THE EFFECT OF REPUTATION ON THE DECISION TO JOINT VENTURE

This paper focuses on the impact that reputation has on the decision to proceed with a strategic alliance. Employing reputation constructs adapted from the Fortune Corporate Reputation Survey, we manipulated a target firm’s reputation in an experimental design. The subjects were placed in the role of CEO of the partner firm and asked whether they would engage in the alliance. Findings indicate that (1) reputation is a multidimensional construct, (2) the personal information-processing characteristics of the decision-maker mediate the reputation effect and may suppress the reputation information, (3) subjects may compensate weaker elements of reputation for stronger ones when making decisions, (4) product and management reputation are the most important factors, and (5) reputation is a factor affecting the decision regardless of whether the proposed target is a supplier or a competitor. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Unraveling the mechanisms of reputation and alliance formation: A study of venture capital syndication in China

Extant research shows that resources are significant to a firm's choice of alliance formation. We focus on an important form of intangible resource—firm reputation—and examine how it affects a firm's propensity to form alliances. We propose an inverted U‐shaped relationship between a firm's reputation and its likelihood of alliance formation, resulting from the opposing mechanisms of opportunity and need. We also examine how this relationship may vary across two contingencies: (1) foreign and domestic firms; and (2) different levels of institutional development. Empirical analyses of China's venture capital (VC) industry provide support for our hypotheses. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Modeling alliance activity: an iterated prisoners' dilemma with exit option

We present and solve a new, more accurate model of behavior within alliance activity. The model is essentially an iterated prisoners' dilemma with an exit option in each stage of the alliance. The proposed solution results in each partner receiving its opportunity cost as its expected average pay‐off in the alliance. Managerial implications include: identification of where to focus efforts to improve alliance cooperation and performance; and an explanation for why more sophisticated partnership strategies than tit‐for‐tat are likely to be superior in this game. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Unmixed signals: How reputation and status affect alliance formation

We analyze how incumbents in technology‐driven industries are influenced by founders' reputation and status when considering strategic alliances with newly emerging firms. We theorize that reputation and status represent two distinct components of perceived quality that exert independent and interdependent effects on alliance formation. Using literature on impression formation processes to derive predictions of signal congruence, we argue that the independent effects of reputation and status are amplified when the two are congruent, and that the effect of negative congruence (both reputation and status are low) is stronger than positive congruence (both are high). We find support for our arguments based on panel data on alliances between pharma and biotech firms, using data on biotech scientists' research output (reputation) and university attended (status). Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Building firm capabilities through learning: the role of the alliance learning process in alliance capability and firm‐level alliance success

In recent years, academics and managers have been very interested in understanding how firms develop alliance capability and have greater alliance success. In this paper, we show that an alliance learning process that involves articulation, codification, sharing, and internalization of alliance management know‐how is positively related to a firm's overall alliance success. Prior research has found that firms with a dedicated alliance function, which oversees and coordinates a firm's overall alliance activity, have greater alliance success. In this paper we suggest that such an alliance function is also positively related to a firm's alliance learning process, and that process partly mediates the relationship between the alliance function and alliance success observed in prior work. This implies that the alliance learning process acts as one of the main mechanisms through which the alliance function leads to greater alliance success. Our paper extends prior alliance research by taking a first step in opening up the ‘black box’ between the alliance function and a firm's alliance success. We use survey data from a large sample of U.S.‐based firms and their alliances to test our theoretical arguments. Although we only examine the alliance learning process and its relationship with firm‐level alliance success, we also make an important contribution to research on the knowledge‐based view of the firm and dynamic capabilities of firms in general by conceptualizing this learning process and its key aspects, and by empirically validating its impact on performance. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Distinguishing costs of cooperation and control in alliances

Firms simultaneously face the need to cooperate with and control an alliance partner. To complement the transaction cost perspective's emphasis on the need to control and limit opportunistic behavior, we examine the sources and impact of the cooperation costs incurred in order to work with a partner. We propose that these costs increase with greater joint task complexity and interpartner diversity, and perceptions of equitable behavior affect the perceptions of these costs. Hypotheses derived from the framework are tested in a sample of 231 contractual alliances between architects and general contractors in the Hong Kong construction industry. We find that both cooperation costs and transaction costs affect the level of time and effort a manager expends on an alliance, supporting our fundamental proposition that the costs of cooperation and control are conceptually and empirically distinct. We argue that cooperation costs should be incorporated into studies that compare the choice of alternative partners and alliance structures, as well as among the broader categories of market, hierarchy, and hybrid governance forms. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Free‐riding in multi‐party alliances: The role of perceived alliance effectiveness and peers' collaboration in a research consortium

