The purpose of this article is to describe the theoretical and methodological reasons for the inconsistent findings on the value of strategic consensus. This analysis suggests the need for (a) definitions of consensus that align the locus and content of agreement with the study context and theoretical premises; (b) measures of consensus that take account of locus as well as differences in how the content of strategy is perceived by top-, middle-, and lower-level managers; (c) research designs wherein assumptions about the locus and content of consensus govern the choice of antecedents; and (d) more consistent use of moderators.

No abstract

No abstract

This article examines the process through which multilevel network structures translate into knowledge acquisition from alliance partners. The degree of knowledge transfer a multidivisional company achieves from its network of alliance partners is determined not only by the organization's external network structure, but also by the structure of relationships among its business units. By distinguishing two perspectives on the distribution of social capital's benefits -private versus collective -this article's approach reconciles the competing views on what types of network structures create social capital, that is, the brokerage and closure views of the social network literature. Private benefits of brokerage and centrality are more beneficial in interfirm networks, whereas collective benefits provided by network closure and low levels of centralization are more beneficial in intrafirm networks.

We examined the distribution of benefits to partners in multipartner alliances by concentrating on dynamics of partner entry and involvement. Testing hypotheses in the Wi-Fi Alliance, we observed heterogeneity of benefits. In particular, the extent of organizational involvement in this alliance enhanced partners' reputation and market success with related product introductions but reduced their productivity. Participation in competing alliances enhanced productivity and market success despite potential efficiency losses. Finally, early alliance entrants gained market success, and both early and late entrants were more productive than intermediate entrants. These findings illuminate multipartner alliance complexity and disparity between common and private benefits.

This study examines relationships between group influence activities and the performance of strategic initiatives. Theory suggests that the strength of these relationships is contingent upon the degree of exploration inherent in an initiative's goals. An analysis of 96 initiatives in three large firms supports the moderating role of exploration for the use of formal authority and coalition building, demonstrating that these group influence activities are more important to performance in more exploratory initiatives. Although the direct relationship between rational justification and initiative performance is significant, there is no evidence of the moderating effect for this form of influence. The results show how groups associated with strategic initiatives use different forms of influence to reduce the investment and political uncertainties that limit initiative performance. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract

Using a sample of 106 organizations engaged in strategic alliances, we develop and test a framework of alliance-related organizational decision-making processes and their impact on alliance performance. With regard to direct effects, our results show a negative impact of decision-making recursiveness and no significant relationship for openness and procedural rationality. Acknowledging the importance of the organization's micropolitical context in which these decision processes are embedded, we also test the moderating influence of politicality. Our findings provide support for our hypotheses that in a context of low politicality, the decision-making characteristics of openness and procedural rationality have a positive influence, whereas recursiveness negatively affects alliance performance. In a context of high politicality, however, openness and procedural rationality exert a negative influence, and the negative impact of recursiveness is aggravated. We suggest that alliance-related decision making cannot be adequately understood without explicitly considering the micropolitical context in organizations. Copyright (c) Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2007.