Content uploaded by Jeffrey K. Pinto
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jeffrey K. Pinto on Aug 22, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Trust in projects: An empirical assessment of
owner/contractor relationships
Jeffrey K. Pinto
a,*
, Dennis P. Slevin
b
, Brent English
c
a
Black School of Business, Penn State Erie, Station Road, Erie, PA 16563, United States
b
Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, United States
c
AMEC Inc., 900 Amec Place, 801 – 6[th] Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 3W3
Received 25 April 2008; received in revised form 15 August 2008; accepted 23 September 2008
Abstract
A great deal of literature has pointed to the importance of trust as a facilitator of positive relationships among project stakeholders.
Trust is argued to enhance a variety of intra-organizational relationships, including project team dynamics, top management support,
and coordination across functional departments. Likewise, trust is argued to improve the inter-organizational relationships among prin-
cipal actors in project development, such as contractors, owners, and suppliers. This paper reports on the results of an empirical study
that investigated the impact of trust between project owners and contractors in a number of large construction projects in Canada. We
operationalized trust along the Hartman [Hartman FT. The role of trust in project management. In: Slevin DP, Cleland DI, Pinto JK,
editors. The frontiers of project management research. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute; 2002, p. 225–35] dimensions
as incorporating both competence and integrity and compared the perspectives of project contractors and owners. Using regression and
path analysis, we analyzed the differential effects of competence and integrity trust on enhanced owner/contractor relationships and pro-
ject success. Our findings indicate that trust has different meanings for contractors and owners, as its impact on satisfaction with the
relationship and positive project outcomes varies depending upon which group is surveyed.
Ó2008 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Projects; Trust; Owner/contractor relationships; Construction
1. Introduction
In recent years, a considerable literature has emerged on
the impact of trust on successful project management.
Trust is used as one of the metrics that defines the nature
of inter-organizational relationships found frequently
within project settings. As such, it is reasonably argued
to have a strong positive influence on the strength of
inter-organizational relationships and ultimately, on pro-
ject success. Indeed a growing literature, albeit mostly the-
oretical, has emerged to examine the nature of trust,
partnering, and project relationship building
[5,20,22,25,32,33,35]. Notably lacking, however, have been
empirical studies within the project management context to
verify the importance of trust on project success (for a
notable exception, see [12]).
A variety of work has pointed to the advantages that
derive to project organizations from exploiting trust-based
relationships. First, Lewicki and Bunker [28] note that trust
is a critical success element to most business, professional,
and employment relationships. Trust is shown to cement
the critical stakeholder relationships that often determine
the success of a project [2,4,16]. Alternatively, in examining
the nature of relationship building among critical project
actors, Jensen et al. [20] identify trust as emerging when
long-lasting relations among principals combine with good
reputations. Hoffman et al. [18] identify the human dimen-
sion of project management (trust, cohesiveness, communi-
cation, etc.) to be the single most important determinant of
project success. Similarly, trust is developed through com-
0263-7863/$34.00 Ó2008 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.09.010
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 814 898 6430; fax: +1 814 898 6223.
E-mail addresses: jkp4@psu.edu (J.K. Pinto), dpslevin@katz.pitt.edu
(D.P. Slevin), Brent.English@amec.com (B. English).
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 638–648
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman
munication and communication is important for successful
projects [38,42,48]. Thus, trust is seen and regularly
acknowledged as a critical component for building and
maintaining healthy, cooperative partnerships in projects.
Finally, trust has been shown to be enhanced through
reward structures that influence parties’ perceptions of each
others’ motives and the value of joint performance [14].
It has been noted by Kadefors [21] and others (e.g.,
[30,47]) that trust is a complex concept and as a result,
can have a variety of meanings, depending upon the situa-
tion and the actors in relationship. Hartman [17], for exam-
ple, specifically avoids positing a general definition of trust,
preferring to focus on the manner in which trust operates
between parties in cooperative ventures. We take as our
starting point the definition of trust proposed by Rousseau
et al. [40, p. 395]:
‘‘Trust is a psychological state comprising the intention
to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectation
of the intentions or behaviors of another”.
Trust, then, is not the same thing as inter-organizational
cooperation as cooperation can be induced through fear of
sanctions or other coercive measures. In other words, com-
pliance, as a behavior, does not signal the existence of trust.
Further, cooperation may simply be contractual in nature;
two or more organizations enter a sharing relationship
based on mutual economic incentive. Trust, on the other
hand, first emerges as a psychological state that then impels
or encourages like behaviors to follow. Finally, trust points
to a positive initial state between individuals or organiza-
tions. From this positive state cooperation or other inter-
organizational relationships are encouraged.
Aubert and Kelsey [1] echo some of these thoughts in
stating that trust in a contractual relationship can facilitate
the exchange of information and bring about a reduction in
control and its associated costs since the parties do not
have to fear any manifestations of opportunism. The for-
mation of trust is desirable since it reduces the transaction
costs of monitoring and controlling, hence making the
working relationship more efficient. Klein Woolthuis
et al. [23] also address the distinction between trust and
contracting, noting as the result of several longitudinal
studies that contracting is not a substitute for trust per
se, but the content of a contract frequently reveals insight
into the nature of inter-firm relationships. The distinction
between trust and control is also made by Costa and
Bijlsma-Frankma [8] who note that while the relationship
between trust and control is a complex one, control does
not operate in opposition to trust but as a necessary com-
plementary means of governance.
Trust can operate on a number of different levels (both
intra- and inter-organizationally) as they relate to projects.
