Authors: Heidl, Ralph A.; Steensma, H. Kevin; Phelps, Corey
Abstract: Received wisdom suggests that multipartner alliances are relatively unstable bec ...
Expand
Abstract: Received wisdom suggests that multipartner alliances are relatively unstable because of their complexity and the increased potential for free riding. Nonetheless, multipartner alliances do benefit from built-in stabilizing third-party ties that mitigate opportunism and conflict between partner pairs. Previous empirical research on multipartner alliance stability has been inconclusive. We shed some light on these inconsistencies by recognizing that within multipartner alliances, schisms can occur not only between a pair of partners but also between subgroups of partners that are divided by faultlines. We suggest that divisive faultlines can form between subgroups of partners within a multipartner alliance as a function of their prior experience with one another. When a subgroup of alliance partners has relatively strong ties to each other and weak ties to other partners, destabilizing factions can develop that hamper reciprocity among the partners. Using a longitudinal analysis of 59 multipartner alliances, we found that, in general, faultlines (as modeled by the dispersion of tie strength within multipartner alliances) increase the hazard of unplanned dissolutions. We also found that multipartner alliances comprising a mix of centrally and peripherally positioned partners within the industry network were less apt to suffer the effects of divisive faultlines. We suggest that this is due to the greater opportunity costs of dissolution and the presence of relatively high-status partners who can act as peacekeepers and coordinators of their lower-status partners.
Collapse
Semantic filters:
telecommunications equipment industry
Topics:
marketing management database system accounting anonymity logistics management
Methods:
longitudinal research descriptive statistic survival analysis hazard function archival research
Why Put All Your Eggs in One Basket? A Competition-Based View of How Technological Uncertainty Affects a Firm’s Technological Specialization
Abstract: Conventional wisdom suggests that when a firm faces technological uncertainty, i ...
Expand
Abstract: Conventional wisdom suggests that when a firm faces technological uncertainty, it responds by becoming less technologically specialized so as to remain adaptable to subsequent resolution of this uncertainty. We adopt a competition-based view of technological uncertainty to identify an opposite effect in competitive settings: the firm may instead become more specialized when faced with greater technological uncertainty so as to focus on advancing its technologies against competition and influence the resolution of uncertainty in its favor over rivals. We propose that this effect is accentuated when the firm expects that it cannot easily adapt to rivals’ technologies subsequently, specifically when rivals are a greater deterrent through being litigious or innovative. Using U.S. government funding for fuel cell research as a policy shock, with stock option-implied volatilities to measure expected uncertainty, we find empirical support for our propositions among firms active in research and development in the U.S. communications equipment industry. Through these findings, we demonstrate that a competition-based view of uncertainty identifies an alternative path for the firm’s resource accumulation under uncertainty, and we stress that the resolution of uncertainty can be something the firm attempts to influence rather than adapt to.
Collapse
Semantic filters:
telecommunications equipment industry
Topics:
research and development database system innovation management missing data technological change
Methods:
experimental group parametric test Student's t-test difference in differences cross sectional research