Research summary : Multi‐party alliances rely on partners' willingness to commit and pool their efforts in joint endeavors. However, partners face the dilemma of how much to commit to the alliance. We shed light on this issue by analyzing the relationship between partners' free‐riding—defined as their effort‐withholding—and their perceptions of alliance effectiveness and peers' collaboration. Specifically, we posit a U‐shaped relationship between partners' subjective evaluations of alliance effectiveness and their free‐riding. We also hypothesize a negative relation between partners' perceptions of the collaboration of peer organizations and their free‐riding. Results from a mixed‐method study—combining regression analysis of primary data on a major inter‐organizational research consortium and evidence from two experimental designs—support our hypotheses, bearing implications for the multi‐party alliances literature. Managerial summary : Free‐riding is a major concern in multi‐party alliances such as large research consortia, since the performance of these governance forms hinges on the joint contribution of multiple partners that often operate according to different logics (e.g., universities, firms, and government agencies). We show that, in such alliances, partners' perceptions have relevant implications for their willingness to contribute to the consortium's shared goals. Specifically, we find that partners free‐ride more—that is, contribute less—when they perceive the effectiveness of the overall alliance to be either very low or very high. Partners also gauge their commitment to the alliance on the perception of the effort of their peers—that is, other organizations similar to them. These findings provide managers of multi‐party alliances with additional levers to motivate partners to contribute fairly to such joint endeavor. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

High‐Reputation Firms and Their Differential Acquisition Behaviors

Research summary: E merging reputation research suggests that high‐reputation firms will act to maintain their reputations in the face of high expectations. Yet, this research remains unclear on how high‐reputation firms do so. We advance this research by exploring three questions related to high‐reputation firms' differential acquisition behaviors: Do high‐reputation firms make more acquisitions than similar firms without this distinction? What kind of acquisitions do they make? How do investors react to high‐reputation firms' differential acquisition behaviors? We find that high‐reputation firms make more acquisitions and more unrelated acquisitions than other firms. Yet, we also find that investors bid down high‐reputation firms' stock more than other firms' in response to acquisition announcements, suggesting that investors are skeptical of how high‐reputation firms maintain their reputations . Managerial summary: W e know that high‐reputation firms wish to maintain their elite standing in the face of high‐market expectations, but we know little about how they do so. We explore this puzzle by investigating how reputation maintenance influences high‐reputation firms' acquisition behaviors. We classify high‐reputation firms are those firms that make Fortune's M ost A dmired annual list, and we find that high‐reputation firms make more acquisitions and more unrelated ones than other firms. Surprisingly, we also find that the market tends to react negatively to these acquisitions. Thus, managers may want to reconsider their strategy of making acquisitions as a means to maintain their firms' high reputations . Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Organizational differences,relational mechanisms,and alliance performance

In studying the antecedents of alliance performance, one stream of research has underscored the alignment between partners' characteristics whereas another has concentrated on relational mechanisms such as mutual trust, relational embeddedness, and relational commitment. We integrate these two perspectives by examining how congruence of the partners' cultures and organizational routines facilitates the emergence of relational mechanisms in non‐equity alliances. Our analysis of 420 non‐equity alliances in the information technology industry demonstrates how differences in partners' internal task routines undermine relational mechanisms that in turn impact alliance performance. Partners who acknowledge their latent differences can overcome some of these negative consequences. We advance alliance research by studying the performance implications of alliance partners' organizational differences and by demonstrating how these effects are mediated by relational mechanisms. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Walking the tight rope of coopetition: Impact of competition and cooperation intensities and balance on firm innovation performance

This study empirically investigates an important question in the coopetition literature: to what extent does coopetition impact a firm's innovation performance? With a focus on the intensity of competition and intensity of cooperation of a focal firm with its alliance partners, our theory proposes that a moderate level of competition with alliance partners is more beneficial than a very high or a very low level of competition. We further develop the concept of “balance” in coopetition and examine how the interplay of competition and cooperation and the balance between the two matter for innovation performance. Results from our empirical study using data from the semiconductor industry show that competition and cooperation intensities have non-monotonic positive relationship with firm's coopetition-based innovation performance. Further, balanced coopetition (i.e., when competition is moderately high and cooperation is high) has a positive effect on innovation performance. A key contribution of this paper is the conceptualization and empirical demonstration of the effects of various aspects of coopetition such as competition dominant, cooperation dominant, and balanced coopetition on innovation performance.     