That is, trust relationships emerge both within an organiza-
tion (among functional groups) and across organizational
boundaries (between organizations working together on
joint activities of concern). First, trust has been shown to
be critical to maintaining a strong, positive project team
atmosphere [9–11]. Second, trust is important both across
hierarchical levels and between departments within the
organization; for example, trust between the project man-
ager, team, and top management is critical for project suc-
cess [37]. Likewise, research on the impact of various
organizational structure types, such as matrix, argues for
the need for trust-based relationships in negotiation for
resources or critical project support [26,27]. Thus, trust is
critical within an organization as it seeks to develop pro-
jects. A third, critical setting for trust is in the inter-organi-
zational setting, as different organizations are required to
work together in partnership as they develop a project of
mutual benefit [4,22]. These inter-organizational settings
include a number of different ventures; for example, (1)
projects with multiple contractors such as the US Joint
Strike Fighter consortium, and (2) turnkey construction
projects in which a general contractor develops a plant or
facility for the owner.
As Kadefors et al. [22] have noted, the literature on rela-
tional contracting is enormous, combining work on supply
chain management, buyer-supplier relationships, partner-
ing projects, and inter-organizational information sharing
and cooperation. Trust, in this context, has been viewed
as a buttress against excessive dependence upon formal
contractual relationships between project partners. Mani-
gart et al. [29] are of the opinion that it is impossible to
negotiate and explain every single future contingency in a
formal document; therefore contracts are always incom-
plete. They go on to suggest that imposing too many con-
ditions and reporting requirements infringes upon
managers’ desire to feel in control and may be interpreted
by them as a signal of distrust. In an environment of
incomplete contracts, trust between both parties is essential
to help overcome control problems. There is need for a
minimum level of both trust and control in order to have
confidence in the other party; therefore trust and control
play different roles in the relationship. Aubert and Kelsey
[1] echo these thoughts as they state that trust in a contrac-
tual relationship can facilitate the exchange of information
and bring about a reduction in control and its associated
costs since the parties do not have to fear any manifesta-
tions of opportunism. The formation of trust is desirable
since it reduces the costs of monitoring and controlling,
hence making the working relationship more efficient.
Kadefors [21] noted a similar but converse implication
for trust in construction projects, arguing that traditional
contractual arrangements can actually counteract the spon-
taneous development of trust among partners. Further, she
posited that the desire to over-emphasize the influence of
economic incentives and deterrents on behavior makes cli-
ents (e.g., owners) feel vulnerable in relations with contrac-
tors. This point is important because it also notes the
implicit differential effects of trust from the perspectives of
owners and contractors. In short, the behaviors that may
facilitate trust in owners are not necessarily the same factors
that will enhance trust in contractors (see, for example, [19]).
J.K. Pinto et al. / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 638–648 639
Ultimately, the critical nature of trust in project man-
agement is effectively summed up by Hartman [17, p. 228]:
‘‘A particular challenge in a project environment lies in
the temporary nature of the organization. The time
available to build trust is severely limited by the window
in which the project must be completed. It is further
hampered by the fact that there is a high degree of ran-
domness in the assembly of the organization, especially
if we include all suppliers and contractors involved. Not
only do we face the challenges of inter-company lan-
guage and cultural differences, but also we probably
have teams and groups of people who are involved for
one reason only. They are available and have some or
all of the necessary skills to complete the project. This
and other specific challenges of project delivery put spe-
cial pressures on trust building that an operational envi-
ronment does not necessarily have”.
2. The nature and forms of trust
Several alternative models of enacted trust have been
proposed. Indeed, a classic paper on trust by Mayer et al.
[30] sought to identify the underlying common dimensions
shared by much of the literature to date, emphasizing the
themes of benevolence, ability, and integrity. These models
seek to answer the forms that trust takes in relationships
between project partners. While Mayer et al. [30] empha-
sized three distinct grounds for the emergence of trust,
other models have opted for a more simplified conceptual-
ization, pointing to two distinct forms of trust: affective
and cognitive [6,7,31,44]. Affective trust is perceived as
belief in reciprocal concern or emotional bonds that bind
parties together. Cognitive trust, on the other hand, centers
on belief in the others’ ability, dependability, or compe-
tence to perform a task for the mutual advantage of both
parties.
Three notable models of trust are Hartman’s [15] model,
Rousseau et al.’s [40] framework, and Lewicki and Bun-
ker’s conceptualization [28]. These conceptualizations are
particularly intriguing because they assume different rea-
sons why trust should emerge and the forms it will then
take. As identified by Hartman, who draws on earlier clas-
sic literature, such as Mayer et al. [30], three distinct but
related types of trust represent specific dimensions of this
construct.
Competence trust answers the question, ‘‘Can you do the
job (or the work)?”For example, competence trust is
needed when selecting a specific technical vendor, as one
wants to be sure that the engineering or technical service
will be completed competently and properly. When compe-
tence trust exists, one may infer that effective communica-
tion typically leads to project success, as project team
members are normally reassured that the future holds an
appropriate technical solution for their project.
Integrity trust, or ethical trust, answers the question,
‘‘Will you consistently look after my interests?”For exam-
ple, how we behave in contracting (lump sum, reimburs-
able, etc.) often depends on the level of integrity trust we
have, but does not likely affect our communication. This
picture will be different if we have concerns over being
charged for unnecessary work, in which case our communi-
cation will likely take on a different tone: we will commu-
nicate our concern and set up a defense system against
the perceived risk. The completeness of the communica-
tion, elimination of defensive behavior (such as hoarding
key information), and willingness to volunteer suggestions
will only come as integrity, or ethical, trust is built.
Intuitive trust, the third and slightly more volatile type of
trust, answers the complex question, ‘‘Does it feel right?”
Two parts to this question have emerged; the first part is
based on a raw emotional response while the second part
is often referred to as ‘‘gut feeling.”Hartman [17] acknowl-
edges that this third form of trust is less concrete than the
first two but suggests that successful senior managers and
executives use gut feeling as the basis for virtually all their
decisions. These decisions are then post-rationalized based
on the other two types of trust, competence trust and integ-
rity trust, in order to justify the decision and to protect the
organization and the individuals for audit and accountabil-
ity purposes.
