2011
DOI: 10.1007/s10490-011-9267-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dialectical tensions and path dependence in international joint venture evolution and termination

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 70 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Subsequent decisions are, consequently, path-dependent, such as choosing the partner for a reverse IJV (Hong & Lee, 2015). Future research may therefore transform the general concept of path dependency to the IJV context (see, for an attempt, Pajunen & Fang, 2013) and may address research questions such as: To what extent are decisions to establish an IJV and/or with a specific partner the first choice of the partner firms? What consequences did their decisions have on subsequent strategic alliances and partner decisions?…”
Section: Beyond Static Views: Incorporating Time Issues and Variabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Subsequent decisions are, consequently, path-dependent, such as choosing the partner for a reverse IJV (Hong & Lee, 2015). Future research may therefore transform the general concept of path dependency to the IJV context (see, for an attempt, Pajunen & Fang, 2013) and may address research questions such as: To what extent are decisions to establish an IJV and/or with a specific partner the first choice of the partner firms? What consequences did their decisions have on subsequent strategic alliances and partner decisions?…”
Section: Beyond Static Views: Incorporating Time Issues and Variabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Coming to survival resp. termination/failure of an ISA (Pajunen and Fang 2013 ; Dadfar et al 2014 ), qualitative studies in particular used this term as their target construct (Ariño and La Torre 1998 ; Hambrick et al 2001 ; Watts and Hamilton III 2007 ; Pajunen and Fang 2013 ).…”
Section: Content-related Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, as breadth and depth increase, without proper governance over knowledge sharing, there is a substantial risk of sensitive knowledge being shared to opportunistically favor one firm over another (Gans and Stern, 2003;Jarvenpaa and Majchrzak, 2016;Laursen and Salter, 2014). Risks to a focal firm of releasing too much or the wrong information include loss of competitive position, damaged reputations and stolen intellectual property (Faems et al, 2008;Matusik and Hill, 1998;Pajunen and Fang, 2013). Yet, if the partner firms do not share their knowledge with each other, the joint problem that the OI project is solving will not be correctly defined during the problem definition phase or resolved during the solution development phase (Jarvenpaa and Majchrzak, 2016).…”
Section: The Mediating Role Of Process Control and Outcome Controlmentioning
confidence: 99%