Applied Marketing Research Group blog

Trust in a business-to-business (B2B) context is frequently cited but often poorly understood. Yet its importance continues to grow as a central driver of successful and enduring B2B relationships.

Research into B2B trust demonstrates that trust is not static. It is dynamic and can be proactively developed. Recent doctoral research has offered a refined definition of trust in a B2B context:

“The willingness to be vulnerable to another party and the decision to engage in actions based upon an interpretation of their ability, credibility, and the expectations of mutual value exchange over time”
(Hollyoake, 2020).

Building on this foundation, the Applied Marketing Research Group aims to extend this work by exploring trust development more deeply through the lens of ‘boundary spanner relationships’. Specifically, the research focuses on the pivotal role boundary spanners play in the development of relational trust.

For those unfamiliar with the term, boundary spanners are, in simple terms, individuals or agents who operate across organisational boundaries, working on both sides of a relationship. According to Möllering (2002), boundary spanners are responsible for managing the “leap of faith” inherent in trust development, including the identification, mitigation, and management of risk (see Figure 1).

The trust building potential of ‘Boundary Spanners’:

Neal, Neal and Brutzman (2022), in ‘The activities boundary spanners undertake in the development of trust-based relationships’, identify a range of definitions associated with boundary spanning. They describe it as work that enables exchange between the production and use of knowledge in order to support evidence-informed decision-making within a specific context.

Similarly, Bednarek et al. (2018) define boundary spanning as facilitating the exchange between knowledge creation and its application, while Posner and Cvitanovic (2019) emphasise the role of individuals or organisations that actively enable this process.

Crucially, the boundary spanner role is not governed by a fixed or prescriptive set of rules (Perrone, Zaheer, & McEvily, 2003). Instead, it is often open to interpretation and shaped by multiple, complex and sometimes conflicting pressures (Kahn et al., 1964). As a result, trust development cannot be predicted solely on the basis of formal role definitions. To understand how trust emerges, we must look beyond job titles and examine how roles are enacted in practice.

Boundary spanners play a critical mitigating role in the transition from relational intent (intangible) to relational action (tangible). By reducing perceived vulnerability, they lessen the magnitude of the “leap of faith” required to move a relationship forward. This supports earlier work by Näslund (2012, p.23), who suggests that while interpretation and expectation are largely cognitive processes, the leap of faith relies more heavily on affective elements.

Herein lies a paradox.

While the theory of trust development appears relatively straightforward, its application in practice is far more complex.

The original doctoral research into B2B relational trust provided insights into the dynamic nature of trust, how it operates, its impact on B2B relationships and how it can be proactively developed. This work led to the development of the B2B Trust DNA™ Model (Figure 1).

Existing literature addresses several aspects of the boundary spanner’s role in managing the progression of relationships. When considered alongside the Trust DNA™ Model, two key themes begin to emerge:

• The activities boundary spanners undertake to mitigate actual or perceived risk when moving from intangible to tangible trust and the actors involved in this process.
• The specific elements of the boundary spanner role on both the customer and supplier sides that contribute to the development of trust-based relationships.

Exploring these themes offers an opportunity to better understand the nuances of the boundary spanner role and how it can be deliberately leveraged to strengthen trust and improve relationships. Understanding how trust is built can inform capability and competency development, role design and targeted development programmes for both early-career professionals and those already operating in boundary-spanning roles. It also has wider organisational and leadership implications, particularly where leaders themselves act as boundary spanners or are responsible for leading inter-organisational relationships.

The Applied Marketing Research Group is currently at the initial stage of this next phase of research into relationship trust building. The project is designed to generate insight into the two themes outlined above and will be conducted in three stages:

1. Qualitative shaping
2. Qualitative refining
3. Quantitative defining

If you would like to learn more about the project or explore opportunities to get involved, please feel free to contact Dr Ed Little, Dr Mark Hollyoake or Professor Mario Vafeas.

Professor Mario Vafeas discusses his recent, open access paper Boredom in the Creative Studio published in the Journal of Advertising

For several years, I have been conducting research in the creative industries. Initially, this started as an investigation of factors influencing the quality of client-agency relationships. More recently, I have been exploring the ‘dark side’ of long-term business relationships. Besides the potential for complacency, opportunism, and inertia, I was fascinated to uncover the potential negative impact that boredom can have on creative personnel and, consequently, on the client-agency relationship.

Despite being a common phenomenon in the workplace, boredom is poorly understood. This could be because it is less visible, and considered less harmful, than other negative emotions such as anxiety and stress. And yet, being bored can lead to reduced task performance and – when it becomes chronic rather than transient – negative wellbeing. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that creative personality types are more prone to boredom than others.