Rousseau et al.’s [40] conceptualization of trust posited
three basic forms. The first is calculus-based trust, in which
trust is a rational choice deriving from the assumption that
the trustee is believed to seek to perform an action that is
beneficial to the trusting party. Thus, in calculus-based
model, trust is motivated solely by self-interest and the
belief that one party has economic or contractual motives
to honor their commitments. The second form of trust to
emerge from her conceptualization is relational trust, based
on the comfort level that emerges through repeated interac-
tions over time. Direct personal experience serves as the
principal means by which one party has learned to be able
to trust the other. Finally, institution-based trust consists of
the perceptions that important institutions such as cultural
rules, legal systems, and societal norms play a role in estab-
lishing the degree of willingness we have to trust the inten-
tions of others. Consequently, institution-based trust can
vary dramatically depending upon the culture or country
studied.
A final model of trust argues that trust builds across
three levels [24,28,41]. That is, at its lowest form, trust
takes the form of deterrence-based trust, where both parties
can be trusted to keep their word. Their primary motiva-
tion for maintaining trust is to avoid, or deter, the retribu-
tion that would occur should they break their word. The
second level of trust is termed knowledge-based and it is
predicated on the idea that parties know each other suffi-
ciently well that their behavior toward each other is pre-
dictable. Knowledge-based trust relies on information
rather than fear as its motivator. Finally, the highest level
of trust that can emerge between parties is labeled identifi-
cation-based trust.This form of trust develops when one
party has ‘‘fully internalized the other’s preferences”[41:
640 J.K. Pinto et al. / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 638–648
p. 371] and acts in ways that demonstrate appreciation of
the other’s viewpoint. See Table 1 for a summary of these
forms of trust.
As portrayed in the preceding paragraphs, when trust
levels are low, it is likely that the well being of the
owner/contractor working relationship is at risk and dis-
putes between the owner and contractor will arise. When
owner/contractor working relationships approach an
unhealthy state, one can only assume that the likelihood
of project success decreases.
For the purposes of this research, a successful project
outcome will be defined as one that achieves project delive-
rables/objectives (including scope, safety, and quality) in a
timely manner, within budget, and in accordance with
stakeholder expectations. Project deliverables, objectives,
schedule and cost are inherent to stakeholder expectations;
therefore compliance with stakeholder expectations is defi-
nitely the strongest feature of this definition. If stakeholder
expectations are not satisfied, the project outcome will not
be considered successful.
3. Conceptual framework
As the discussion above indicated, a number of forms of
trust can be expected to act as facilitators of enhanced
working relationships among project stakeholders, which
in turn should have a positive affect on project outcomes.
We selected Hartman’s [15] model of integrity, competence,
and intuitive forms of trust because they were purposely
developed to address trust within a project setting to a
greater degree than the theoretical work of Rousseau
et al. [40] and Lewicki and Bunker [28] models. Rousseau’s
model has important conceptual implications but the forms
of trust they identified, such as relational or institution-
based, can be difficult to relate to projects for these reasons:
(1) projects involve finite activities and may bring together
organizations having no previous experience with each
other (negating relational trust effects) and, (2) a busi-
ness-specific setting, such as construction project manage-
ment, can be initiated in many settings around the world.
It is nearly impossible to propose institution-based norms
that are generalizable to multiple settings; indeed, the
notion of relation-based trust presupposes variations in dif-
ferent environments. Likewise, Lewicki and Bunker’s
model is intriguing but it is based on a progressive, histor-
ical relationship; that is, its underlying assumption is that
parties know each other over a period of time sufficient
to move from one form of trust to another. Thus, rather
than looking at different types of trust simultaneously, their
model predicts that parties move through the stages until
arriving at the final, identification-based trust stage.
Our first hypotheses addressed in this study were:
H1: Greater levels of integrity, competence, and intui-
tive trust will lead to greater levels of satisfaction with
working relationships among owners and contractors.
H2: Greater levels of integrity, competence, and intui-
tive trust will lead to greater levels of project success.
The second element in the conceptual framework of
interest is the proposed distinction between the two key
stakeholders in a construction project environment: the
contractor and the owner. There is an implicit and reason-
able assumption that owners and contractors are liable to
perceive the nature of their relationship differently precisely
because they are motivated by different and often compet-
ing goals [13,32]. For the owner, for example, the keys driv-
ers of project success are to secure the completion of a
fully-functioning facility for low cost, within a reasonable
time frame. Moreover, research suggests that they tend to
put more emphasis on satisfying the needs of various stake-
holders when assessing project success [3]. For the contrac-
tor, the project’s goals also involve keeping costs low,
honoring the letter of contractual obligations, providing
functionality within agreed-upon parameters, and deliver-
ing the project on time. However, because of obvious dif-
ferences in perception, the decision of whether or not to
trust the other party is likely to vary depending upon the
perspective undertaken. Thus, our third hypothesis
addressed this potential difference in perceptions:
H3: The relative importance of integrity, competence,
and intuitive forms of trust for building project relation-
ships and gaining greater project success will differ
between contractors and owners.
Our research model argued that the impact of trust
would be first realized through enhanced owner/contractor
Table 1
Alternate models of trust.
Hartman [15] Rousseau et al. [40] Lewicki and Bunker [28]
1. Integrity trust – ethical trust or the belief
that one party will routinely look after the
interests of another party
1. Calculus-based trust – trust is motivated by self-
interest or economic incentives
1. Deterrence-base trust – parties can be trusted
to keep their word in order to avoid sanctions
for violation
2. Competence trust – the belief that the other
party has the ability to perform the work
assigned
2. Relational trust – trust emerging through
repeated, direct interactions that spark a comfort
level between parties
2. Knowledge-based trust – parties know each
other well enough that their behavior toward
each other is predictable
3. Intuitive trust – the emotional or ‘‘gut
feeling”that one party can trust the
intentions and actions of the other party
3. Institution-based trust – the role played by legal
institutions, cultural and societal norms in
promoting trust within a culture or country
3. Identification-based trust – mutual
understanding is developed to the point where
parties can act on each other’s behalf
J.K. Pinto et al. / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 638–648 641
relationships. These stronger relationships would then be
expected to positively impact on project outcomes. The
model, as it derives from our literature review, is shown
in Fig. 1.
