The influence of desire for control on monitoring decisions and performance outcomes in strategic alliances

Abstract

Strategic alliances are fraught with risks, such as the uncontrolled disclosure of core knowledge via opportunistic learning. The usefulness of monitoring in policing opportunism notwithstanding, a contrasting view is that monitoring mechanisms can themselves manifest the dark side of strategic alliances. The present study argues that a novel dark personality trait-the focal firm's desire for control-may influence key decisions pertaining to how to monitor strategic alliances, which in turn can negatively impact performance outcomes. Our conceptual model was developed and tested, based on a survey of 404 strategic alliances. The results demonstrate that a focal firm's desire for control is positively associated with process monitoring as well as output monitoring. The firm's use of process monitoring to oversee the counterpart drives its performance outcomes only if there is a low level of information exchange between the alliance partners; as such, information exchange norms substitute for process monitoring. By contrast, the focal firm's use of outcome monitoring is negatively linked to performance unless complemented by a high level of information exchange. Key implications for alliance management and future research are derived from the findings.

Managing knowledge in supply chains: a catalyst to triple bottom line sustainability

“…To ensure there were no significant differences between the CILT and Cranfield respondents, we followed an independent sample t-test procedure on the main survey constructs and demographic items to compare the CILT and Cranfield responses, and also to compare late and early responses. No significant differences were detected, and thus we were able to conclude that non-response bias did not appear to be an issue in this study (Musarra et al, 2016).…”

The dark side of coopetition: when collaborating with competitors is harmful for company performance

“…Afterwards, the differences between these matrices were averaged. As the average difference was very small (less than r = 0.05), it is highlyunlikely that the statistical data were biased by a common method factor (see Musarra et al, 2016). The study's empirical results are presented as follows.…”

Understanding Strategic Alliance Life Cycle: A 30 Year Literature Review of Leading Management Journals

“…Inter-organizational learning. though a motive for forging alliances, is also a major management issue that needs to be dealt with in an effectual manner (Musarra et al, 2016). Hamel (1991) argues that there is a distinction between gaining access to the skill base of a partner firm via arrangements such as licensing and actually learning those skills or "internalizing" it.…”

“…Alliances are becoming increasingly critical for firm growth and even survival in the current competitive environment (Musarra et al, 2016). Firms are entering alliances for a variety of reasons (O'Dwyer & Gilmore, 2018;Panico, 2017) including entry to new markets (Lee, 2007), achieving economies of scale (Inkpen, 2001), getting access to skills and knowledge (Drewniak & Karaszewski, 2019;Hamel, 1991;O'Dwyer & Gilmore, 2018), gaining legitimacy (Hubbard et al, 2018;Lin et al, 2009) and mitigating risk (Inkpen, 2001).…”