4IpaUJbnm

small and medium sized and represented a variety of industries (Table 1). The interviews were
recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using inductive analysis. The categories made by
open coding were clustered (Miles & Huberman, 1994, 248), and visualized for analysis with
conceptual maps (Novak & Gowin, 1996).
Table 1. Interviewees’ multi-industrial affiliations.
Industry Finnish Russian Total
Machinery 3 2 5
Construction 3 2 5
Consulting 1 3 4
Logistics 2 1 3
Other a 1 4 5
10 12 22
a Tourism, IT, Biotechnology, Paper, Environmental technology
Findings
Trustworthiness categories and the representative quotes of the Finnish and the Russian
interviewees are shown in appendices 1 and 2. The dendrograms are shown in appendices 3
and 4. These were used to design conceptual maps of trustworthiness perceptions of
Finns/Russians and the common perceptions for both (see Figures 1, 2, 3).
In the conceptual maps the attributes of a trustworthy business partner are divided into
“character” and “as relationship”. The “character” reflects the “values, principles and standards
that a partner brings into relationship” (Barney & Hansen, 1994, 179), while “as relationship”
reflects the relational exchange between partners. Who was perceived as a “business partner”,
an organization or an individual, differed between Russian and Finns. Russians had a tendency
to personalize the relationship with the key person, while Finns often did not separate the key
person and the organization. For this reason, in the following figures the properties of the
business partner is described as “character” (Colquitt et al., 2007) which in this case means the
mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual as well as an organization.
Common character attributes for both nationalities were stability, competence, integrity and
predictable behavior. Integrity can be achieved by keeping promises and honesty. Predictable
behavior and commitment were acquired with common history and tested trust from earlier
experiences. Common attributes for relational exchange were communication, co-operation
and commitment.
The character related attributes for the Russians were fast reactions and long-term approach.
The long-term approach is also reflected in the experience about the partner’s behavior in
various situations which is an attribute for predictable behavior. Relationship attributes specific
to the Russians were friendly emotions and mutual benevolence, which can appear as flexibility
or mutual favors.
Character attributes only for the Finns were rationality and punctuality. The Finns also assessed
predictable behavior not only from tested trust or common history, but also if their counterpart
was without outside influence or had common goals within their own company.
328