4. Methods
4.1. Sample
The sample for this study was selected from a set of pro-
ject owners and contractors for 44 large construction pro-
jects in northwest Canada. These projects were based on a
convenience sample and were identified by one of the
authors from a set of ongoing, large construction projects
within his organization. Owner representatives were
defined as senior, on-site executives for the firm that had
contracted to have a large facility constructed. ‘‘Contrac-
tors”represented a large, multinational EPC (engineering,
procurement, construction) firm hired to develop and con-
struct the facilities. The average project budget was $853
million (Canadian) and average project duration was 54
months. A total of 150 respondents were identified (75 con-
tractor representatives and 75 owner representatives), of
whom 92 returned completed surveys for a 61% response
rate. The breakdown by contractors and owners was: 48
contractors and 44 owners. The average contractor respon-
dent reported 23.0 years of experience in projects and the
average owner respondent had 15.1 years of project
experience.
We also asked respondents to indicate the stage at which
their project was currently residing when they filled out the
questionnaire. The results are shown below in Table 2 for
both sub-sets studied:
4.2. The measures
In this study, we employed elements of surveys that had
been previously developed by both Hartman [17] and Pinto
and Slevin [36]. For the survey items, please refer to
Appendix A at the end of the paper. Hartman’s work
was used as the basis for the trust (20 items) and satisfac-
tion with relationship (seven items) measures and Pinto
and Slevin’s Project Implementation Profile (PIP) was used
to measure overall project performance (nine items). The
survey used a 7-point Likert scale, with responses ranging
from ‘‘strongly agree”to ‘‘strongly disagree.”A sample
copy of the questionnaire is included in Appendix A.
A principal components factor analysis was conducted
on the scales to determine their construct validity. The
results of the test for integrity, intuitive, and competence
trust are shown in Table Three and indicated that intuitive
trust did not load as a single measure, showing significant
cross-loading with Integrity trust. Two items did not load
significantly on any of the three proposed dimensions of
trust and so were dropped from the subsequent analysis.
Thus, for the balance of this paper, we will be reporting
on two forms of trust: Integrity and Competence. Their
eigenvalues were 8.49 (47.8% of variance explained) and
1.38 (7.7% of variance explained), respectively. Total vari-
ance explained through the two-factor model was 55.5%
(see Table 3).
4.2.1. Trust
Competence trust was measured with a 4-item scale.
Sample statements for this measure included, ‘‘I am certain
that the other party has the ability to perform produc-
tively,”and ‘‘Given the other parties’ track record, I see
no reason to doubt their competence and preparation for
future projects.”The test of internal reliability using Cron-
bach’s alpha was .94. Integrity trust was measured with a
14-item scale. Sample statements included, ‘‘I believe the
other party will keep their word throughout the life of
the project,”and ‘‘I feel confident that the other party
has high levels of integrity.”Cronbach’s alpha for this scale
was .76. All reliabilities are within acceptable ranges [34].
Owner Trust
•Competence Trust
Integrity Trust
Intuitive Trust
Contractor Trust
Competence Trust
Integrity Trust
Intuitive Trust
Satisfaction
With Working
Relationship
Project
Success
+
+
+
+
+
•
•
•
•
•
Fig. 1. Conceptual framework.
Table 2
Responses by life cycle stage.
Stage Contractors Owners
Conceptualization 12 6
Planning 6 8
Execution 30 26
Termination 0 4
642 J.K. Pinto et al. / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 638–648
4.2.2. Satisfaction with working relationship
We assessed the respondents’ satisfaction with the own-
er/contractor working relationship using a 7-item scale.
Sample statements for this scale included, ‘‘I enjoyed asso-
ciating with the other party throughout the life of the pro-
ject,”and ‘‘I would have to say that we have made
considerable emotional investment in our relationship.”
The reliability for this scale (Cronbach’s alpha) was .90.
4.2.3. Project outcomes
The project outcomes scale of the PIP was used to
assess project performance. For this study, we used 10
items to assess performance in terms of budget and sche-
dule adherence, technical performance of the project, and
stakeholder satisfaction with the project’s outcome. Cron-
bach’s alpha for this scale was .86.
4. Results
Table 4 shows the correlation matrix for the four
research variables in this study. As can be seen, all vari-
ables were highly intercorrelated with each other
(p< .01), suggesting that there exists some degree of asso-
ciation among these constructs.
In order to test the conceptual model (Fig. 1), we broke
the sample down into separate contractor and owner sub-
sets to test their differential attitudes toward these elements
of trust and their impact on project relationships and ulti-
mate outcomes. Table 5 gives the results of the two-stage
regression analysis for the owner sub-sample. The first
regression model shows the effect of integrity and compe-
tence on owners’ satisfaction with working relationships.
As can be seen, both integrity trust (standardized regres-
sion coefficient = .60, p< .01) and competence trust (stan-
dardized regression coefficient = .39, p< .01) are strongly
predictive of satisfaction with working relationships for
the owner sub-sample, with an overall adjusted model r-
square of .63 (F= 29.78, p< .01). The second regression
model in Table 5 refers to the second phase of the regres-
sion model; namely, the impact of satisfaction with work-
ing relationship on project success. The analysis
demonstrates that working relationship does have a strong
predictive impact on project outcomes, with an adjusted r-
square of .12 (F= 4.69, p< .05). Finally, the third set of
results in Tables 5 and 6 represents a path model to identify
the significant effects of the exogenous variables (integrity
and competence trust) on both satisfaction with working
relationships and project outcomes. Interestingly, only
integrity trust showed significant direct effects on project
outcomes while competence and integrity trust were signif-
icant predictors of satisfaction with working relationships,
which in turn was a predictor of project outcomes (see
Fig. 2).