Alliance or Acquisition? A Mechanisms‐Based,Policy‐Capturing Analysis

Research summary : While alliance researchers view prior partner‐specific alliance experience as influencing firms' subsequent alliance or acquisition decisions, empirical evidence on the alliance versus acquisition decision is surprisingly mixed. We offer a reconciliation by proposing and testing an analytical framework that recognizes prior partner‐specific experiences as heterogeneous along three fundamental dimensions: partner‐specific trust, routines, and value certainty. This allows us to use a policy‐capturing methodology to rigorously operationalize and test our mechanism‐level predictions. We find that all three mechanisms can increase the likelihood of a subsequent alliance or acquisition, and in terms of the comparative choice between alliances versus acquisitions, partner‐specific trust pulls towards alliances, and value certainty pulls towards acquisitions. We conclude with a discussion of the theoretical and empirical implications of our approach and method . Managerial summary : This study focuses on an important corporate decision: When a firm has had an alliance with another firm, how would that experience affect the likelihood of a future alliance or acquisition with that same firm? We first suggest that it will depend on three factors: the level of trust that existed in that prior alliance, the extent to which specific work routines were developed, and the degree to which the firm was able to confidently assess the value of the partner firm's resources. We then find that trust is a particularly strong predictor of future alliances, while confidence regarding value more strongly predicts future acquisitions. In this way, we demonstrate more precisely how past corporate choices can affect (consciously or unconsciously) future ones . © 2017 The Authors. Strategic Management Journal Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.     

Agglomeration and the choice between acquisitions and alliances: An information economics perspective

Research summary : This research extends agglomeration theory by joining it with information economics research to better understand the determinants of firms' organizational governance choices. We argue that co‐location in a common geographic cluster fosters lower levels of information asymmetry between exchange partners and thus leads firms to employ acquisitions rather than alliances for their external corporate development activities. We further extend agglomeration theory by arguing that the impact of sharing a cluster location on acquisitions versus alliances strengthens with the level and dissimilarity of the exchange partners' knowledge‐based resources as well as with the intra‐cluster geographic proximity of the partners. Evidence from a sample of over 1,100 alliance and acquisition transactions in the U.S. semiconductor industry provides support for our hypotheses. Managerial summary : This paper investigates the role of geographical clustering for firms' external corporate development activities in acquisitions and alliances. We explain how better information is likely to be available among firms co‐located in the same cluster. This suggests that managers should have less need to use alliances over acquisitions as a means of reducing the risk of adverse selection (e.g., overpaying for acquisitions). Our investigation of over 1,100 transactions in the U.S. semiconductor industry shows that common cluster co‐location increases the probability of acquisition relative to alliance. Our arguments and evidence also indicate that the information‐related benefits of cluster co‐location are even more impactful when the parties have more divergent technology bases, possess larger stocks of knowledge‐based resources, or are located in closer geographic proximity. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Knowledge sharing and safeguarding in R&D collaborations: The role of steering committees in biotechnology alliances

Research Summary: This research contributes to alliance governance research by demonstrating how partners' administrative controls in nonequity collaborations regulate knowledge transfers across partners. These administrative controls can take the form of board‐like joint committees having explicitly delineated authority over certain alliance activities. We illuminate governing committees as an important, albeit neglected, instrument for administrative control in the governance of non‐equity alliances, and we demonstrate that these organizational mechanisms facilitate knowledge flows within the scope of an alliance. We also show that governing committees safeguard against misappropriation hazards, particularly when a partner possesses the incentive and ability to engage in such behavior. This study extends alliance governance research beyond the implications of the equity‐nonequity dichotomy to consider a wider and richer gamut of governance instruments available to address the challenges associated with knowledge transfers in alliances. Managerial Summary: Non‐equity alliances are important vehicles to collaborate with external partners, particularly in the biopharmaceutical industry and other high‐tech sectors. To guide these collaborations effectively, partners can use the contract to custom‐build jointly‐staffed managerial units with clearly demarcated decision‐making responsibilities. We demonstrate that these organizational mechanisms facilitate knowledge flows within the scope of an alliance. We also show that governing committees also safeguard against misappropriation hazards, particularly when a partner values a firm's knowledge highly, or it possesses the required ability to absorb and assimilate a firm's knowledge. Our results imply that contractually‐defined managerial interfaces provide a channel to regulate knowledge‐sharing in collaborative alliances.     

