2019). Toward a 7-p framework for international marketing. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 28(8), 681–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0965254X.2019.1569111 Peng, M. W., & Luo, Y. (2000). Managerial ties and firm performance in a transition economy: The nature of a micro-macro link. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 486–501 https://doi.org/10.5465/1556406. Riddle, L. A., & Gillespie, K. (2003). Information sources for new ventures in the Turkish clothing export industry. Small Business Economics, 20(1), 105–120. https:// doi.org/10.1023/A:1020252606058 Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2015). Smartpls 3. Smartpls. http://www.smartpls.com Samiee, S., & Chirapanda, S. (2019). International marketing strategy in emerging-market exporting firms. Journal of International Marketing, 27(1), 20–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069031X18812731 Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Pick, M., Liengaard, B. D., Radomir, L., & Ringle, C. M. (2022). Progress in partial least squares structural equation modeling use in marketing research in the last decade. Psychology & Marketing, 39(5), 1035–1064. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21640 Saura, J. R., Palos-Sanchez, P., & Blanco-González, A. (2019). The importance of information service offerings of collaborative crms on decision-making in B2Bb marketing. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 35(3), 470–482. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JBIM-12-2018-0412 Saxton, T. (1997). The effect of partner and relationship characteristics on alliance outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 40(2), 443–461 https://doi.org/ 10.5465/256890. Schilke, O., & Cook, K. S. (2013). A cross-level process theory of trust development in interorganizational relationships. Strategic Organization, 11(3), 281–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127012472096 Sharma, N., Young, L., & Wilkinson, I. (2006). The commitment mix: Dimensions of commitment in international trading relationships in India. Journal of International Marketing, 14(3), 64–91. https://doi.org/ 10.1509/jimk.14.3.64 Shen, L., Su, C., Zheng, X. V., & Zhuang, G. (2020). Between contracts and trust: Disentangling the safeguarding and coordinating effects over the relationship life cycle. Industrial Marketing Management, 84(1), 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.06.006 Skarmeas, D., Katsikeas, C. S., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2002). Drivers of commitment and its impact on performance in cross-cultural buyer-seller relationships: The importer’s perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(4), 757–783. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8491043 Styles, C., Patterson, P. G., & Ahmed, F. (2008). A relational model of export performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(5), 880–900. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400385 Tan, Q., & Sousa, C. M. (2015). Leveraging marketing capabilities into competitive advantage and export performance. International Marketing Review, 32(1), 78–102. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-12-2013-0279 Vanneste, B. S. (2016). From interpersonal to interorganisational trust: The role of indirect reciprocity. Journal of Trust Research, 6(1), 7–36. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/21515581.2015.1108849 Wong, K.-K.-K. (2013). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin, 24(1), 1–32 http://mar keting-bulletin.massey.ac.nz/V24/MB_V24_T1_Wong. pdf. World Bank Enterprise Survey (2017), Washington DC, World Bank. Retrieved February 1, 2018, from https:// microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/3396 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. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.2.141 Zaheer, A., & Harris, J. (2006). lnterorganizational trust. In O. Shenkar & J. Reuer (Eds.), Handbook of Strategic Alliances (pp. 169–197). Sage. Ahamed & Noboa, Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2088461 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2088461 Page 19 of 20 © 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. Cogent Business & Management (ISSN: 2331-1975) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group. Publishing with Cogent OA ensures: • Immediate, universal access to your article on publication • High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online • Download and citation statistics for your article • Rapid online publication • Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards • Retention of full copyright of your article • Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article • Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com Ahamed & Noboa, Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2088461 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2088461 Page 20 of 20