Table 3
Results of factor loadings for trust dimensions
Loadings
Factor one Factor two Factor three
Var 1 .825 .005 .075
Var 2 .846 .176 .230
Var 3 .806 .090 .141
Var 4 .820 .140 .056
Var 5 .737 .291 .269
Var 6 .878 .008 .110
Var 7 .575 .402 .109
Var 8 .704 .446 .184
Var 9 .517 .372 .348
Var 10 .404 .604 .100
Var 11 .312 .586 .413
Var 12
*
.349 .112 .218
Var 13 .551 .053 .348
Var 14
*
.370 .229 .266
Var 15 .631 .299 .266
Var 16 .756 .211 .143
Var 17 .831 .228 .107
Var 18 .758 .150 .026
Var 19 .334 .634 .011
Var 20 .221 .596 .045
*
Items dropped from subsequent study.
Table 4
Correlation matrix.
1234
1. Integrity trust (.94)
2. Competence trust .72 (.76)
3. Working relationships .73 .65 (.90)
4. Project Success .44 .45 .40 (.86)
All correlations significant at 0.01 level, tests were two-tailed, N= 92,
alphas for each construct are shown on the diagonals.
Table 5
Regressions for owner sub-sample.
Variable Standardized coefficient p-value
Part one: impact of integrity and competence on relationship
Integrity .60 <.01
Competence .39 <.01
Model F-value = 29.78, p< .01, adjusted r-square = .63
Part two: impact of working relationship on project outcomes
Working relationship .30 <.05
Model F-value = 4.69, p< .05, adjusted r-square = .12
Antecedent vars. Satisfaction with relationship
Direct Spurious r
Part three – full model effects
Integrity .60
**
.12 .72
**
Competence .39
*
.32
*
.71
**
r-square .63
**
Antecedent vars Project outcomes
Direct Indirect Total Spurious r
Integrity .23
*
.18 .41
**
.08 .49
**
Competence .11 .12 .23 .09 .32
*
Working Relation. .30
**
.30
**
.09 .39
*
r-square .24
**
*
p< .05.
J.K. Pinto et al. / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 638–648 643
The second set of regressions was performed on the con-
tractor sub-set (see Table 6). Interestingly, our findings
demonstrate that only integrity trust is predictive of posi-
tive working relationships (standardized regression coeffi-
cient = .66, p< .01). Competence trust (standardized
regression coefficient = .29, p= N.S.) was not found to
affect satisfaction with working relationship from the con-
tractors’ perspective. The overall adjusted model r-square
for this analysis was .51 (F= 25.7, p< .01). The second
regression model in Table 6 links satisfaction for working
relationship to project outcomes for the contractors’ sub-
set. Our findings showed that working relationship signifi-
cantly predicted project success (F= 20.3, adj. r-square =
.29, p< .01). The path model for the contractor sub-sample
showed a significant indirect effect for integrity trust on
project outcomes but no significance was found for compe-
tence trust as a predictor of either satisfaction with rela-
tionships or project outcomes (see Fig. 3). Thus, H3,
which argued for the differential effect of trust on relation-
ships and project success across the owner and contractor
sub-groups was supported.
5. Discussion
This study highlights some of the intriguing effects that
trust can have on project success and further, reinforces
the differential impact when trust is evaluated by contrac-
tor and owner sub-groups. For owners, both integrity
and competence trust are important determinants of the
health of the relationship; that is, they value both confi-
dence in a partner’s integrity and their actual project com-
petence when determining how positive the working
relationship will become. Likewise, the owner sub-group
analysis revealed that satisfaction with working relation-
ships do have a positive impact on project outcomes, sup-
Table 6
Regression for contractor sub-sample.
Variable Standardized coefficient p-value
Part one: impact of integrity and competence on relationship
Integrity .66 <.01
Competence .29 N.S.
Model F-value = 25.72, p< .01, adjusted r-square = .51
Part two: impact of working relationship on project outcomes
Working relationship .46 <.01
Model F-value = 20.3, p< .01, adjusted r-square = .29
Antecedent vars Satisfaction with relationship
Direct Spurious r
Part three – full model effects
Integrity .66
**
.04 .70
**
Competence .29 .36
*
.65
**
r-square .51
**
Antecedent vars Project outcomes
Direct Indirect Total Spurious r
Integrity .17 .30
*
.47
**
.05 .52
**
Competence .11 .13 .24 .35
*
.59
**
Working relation .46
**
.46
**
.09 .55
**
r-square .29
**
*
p< .05.
Note: Onl
y
si
g
nificant
p
aths are shown, *
p
< .05, **
p
< .01
Integrity
Trust
Competence
Trust
Satisfaction
with Working
Relationships
Project
Outcomes
.60**
.39*
.30*
.23*
Fig. 2. Modified path model for owner sub-sample.
Note: Onl
y
si
g
nificant
p
aths are shown, **
p
< .01
Integrity
Trust
Satisfaction
with Working
Relationships
Project
Outcomes
.66**
.46**
Fig. 3. Modified path model for contractor sub-sample.
644 J.K. Pinto et al. / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 638–648
porting previous theoretical work or case-based research in
the field that posits the critical importance of trust on both
working relationships and ultimately, project success.
Interestingly, only integrity trust had a significant, direct
effect on project success.