网络组织成员合作的声誉模型分析

本文分析了网络组织成员合作稳定的意义与影响因素。在Vickers和Barro分别对Kreps的声誉模型简化处理后的模型基础上，从网络组织成员之间合作的博弈关系角度，构建了成员的声誉模型——一个单边非完全信息动态博弈模型，分析了声誉对网络组织成员的激励效应，以及声誉与网络组织治理绩效之间的关系。本文的基本结论：在有利于经济连续稳定的合作环境中，声誉效应是网络组织成员合作的重要激励机制，在声誉效应的激励机制下，成员之间合作是有效率的。应用本文模型所给出的分析方法与结论，对我国企业网络组织成员存在的机会主义等问题，给出了作者自己的解释，对声誉机制发挥作用的条件提出建议。     

The impact of R&D‐specific factors on the attractiveness of small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises as partners vis‐à‐vis alliance formation in large emerging economies

This study examines the impact of research and development (R&D)‐specific factors in determining the likelihood of small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) from developed countries to be attractive partners vis‐à‐vis forming alliances with SMEs from large emerging economies (LEEs). This study is founded on the knowledge‐accessing theory of alliance formation, which emphasises the higher efficiency gains of knowledge application as opposed to knowledge generation. We extend this theory to SMEs on the basis that smaller firms, because of their resources constraints and drive to survive, are likely to use alliances to access external knowledge bases leading to new product development (NPD) opportunities because of the low feasibility of acquiring knowledge. As a mix of complex knowledge is necessary to develop most modern products and services, SMEs are also likely to adopt a more flexible operational approach and to accept compromises to forge knowledge‐accessing alliances. We illustrate this theoretical development using primary data collected from British and German biotechnology SMEs, declaring the intention prospectively to form alliances with their counterparts in Brazil. Binary logistic regression was used to identify the factors influencing the likelihood of a firm as an attractive alliance partner. Our results indicate that R&D‐specific factors influence the likelihood of firms to be attractive alliance partners. In particular, firms showing an in‐house innovation history focused on one or few products are more likely to be attractive alliance partners with LEE firms than those that do not. Another R&D‐specific predictor that enhances the chances of alliance partner attractiveness with LEE firms is the firm's focused searching and identifying capability relative to technology or equipment that demonstrates good prospects to improve the firm's line of products. A third predictor refers to the firm's awareness regarding non‐cost obstacles for its own technological development. Implications for policy makers and practitioners are also discussed.     

Alliance Concentration in Multinational Companies: Examining Alliance Portfolios,Firm Structure,and Firm Performance

Research summary: This article explores the distribution of alliances across firms' internal structure. Focusing on multinational companies, we examine the impact of alliance portfolio concentration—i.e., the extent to which alliances are concentrated within a limited number of geographic units—on focal firms' performance. Relying on Knowledge‐Based View (KBV) insights, we hypothesize that an increase in alliance portfolio concentration positively influences firm performance and that alliance portfolio size negatively moderates this relationship. Our empirical results enrich the emerging capability perspective on alliance portfolios, point to the relevance of conceptualizing focal firms in alliance portfolio research as polylithic entities instead of monolithic ones, and provide new insights into how firms create value by potentially recombining externally accessed knowledge. Managerial summary: In the setting of multinational companies, we examine whether alliance activities are concentrated in a limited number of subsidiaries or are highly dispersed across multiple subsidiaries. We find that, over time, firms exhibit different patterns in terms of alliance portfolio concentration. In addition, the results show that, for MNCs with a relatively small alliance portfolio, an increase in alliance portfolio concentration is positively related to their financial performance. However, when MNCs' alliance portfolios are relatively large, the relationship between alliance portfolio concentration and firm performance becomes negative. Jointly, these findings suggest that the distribution of alliances across firms' internal structure is an important factor in shaping potential knowledge recombination benefits from alliance portfolios. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Unpacking functional alliance portfolios: How signals of viability affect young firms' outcomes

This article investigates how alliance portfolio composition affects young firms' outcomes. Drawing on signaling theory, we propose how alliance portfolio composition—number, functional domains (R&D, manufacturing, and marketing), and single‐purpose or multi‐purpose nature of alliances within the portfolio—may affect a firm's likelihood of achieving a liquidity event (IPO or acquisition). We study 8,600 U.S.‐based, VC‐backed firms during the period of 1990 to 2002 from 10 industry sectors. We find that alliance portfolios (to a certain extent) increase a firm's liquidity event likelihood. Further, firms with heterogeneous alliance portfolios, including portfolios emitting greater efficiency signals versus endorsement signals, are more likely to experience an IPO versus acquisition. Our findings lend support to the value of multi‐function alliances within portfolios. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Determinants of Alliance Portfolio Complexity and Its Effect on Innovative Performance of Companies*

