The transfer of knowledge in alliances entails risk to partners, whose willingness to accept it presumably relies on the trustworthiness that they perceive in their partners. We investigate the extent to which the perceptions of trustworthiness and the willingness to take risk determine the transfer of knowledge between alliance partners and their ultimate impact on alliance success. The results show that the transfer of tacit versus explicit knowledge have very different trust and risk profiles. Whereas explicit knowledge is closely associated with the firm's willingness to take risk, tacit knowledge is intimately related to high trustworthiness. The results support the important role of trust and the transfer of tacit knowledge on the success of learning alliances. Copyright (c) Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2008.

The strategic alliance literature demonstrates that alliances create value for the partners, but also that many alliances fall short of expectations. This study addresses the complex issue of alliance performance. We follow 100 contractual alliances over a 5‐year period, and study their performance in terms of abrupt termination, short‐term performance, and long‐term performance. The results indicate that alliances that are considered strategically important are less likely to be abruptly terminated. We also find that newly established alliances have a higher termination rate than older alliances. Short‐term performance is primarily affected by access to complementary and strategically important resources, whereas long‐term performance is related to specific investments in human capital combined with the partners' ability to develop and expand alliance activities over time. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Plain language summary We investigate whether listed state‐owned enterprises (SOEs) benefit more from internationalization than listed private enterprises. We argue that SOEs have a greater scope for benefitting from internationalization because of their previous domestic focus and because of government‐related firm‐specific advantages they can utilize for their internationalization. In listed SOEs, these factors may matter more than noneconomic objectives and corporate governance deficiencies that could reduce SOEs' economic benefits from internationalization. Empirical analysis on a sample of listed Norwegian firms provides modest support for the hypotheses. There is no indication that state ownership reduces the benefits of internationalization. Technical summary We consider state ownership as a moderator of the relationship between internationalization and performance in listed firms, developing theoretical arguments on the scope for benefits from internationalization, corporate governance, and government‐related firm‐specific advantages. We propose hypotheses on a positive moderation effect from state ownership overall and on more positive effects in majority state‐owned enterprises (SOEs) than in minority SOEs, on more positive effects in SOEs previously part of the government administration, and on more positive effects from market‐seeking internationalization than from efficiency or resource‐seeking internationalization. Panel data analyses considering listed Norwegian firms (2000 to 2010) provide modest support for the hypotheses. Copyright © 2016 Strategic Management Society.

We examine the location and relocation abroad of divisional headquarters of companies originating in a small country on the periphery of Europe. While the internationalization of business activities has been extensively studied for more than four decades, there is limited research on the strategic decision to locate divisional headquarters outside the home country. Our study shows a massive movement of headquarters functions between 2000 and 2006. Building on agency, resource based, and institutional perspectives, we propose that such moves are driven by efficiency/effectiveness as well as legitimacy factors. We find that state ownership and ownership concentration discourage MNCs from moving headquarters activities abroad, but national ownership does not. We also find that while MNCs may move their divisional headquarters to gain efficiency by co-locating with foreign subsidiaries, they keep them at home when the company becomes large, highly diversified and complex to manage.

This study tells the story of two acquisitions made by a company the authors call Multifirm. Multifirm acquired two targets, Datagon and Teknico. The Datagon employees immediately identified with Multifirm, and the integration process was characterized by few conflicts and satisfied employees. The Teknico employees, on the other hand, failed to identify with Multifirm, and the integration process was fraught with disruptions and conflicts. Contrary to the conventional wisdom of identity threats, Multifirm reported that more value was created from the acquisition of Teknico than from Datagon. In this article, we try to understand why this was the case.