The results were also intriguing for the contractor sub-
group. Whereas both integrity and competence trust were
found to be significant predictors of satisfaction with work-
ing relationships in the owner sample, for contractors only
integrity trust was significant. Further, the only significant
indirect effect in the model was the path from integrity trust,
through satisfaction with working relationships, to project
outcomes. Thus, it appears that for this study, project con-
tractors valued integrity trust from their working partners
as a means to enhance the working relationship, which, in
turn, had a significant predictive effect on project outcomes.
On the other hand, competence trust was not viewed as sig-
nificant, either for predicting satisfaction with working rela-
tionships or with ultimate project success. Overall,
Hypotheses 1 and 2 argued that the various forms of trust
would enhance both working relationships and project out-
comes. These hypotheses were partially supported across
the two sub-samples. First, only integrity and competence
forms of trust were employed at this stage and while few
direct effects on project success were found, it did appear
that trust can enhance the quality of and satisfaction with
working relationships between owners and contractors.
The operationalization of ‘‘intuitive trust,”as defined by
Hartman [15], was problematic. Hartman acknowledges
that, unlike integrity and competence trust, intuitive trust
is more difficult to conceptualize. Our study did not statis-
tically differentiate between intuitive and integrity forms of
trust. Given the manner in which intuitive trust is defined,
it is reasonable that there may be some natural blending of
these constructs, such as we found in this research. In
short, intuitive trust did not show discriminant validity rel-
ative to integrity trust. As intuitive trust is defined as the
‘‘emotional or gut feeling that one party can trust the inten-
tions and actions of the other party”it may be the case that
the principal means by which this ‘‘gut feeling”trust
emerges is through an appraisal of the other party’s per-
ceived integrity. Additionally, the lack of evidence for this
third form of trust actually supports alternative two-factor
models proposed by McAllister [31], Chowdhury [6] and
Cook and Wall [7] who argued for a simpler ‘‘affective/cog-
nitive”conceptualization of interpersonal trust. In their
model, affective trust reflects belief in the other’s integrity
or benevolence (Hartman’s Integrity trust) while cognitive
trust denotes attitudes regarding the other’s ability (Hart-
man’s Competence trust). Thus, our results, while failing
to find support for Hartman’s three-factor model, do
appear to empirically support earlier views of affective
and cognitive trust (see, for example, [43,44]).
This study supports our hypotheses as well as previous
theoretical analysis that posit the importance of trust as
an antecedent variable for project performance. Specifi-
cally, trust is argued to enhance the strength of working
relationships, to solidify partnering roles, and to increase
the willingness of various project stakeholders to cooperate
in non-self-motivated ways. However, the study also dem-
onstrated that the perception of the value of trust may dif-
fer, depending upon which project stakeholder is surveyed.
For our study, owners appeared to value integrity and
competence trust from their partnerships with contractors,
while contractors themselves rated only integrity trust as a
necessary predictor of positive working relationships.
The path model developed for this study was necessarily
limited to perceptions of project success for the particular
project herein reported. However, it would be interesting
in future to attempt to model the effect of trust relationships
to points further into the future. For example, if we adopt
the transaction cost analysis (TCA) approach supported
by Williamson [45] and others, the question becomes the
degree to which a stakeholder’s behavior is modified or
impacted by their desire for future work. In other words,
is it possible that some parties to a construction project
(for example, contractors) will moderate their relationship
behavior in the hopes of securing future contracts? Transac-
tion costs are the costs that firms assume for monitoring
and enforcing contracts. Thus, the higher the project uncer-
tainty, the more often contracts must be examined or revis-
ited and argued and the greater the transaction costs. If
economic self-interest as typified by TCA is apparent in
owner-contractor relationships (a state that a number of
researchers, including Winch [46] and Reve and Levitt [39]
have argued is the case), it would be useful to revisit our ini-
tial model and perhaps add a ‘‘looping”effect to show the
nature of previous relationships on future projects.
From another perspective, it would be intriguing to con-
sider more completely the antecedent factors that can
impact on trust. That is, although trust was treated as
the exogenous variable in this study, research suggests that
because ‘‘trust”represents a psychological state, there are a
number of factors that can potentially affect how trust
develops between parties. Thus, future research should
consider expanding our path model to isolate and evaluate
the combined and differential effect of various antecedent
conditions or actions that can impact trust. As trust has
been shown to positively affect project performance
between owners and contractors, it is reasonable to explore
means by which both parties can improve the state of trust
that they should be seeking to cultivate.
The most significant limitation of this study had to do
with the size and makeup of the sample we surveyed. The
project sample was relatively homogenous, consisting of
large construction projects primarily sited in the western
part of North America. Further, the total population we
sought to sample was 150 individuals, drawn equally from
owners and contractors, of whom 92 responded. Thus, it
is important to treat this research and its findings as a first
step rather than a definitive analysis of the specific drivers
of trust in project relationships. Certainly our findings offer
some intriguing implications for owner/contractor partner-
ships and relationship building in construction projects
J.K. Pinto et al. / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 638–648 645
but their generalizability across multiple stakeholders and
multiple classes of projects must be treated with due caution.
Future research on trust could also more fully refine a
model of significant project actors that includes a wider
range of the stakeholders in a project. While this study
looked at one dyadic relationship – contractors with own-
ers – there are several additional stakeholder classes that
would benefit from additional research. For example,
how does trust play out within an organization or across
functional boundaries? Work on cross-functional coopera-
tion (e.g., [38]) examined a host of factors that can enhance
cooperation between functions in the development of new
projects, including project team rules and procedures,
accessibility, superordinate goals, and physical proximity.
Notably missing from their list of antecedent conditions
was the construct of trust. Additionally, the relationship
between trust and an organization’s transaction costs is
an intriguing one. Common wisdom suggests that as trust
expands, the costs associated with maintaining the relation-
ship with a partner should drop appreciably. Research
investigating the inverse relationship between trust and
transaction costing could be extremely useful.