To increase understanding of the causes and consequences of boredom in a creative environment, I conducted 32 one-to-one interviews with senior and junior creatives from a variety of marketing communications agencies in the UK. I used Control-Value Theory (CVT) – a theory that was developed in the education sector – to frame the research. CVT proposes that an individual’s motivation and behaviour are influenced by positive or negative emotions. These emotions result from an individual’s subjective assessment of personal control over, and perceived value of, activities.

Control appraisals

The research findings showed that three factors affected control appraisals. The first was poor quality briefing by the client which led creatives to conclude that they had insufficient control over the job to produce an effective outcome:

” We frequently find that clients can’t articulate what they want. You can’t solve a problem when you don’t know what it is you are meant to be solving. You end up with totally bored and disengaged creatives.” (Creative director)

The second was a lack of task autonomy. When a brief is too constraining or too prescriptive, it reduces a creative’s ownership and desire to invest in the task:

“Sometimes the decisions are made for you. You’re spoon fed everything. If you’re not given the freedom to be creative, you get bored. The enthusiasm goes and your heart’s not in it.” (Creative director) 

The third was poor quality performance feedback from the client. This included infrequent feedback and a lack of transparency:

“You’re far more likely to put effort into impressing the client if you feel like your work is appreciated. When they say nothing, you think ‘why bother?’ ” (Graphic designer)

“Boredom is a consequence of being told ‘that’s not good enough’ but not being told why. The desire to please dissipates.” (Creative director)

Value appraisals

The findings showed that two factors affected value appraisals.

The first was task challenge.

There were two elements to this: repetitive work and identity threat. Repetitive work is underchallenging. It has no intrinsic value (there is a lack of interest) and no extrinsic value (it will do nothing to enhance the career of the creative):

“When creatives are asked to dedicate their lives to one client and essentially one brief, year after year, they just regurgitate the same stuff, and it gets very boring.” (Art director)

Ironically, these are often the jobs that generate substantial revenue. As one creative director put it: “these are the meat and potato jobs that keep the agency going.” Related to being underchallenged is identity threat. Several participants identified two personality types, variously called ‘climbers and campers’ or ‘hunters and farmers’. The climbers/hunters have a strong sense of identity and a clear idea of the type of work that nurtures their identity. They see no value in under-challenging work and consider it a threat to their identity:

“The climbers know what they want in life. They love creating big ideas. The mundane is for someone else. Give them the wrong job and you can see their boredom, their physical agitation.“ (Creative director)

The second factor which influences value appraisals is task meaningfulness.

Where there is a poor fit between the person and the task, there is the potential for boredom:

“I did some work for an adoption agency. I had a real desire to produce a great outcome. On the other hand, when it’s something I can’t connect with, like we had a client in the defence sector, I soon get bored.” (Graphic designer)

Interestingly, a good relationship with the client has a mitigating effect on mundane work and boredom: 

“If there’s a good relationship with the client then, no matter how mundane the work, or how many times they ask you to move a comma and then, an hour later, move it back again, you’ll do it because you love the client.” (Graphic designer)

Regarding the interaction between control and value appraisals, the findings suggest that, even when levels of task control are high, if the value appraisal is low, boredom will still occur:

“There are some projects where we already know the coordinates. We’ve worked on it for the last five years. We know the brand, what works, and what the client likes. There’s no challenge. We become stale, bored, and the result is monotone.” (Creative director)

The consequences of boredom have both low and high activation characteristics. The former had an impact on intensity and duration of effort. Besides reduced effort, some will seek distraction from boredom by, for example, listening to a podcast while working. Not only can this diversion of cognitive resources result in error, it can also have a negative impact on organisational culture:

“They don their headphones at nine am and take them off at five pm. There’s no point them being in the studio. The studio feeds off banter and noise. It stimulates the creative mind and creates a dynamic in the studio. People who disconnect do nothing to build a vibrant and creative environment.” (Creative director)

A more harmful consequence is antisocial behaviour. This is visible in the ‘climbers/hunters’ whose identity is threatened:

“Ask them to do the wrong job and their boredom and frustration becomes very evident. It cascades down to the juniors in the team. It’s pervasive and you can feel productivity across the team begin to slide.” (Creative director)

Mitigating boredom

With regard to mitigating against the negative impact of boredom, job rotation can be a solution, but where this is impractical, re-framing an old problem to challenge the perception that problem boundaries and solutions are pre-determined can help. Highlighting the prosocial contribution of a task can increase value perceptions. Furthermore, peer appreciation leads to positive affect, enhancing an individual’s motivation.

Although clients might argue that the emotions of the creative team are not their concern, they should be cognizant of the impact their actions have on creative output. A high-quality brief, creative autonomy, and regular and transparent feedback will enhance a creative’s sense of control over a job. The power of relational goodwill to counteract boredom and maintain engagement, even during mundane tasks, is striking. It underlines the importance of nurturing the client-agency relationship for mutual benefit.