Between Trust and Control: Developing Confidence in Partner Cooperation in Alliances

Das, Tapash; Teng, Bing‐Sheng

doi:10.5465/amr.1998.926623

Cited by 2,186 publications

(1,664 citation statements)

References 95 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,565

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Even if there is a long tradition of conceptualizing control and trust as alternatives (Knights et al 2001), the introduction of control systems does not necessarily imply a lowering of trust (Das and Teng 1998). A recent longitudinal empirical research study found that control can support and reinforce the development of trust in inter-organizational relationships (Vélez et al 2008).…”

Section: Research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trust, control and knowledge transfer in small business networks

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to transfer knowledge effectively in the networks of small and medium-sized firms (SMEs) is paramount for supporting firm competitiveness. Our research is the first one that explores the joint effect of trust and control mechanisms on knowledge transfer in the case of networks of SMEs. We use a multiple case study approach based on six Italian networks of SMEs. We analyse the joint impact of different ethical based trustworthiness factors-namely benevolence and integrity-and the levers of control (LOCs)-namely, belief, boundary, diagnostic and interactive LOCs-on knowledge transfer between SMEs in networks. We find that trust substitutes for the implementation of boundary, diagnostic, and belief tools, while it works jointly with interactive tools in order to support knowledge transfer. These insights not only provide a rich foundation for follow-up research, but also inform SME managers about how to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of knowledge transfer with their network partners.

show abstract

Section: Research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trust, control and knowledge transfer in small business networks

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, Oxley and Sampson found that in some instances 'the choice of an equity joint venture encourages alliance partners to engage in joint activities that go beyond 'pure' R&D' (Oxley and Sampson 2004: 724). Equally, governance arrangements may also have relationship-inhibiting or even damaging effects, as where formal governance mechanisms are taken to signal distrust between parties (Das and Teng 1998). Similar considerations may arguably apply also to the influence of governance mechanisms upon knowledge processes.…”

Section: Developing Propositionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge Governance for Open Innovation: Evidence from an EU R&D Collaboration

Scarbrough¹,

Amaeshi²

2009

Knowledge Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThis chapter highlights a particularly challenging arena for knowledge governance, by focussing on the governance issues associated with large-scale programmes of what has been termed 'open innovation'. As outlined in more detail below, open innovation -also sometimes labelled synonymously as 'networked' or 'distributed' innovationis an increasingly important component of the wider patterns of innovation in advanced economies. It can be seen in large part as a response to firms' increasing needs to draw on external sources of knowledge in order to remain competitive in a global economy.Issues of knowledge governance are at the heart of open innovation inasmuch as such innovation is acutely dependent on the organization of knowledge flows between and within firms. The ability of firms to acquire externally-sourced knowledge has been a major subject of academic debate since the pioneering work of Cohen and Levinthal on 'absorptive capacity', and Von Hippel's studies of userdriven innovation (Cohen and Levinthal 1990;von Hippel 1988). However, the distinctive challenges posed by an avowedly open approach to innovation processes are still being digested by researchers. These challenges go some way beyond the problem of absorbing knowledge. According to its proponents, open innovation involves a qualitative shift in the way the firm creates, exploits and organizes knowledge. This has wide-ranging implications for the way the focal firm manages itself and its knowledge-base. At the very least, open innovation implies a reduced dependence on internal R&D functions and a greater willingness to trade knowledge with external collaborators. More broadly, though, the serious pursuit of open 2 innovation is likely to extend to radical changes in the structure and management practices of the firm to foster greater interactivity with the expanding ecology of knowledge providers.It is not within the scope of this paper to address all of the many challenges which open innovation creates for established governance arrangements. Rather, our aim is to provide an initial exploration of some of these challenges by analysing a casestudy of a more open form of innovation. This is an important but also especially complex case because it has to do with MOZART 1 , one of the major collaborative research programmes sponsored by the European Union (EU). This programme represents a unique institutional response to the needs of the aerospace industry in Europe, reflecting not only the diverse needs of the participating companies but also the strategic interests formulated by the EU as a political body. As such it raises the challenges of knowledge governance to a new level, since it encompasses not only questions of effective governance for an innovation process, and the inter-firm collaboration underpinning it, but also the wider challenge of linking private enterprise with the strategic objectives of multi-state bodies. The remainder of this chapter then proceeds as follows. We begin, in the following section, by identifying the...

show abstract

“…The high rate of failure of alliances is attributed to a lack of cooperation and the opportunistic behavior of partners (Das and Teng, 1998). Minshall et al (2005) comment that in many instances the large firm is able to appropriate most of the value from the relationship and the general performance of the small firm may be adversely affected.…”

Section: Unintended Knowledge Flowsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safeguarding SMEs dynamic capabilities in technology innovative SME-large company partnerships in South Africa

Sawers¹,

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper focuses on technological collaboration between small and large firms. It is argued that such collaborations can be beneficial for both types of partner, but that small firms often are confronted by the hazards of collaboration as these relationships are typically asymmetric. As a result of this, knowledge embodied in the dynamic (strategic, internal and external) capabilities of SMEs can flow unintentionally to the larger partner.If this occurs, the collaboration would be less successful from the SMEs' point of view.Next, it is proposed that the use of formal and informal safeguards can protect technology innovative SMEs against such knowledge flows. This paper examines to what extent is the number of dynamic capabilities of SMEs associated with partnership success and to what extent is this relationship influenced by the number of safeguards used by the SMEs? A sample of 43 technology innovative SMEs was interviewed by means of a structured questionnaire. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine the relationship between the number of dynamic capabilities on the one hand and partnership success on the other. Moreover, the impact of (in)formal safeguards on this relationship openUP was analyzed. The research found that SME's strategic and internal capabilities are negatively associated with partnership success, whereas external capabilities are positively related. The inclusion of safeguards turned out to produce the hypothesized effects. The paper shows, therefore, that unintentional knowledge flows from the SME to the larger partner can be prevented by putting in place formal and informal protection mechanisms.

show abstract

Between Trust and Control: Developing Confidence in Partner Cooperation in Alliances

Cited by 2,186 publications

References 95 publications

Trust, control and knowledge transfer in small business networks

Trust, control and knowledge transfer in small business networks

Knowledge Governance for Open Innovation: Evidence from an EU R&D Collaboration

Safeguarding SMEs dynamic capabilities in technology innovative SME-large company partnerships in South Africa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About