As with the previous work of Diallo and Thuillier [12],
this study offers an empirical validation of previous work
on trust in project settings. Most work to date, as we noted
earlier, remains either conceptual in nature or single-case
study. These papers have had an important impact on
our ability to conceptualize the construct of trust and apply
it most usefully within project settings where, for a variety
of reasons (e.g., absentee owners, multinational or multi-
cultural teams, high risk, and so forth) we can understand
why trust should be so critical to our ability to manage pro-
jects to their maximum potential. Yet, to date, though the
‘‘idea”of the efficacy of trust is widely held, not enough
large sample empirical work has been done to validate
these models and confirm our expectations of the impor-
tance of trust for improving both working relationships
and successful project outcomes.
Finally, this study offers a new perspective on the value of
managing inter-organizational relationships to improve
trust. Further, our findings offer some intriguing implica-
tions for the nature, or type of trust that may be valued by
different project stakeholders. At a minimum, these findings
should serve as a starting point for future empirical analysis
of the trust construct and its implications for project success.
Likewise, it validates and makes critical additional research
on the means by which organizations can enhance partner-
ing and relationship management, both very important top-
ics in the study and practice of project management.
Appendix A. Items used in study
Trust
I feel comfortable about being dependent on the other
party throughout the life of the project (survey
statement #1)
I believe the other party will keep their word throughout
the life of the project (survey statement #2)
I feel confident that the other party has high levels of
integrity (survey statement #3)
I believe the other party will adhere to high ethical
principles throughout the life of the project (survey
statement #4)
I am certain the other party will be fair throughout the
life of the project (survey statement #5)
I am confident that the other party will look out for my
interests throughout the life of the project (survey
statement #6)
I feel I can trust the other party throughout the life of
the project (survey statement #7)
I believe the other party would like to see me do well
(survey statement #8)
I can rely on the other party to not take advantage of me
(survey statement #9)
I am certain that the other party has the ability to
perform productively (survey statement #10)
I believe the project engineers and other technical people
are competent (survey statement #11)
I am willing to be vulnerable to the other party (survey
statement #12)
I believe the other party has ulterior motives or hidden
agendas (survey statement #13)
My ‘‘gut feeling”tells me to be cautious when dealing
with the other party on the project (survey statement
#14)
The other party would not knowingly hurt me in order
to benefit themselves during the life of the project
(survey statement #15)
The other party is professional and dedicated (survey
statement #16)
Most people, even those who are not close friends of the
other party, would trust and respect them if they were
to execute a project with them (survey statement #17)
Other associates who must interact with these
individuals would consider them to be trustworthy if
they had to execute a project with them (survey
statement #18)
Given the other parties’ track record, I see no reason to
doubt their competence and preparation for future
projects (survey statement #19)
I can rely on the other party not to make the project
more difficult by careless work (survey statement #20)
Satisfaction with Working Relationship
My working relationship with the other party feels
‘‘right”(survey statement #21)
I enjoy associating with the other party throughout the
life of the project (survey statement #22)
I can talk freely to the other party about difficulties I am
having on the project and know that they will want to
listen (survey statement #23)
646 J.K. Pinto et al. / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 638–648
If I shared problems with the other parties during the
project, I know they would respond constructively and
caringly (survey statement #24)
We would feel a sense of loss if one of us was transferred
and we could not implement the project together
(survey statement #25)
I would have to say that we have made considerable
emotional investments in our relationship (survey
statement #26)
We can all freely share our ideas, feelings, and hopes
during the project (survey statement #27)
Project Success
This project has/will come in on schedule (survey
statement #28)
This project has/will come in on budget (survey
statement #29)
The project results, or deliverables, are in line with client
objectives (survey statement #30)
The project that has been developed performs as
intended (or, if still being developed, looks as if it will
work) (survey statement #31)
Given the problem for which it was developed, this
project seems to do the best job of solving that
problem – it was the best choice among the set of
alternatives (survey statement #32)
I am/was satisfied with the process by which this project
is being/was completed (survey statement #33)
This project will have a positive impact on those who
make use of it (survey statement #34)
The client is/will be satisfied with the project outcomes
(survey statement #35)
I am enthusiastic about the chances for success of this
project (survey statement #36)
References
[1] Aubert BA, Kelsey BL. The illusion of trust and performance. 2000;
<http://www.cirano.qc.ca/pdf/publication/2000s-03.pdf>.
[2] Bresnen M, Marshall N. Building partnerships: case studies of client-
contractor collaboration in the UK. Constr Manage Econ
2000;18:819–32.
[3] Bryde DJ, Robinson L. Client versus contractor perspectives on
project success criteria. Int J Proj Manage 2005;23:622–9.
[4] Chan APC, Chan DWM, Ho KSK. Partnering in construction:
critical study of problems for implementation. J Manage Eng
2003;19:126–35.
[5] Cheung S-O, Ng TST, Wong S-P, Suen HCH. Behavioral aspects in
construction Partnering. Int J Proj Manage 2003;21:333–44.
[6] Chowdhury S. Role of affective and cognitive based trust in complex
knowledge sharing. J Manage Issues 2005;17:310–26.
[7] Cook J, Wall T. New work attitude measures of trust, organizational
commitment, and person need nonfulfillment. J Occup Psychol
1980;53:39–52.
[8] Costa AC, Bijlsma-Frankema K. Trust and control interrelations:
new perspectives on the trust-control nexus. Group Organ Manage
2007;32:392–406.
[9] Crisp BC, Jarvenpaa SK. Trust over time in global virtual teams.
Presented at organizational communication and information systems
division of academy of management meeting; 2000.
[10] Delisle C. Success and communication in virtual project teams.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Calgary; 2001.
[11] Delisle C. Contemporary views on shaping, developing, and manag-
ing teams. In: Morris PWG, Pinto JK, editors. The Wiley guide to
managing projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley; 2004. p. 983–1013.
