Designing alliance networks: the influence of network position, environmental change, and strategy on firm performance

Strategic Management Journal - Tập 29 Số 6 - Trang 639-661 - 2008
Balaji R. Koka1, John E. Prescott2
1W. P. Carey School of Business; Arizona State University; Tempe Arizona U.S.A.
2Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.

Tóm tắt

AbstractAlliance networks are strategic decisions involving trade‐offs between two stylized structural design choices: prominent and entrepreneurial. Prominent alliance networks emphasize benefits arising out of multiple access and affiliation to other prominent firms in the network. An entrepreneurial position, on the other hand, emphasizes brokerage and diversity benefits arising out of access to nonredundant and diverse information. We demonstrate that the performance benefits of each type of alliance network are contingent on environmental change and strategy, and are thus time dependent. Following an environmental change event in the steel industry, alliance networks that were more entrepreneurial performed better, while those that were more prominent suffered performance decline. However, when the change was radical, both types of alliance networks were negatively related to performance. We suggest that following a radical change, industry alliance networks may not have the requisite information necessary for quick and effective strategic responses. Firms pursuing an analyzer strategy performed better when emphasizing a prominent, and to a lesser extent, entrepreneurial alliance network. However, firms that develop an alliance network high on both prominent and entrepreneurial structural positions had lower relative performance. Our results indicate the need for managers to assess their alliance portfolio over time and redesign it based on environmental and strategic contingencies. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:3<397::AID-SMJ88>3.0.CO;2-1

10.2307/2667105

10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:3<317::AID-SMJ90>3.0.CO;2-B

10.2307/2392767

10.1080/0022250X.1972.9989806

Borgatti SP, 1999, Ucinet 5 for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis

10.4159/9780674029095

10.1016/S0191-3085(00)22009-1

10.1086/228943

Cyert RM, 1963, A Behavioral Theory of the Firm

10.2307/256810

10.1111/j.1430-9134.1993.00135.x

Greene W, 1993, Econometric Analysis

10.2307/2393756

Hägg I, 1982, Firms in Networks: A New View of Competitive Power

10.2307/256132

Hogan WT, 1991, Global Steel in the 1990s: Growth or Decline

10.1002/smj.252

10.2307/2393534

Lawrence P, 1967, Organizations and Environments

10.1002/smj.4250141009

10.5465/AMR.1999.15873796

MadhavanR.1996.Strategic flexibility in the steel industry: the role of interfirm linkages. PhD diss. University of Pittsburgh.

10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199805)19:5<439::AID-DIA952>3.0.CO;2-2

Mangum GL, 1996, Transnational Marriages in the Steel Industry: Experience and Lessons for Global Business

March JG, 1999, The Pursuit of Organizational Intelligence

10.2307/257544

10.1002/smj.4250090304

10.1002/smj.154

10.1002/smj.4250120909

10.1086/323038

10.1086/230994

Porter ME, 1980, Competitive Strategy

10.2307/2393988

10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:3<369::AID-SMJ93>3.0.CO;2-M

10.2307/2392457

10.2307/2096399

10.1002/smj.241

Von Hippel E, 1988, The Source of Innovation

10.1002/smj.482

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Strategic Management Journal

Tập 29 Số 6

639-661

Thông tin tác giả