Alliance formation is often described as a mechanism used by firms to increase voluntary knowledge transfers. Access to external knowledge has been increasingly recognized as a main source of a firm's innovativeness. A phenomenon that has recently emerged is alliance portfolio complexity. In line with recent studies this article develops a measure of portfolio complexity in technology partnerships in terms of diversity of elements of the alliance portfolio with which a firm must interact. The analysis considers an alliance portfolio that includes different partnership types (competitor, customer, supplier, and university and research center). So far factors that determine portfolio complexity and its impact on technological performance of firms have remained largely unexplored. This article examines firms' decisions to form alliance portfolios of foreign and domestic partners by two groups of firms: innovators (firms that are successful in introducing new products to the market), and imitators (firms that are successful at introducing products which are not new to the market). This study also assesses a nonlinear impact of the portfolio complexity measure on firms' innovative performance. The empirical models are estimated using data on more than 1800 firms from two consecutive Community Innovation Surveys conducted in 1998 and 2000 in the Netherlands. The results suggest that alliance portfolios of innovators are broader in terms of the different types of alliance partners as compared to those of imitators. This finding underlines the importance of establishing a “radar function” of links to various different partners in accessing novel information. Specifically, the results indicate that foremost innovators have a strong propensity to form portfolios consisting of international alliances. This underlines the importance of this type of partnership in the face of the growing internationalization of R&D and global technology sourcing. Being an innovator or imitator also increases the propensity to form a portfolio of domestic alliances, relative to non‐innovators; but this propensity is not stronger for innovators. Innovators appear to derive benefit from both intensive (exploitative) and broad (explorative) use of external information sources. The former type of sourcing is more important for innovators, while the latter is more important for imitators. Finally, alliance complexity is found to have an inverse U‐shape relationship to innovative performance. On the one hand, complexity facilitates learning and innovativeness; on the other hand, each organization has a certain management capacity to deal with complexity which sets limits on the amount of alliance portfolio complexity that can be managed within the firm. This clearly suggests that firms face a certain cognitive limit in terms of the degree of complexity they can handle. Despite the noted advantages of an increasing level of alliance portfolio complexity firms will at a certain stage reach a specific inflection point after which marginal costs of managing complexity are higher than the expected benefits from this increased complexity.     

Alliance portfolios and firm performance: A study of value creation and appropriation in the U.S. software industry

This study reveals the multifaceted contribution of alliance portfolios to firms' market performance. Extending prior research that has stressed the value‐creation effect of network resources, it uncovers how prominent partners may undermine a firm's capacity to appropriate value from its alliance portfolio. Analysis of a comprehensive panel dataset of 367 software firms and their 20,779 alliances suggests that the contribution of network resources to value creation varies with the complementarity of those resources. Furthermore, the relative bargaining power of partners in the alliance portfolio constrains the firm's appropriation capacity, especially when many of these partners compete in the focal firm's industry. In turn, the firm's market performance improves with the intensity of competition among partners in its alliance portfolio. These findings advance network research by highlighting the trade‐offs that alliance portfolios impose on firms that seek to manage and leverage their alliances. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Leveraging micro‐ and macro‐structures of embeddedness in alliance networks for exploratory innovation in biotechnology

Researchers agree that alliance networks can be an important instrument in a firm's innovation process, but there is limited empirical evidence on actually how they facilitate the creation of new knowledge for exploratory innovation. The research question is what alliance network configuration is optimal for exploratory innovation. The present study investigated the interaction between a firm's alliance portfolio structure (the micro‐level) and the industry alliance network structure (the macro‐level), and it empirically tested how their interaction may be affecting the exploratory innovation outcome of network participating firms in the biotechnology industry. The paper uses data from exploratory patents filed by 455 dedicated biotechnology firms in 1986–1999 and an overall network comprising 2,933 technological alliances over the same period. The results indicate that, in the case of biotechnology, firms with high exploratory innovation output have short path indirect access to many other firms (micro‐level), and operate in dense industry alliance networks centralized around a few key firms (macro‐level), and that these effects are curvilinear.