[12] Diallo A, Thuillier D. The success of international development
projects, trust and communication: an African perspective. Int J Proj
Manage 2005;23:237–52.
[13] Ferrin DL, Bligh MC, Kohles JC. Can I trust you to trust me? A
theory of trust, monitoring, and cooperation in interpersonal and
intergroup relationships. Group Organ Manage 2007;32:465–99.
[14] Ferrin DL, Dirks KT. The use of rewards to increase and decrease
trust: mediating processes and differential effects. Organ Sci
2003;14:18–31.
[15] Hartman FT. The role of trust in project management. In: Proceed-
ings of nordnet conference, Helsinki; 1999.
[16] Hartman FT. Do not park your brain outside. Newtown Square, PA:
Project Management Institute; 2000.
[17] Hartman FT. The role of trust in project management. In: Slevin DP,
Cleland DI, Pinto JK, editors. The frontiers of project management
research. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute; 2002.
p. 225–35.
[18] Hoffman EJ, Kinlaw CS, Kinlaw DC. Developing superior project
teams: a study of the characteristics of high performance. In: Project
teams; <http://www.nasateammates.com/About/findings.pdf>.
[19] Jeffries FL, Reed R. Trust and adaptation in relational contracting.
Acad Manage Rev 2000;25:873–82.
[20] Jensen C, Johansson S, Lofstrom M. Project relationships – a model
for analyzing interactional uncertainty. Int J Proj Manage
2006;24:4–12.
[21] Kadefors A. Trust in project relationships: inside the black box. Int J
Proj Manage 2004;22:175–82.
[22] Kadefors A, Bjorlingson E, Karlsson A. Procuring service innova-
tions: contractor selection for partnering projects. Int J Proj Manage
2007;25:375–85.
[23] Klein Woolthuis R, Hillebrande B, Nooteboom B. Trust, contract
and relationship development. Organ Stud 2005;26:813–40.
[24] Lander MC, Purvis RL, McCray GE, Leigh W. Trust-building
mechanisms utilized in outsourced IS development projects: a case
study. Inform Manage 2004;41:509–28.
[25] Larson E. Partnering on construction projects: A study of the
relationship between partnering activities and project success. IEEE
Trans Eng Manage 1997;44(2):188–95.
[26] Larson E, Gobeli DH. Matrix management: contradictions and
insights. Calif Manage Rev 1987;29(4):126–38.
[27] Laslo Z, Goldberg AI. Matrix structures and performance: the search
for optimal adjustment to organizational objectives? IEEE Trans Eng
Manage 2001;48:144–56.
[28] Lewicki RJ, Bunker BB. Developing and maintaining trust in work
relationships. In: Kramer RM, Tyler TR, editors. Trust in organiza-
tions: frontiers of theory and research. Sage Publications; 1996. p.
114–39.
[29] Manigart S, Korsgaard MA, Folger R, Sapienza HJ, Baeyens, K. The
impact of trust on private equity contracts. 2002; <http://www.vler-
ick.be/research/workingpapers/wp2002.html>.
[30] Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD. An integrated model of
organizational trust. Academy of Management Review 1995;20:709–39.
[31] McAllister DJ. Affect- and cognitive-based trust as foundations for
interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Acad Manage J
1995;38:24–59.
[32] Muller R, Turner JR. The impact of principal-agent relationship and
contract type on communication between project owner and man-
ager. Int J Proj Manage 2005;23:398–403.
[33] Munns AK. Potential influence of trust on the successful completion
of a project. Int J Proj Manage 1995;13:19–24.
[34] Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
J.K. Pinto et al. / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 638–648 647
[35] Packham G, Thomas B, Miller C. Partnering in the house building
sector: a subcontractor’s view. Int J Proj Manage 2003;21:327–32.
[36] Pinto JK, Slevin DP. The project implementation profile: new tool for
project managers. Proj Manage J 1986;18(4):57–71.
[37] Pinto JK, Slevin DP. Critical factors in successful project implemen-
tation. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 1987;34:22–7.
[38] Pinto MB, Pinto JK, Prescott JE. Antecedents and consequences of
project team cross-functional cooperation. Manage Sci
1993;39:1281–97.
[39] Reve T, Levitt RE. Organization and governance in construction. Int
J Proj Manage 1984;2(1):17–25.
[40] Rousseau DM, Sitkin B, Burt RS, Camerer C. Not so different after
all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Acad Manage Rev
1998;23:393–404.
[41] Shapiro DL, Sheppard L, Cheraskin L. Business on a handshake.
Negotiation J 1992;8:365–77.
[42] Swan W, Cooper R, McDermott P, Wood G. A review of
social network analysis for the IMI trust in construction
projects. <http://www.research.scpm.salford.ac.uk/trust/Docu-
ments/ARCOM%202001%20Final%20WCS.doc>; 2006 [accessed
July 15, 2006].
[43] Webber SS. Blending service provider-client project teams to achieve
client trust: implications for project team trust, cohesion, and
performance. Proj Manage J 2008;39(2):72–81.
[44] Webber SS, Klimoski RJ. Client-project manager engagements, trust,
and loyalty. J Organ Behav 2004;85:997–1013.
[45] Williamson OE. The mechanisms of governance. New York: Oxford
University Press; 1996.
[46] Winch G. The construction firm and the construction project: a
transaction cost approach. Constr Manage Econ 1989;7:331–45.
[47] Wong PS, Cheung S. Trust in construction partnering: views from
parties of the partnering dance. Int J Proj Manage 2004;22:437–46.
[48] Zolin R, Fruchter R, Hinds, P. Communication, trust and perfor-
mance: The influence of trust on performance in A/E/C cross-
functional, geographically distributed work. 2003; <http://www.stan-
ford.edu/group/CIFE/online.publications/WP078.pdf>.
648 J.K. Pinto et al. / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 638–648
