Innovation networks can often be viewed as loosely coupled systems of autonomous firms. We propose that hub firms orchestrate network activities to ensure the creation and extraction of value, without the benefit of hierarchical authority. Orchestration comprises knowledge mobility, innovation appropriability, and network stability. We reject the view of network members as inert entities that merely respond to inducements and constraints arising from their network ties, and we embrace the essential player-structure duality present in networks. Every herd of wild cattle has its leaders, its influential heads (Tarde, 1903: 4). We are grateful to Professor Stanley Wasserman and three anonymous reviewers, whose constructive comments and suggestions were very valuable in shaping this paper. Charles Dhanaraj gratefully acknowledges the research support received from the Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Arvind Parkhe appreciates the support provided by the Fox School of Business and Management, Temple University.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

No abstract

Abstract. Organizational theorists have correctly argued that the emergence and maintenance of robust cooperation between global strategic alliance partners is related to the diversity in the partners' characteristics. Yet previous research has failed to systematically delineate the important dimensions of interfirm diversity and integrate the dimensions into a unified framework of analysis. This paper develops a multilevel typology of interfirm diversity and focuses on organizational learning and adaptation as critical processes that dynamically moderate diversity's impact on alliance longevity and effectiveness. This example illustratesan importantparadoxin international business today. On one hand,global strategicalliances (GSAs) arebeing used with increasing frequencyin orderto, interalia, keep abreastof rapidlychangingtechnologies, gain access to specific foreign marketsand distributionchannels, create new products,and ease problemsof worldwideexcess productivecapacity.Indeed, GSAs are becoming an essential featureof companies' overall organizational structure, and competitive advantage increasingly depends not only on a company's internal capabilities, but also on the types of its alliances and *ArvindParkhe(Ph.D.,TempleUniversity) is anAssistant Professorof International Businessin theDepartment of Management, GraduateSchoolof Business,Indiana University(Bloomington). Followingan undergraduate degreein chemicalengineering,he heldcorporate management positionswitha Germancompanyin theUnited StatesandGermany. His researchfocuseson the formation, structuring, andmanagementof interfirmcooperative arrangements, andthe impactof national security exportcontrol regimeson the globalcompetitivenessof high-technologyfirms.