How to achieve benefits from diversity in international alliances: Mechanisms and cultural intelligence

Abstract

Research Summary Despite interest in alliance management in the global strategy field, we have only limited insights into how firms can manage diversity‐related conflicts in international alliances. By referring to the conflict literature, our study introduces task discourse as a crucial mechanism allowing task conflict resolution. We further describe conflict resolution via socializing practices, including social events, joint workshops, and interorganizational teams. Socializing practices and discourse take advantage of cultural intelligence, empowering managers to interact efficiently in intercultural settings. Data on 148 international alliances in the photonics and biotechnology industries reveal that managerial cultural intelligence improves task discourse, thus enhancing performance, especially in young alliances. Socializing practices, however, decrease performance with increasing cultural distance and without sufficient levels of managerial cultural intelligence. Managerial Summary International alliances face a dilemma. Cross‐national differences offer valuable complementarities, but they can also spark a negative spiral of dysfunctional conflict. Our study shows that task discourse is an important mechanism for achieving advantages from the different perspectives offered by international alliances. Interestingly, our results further reveal that socializing practices including interorganizational teams, social events, and joint workshops do not per se have beneficial effects for international alliances. Putting people together who are unable to perform in intercultural settings is damaging to alliance performance. Our study indicates the specific conditions under which socializing practices have negative and positive effects and, thus, provokes a discussion about the appropriate application of these practices.

The boundaries of the firm in global strategy

“…We then move to two analyses of cross‐border mergers and acquisitions: the study by Xia, Ma, Tong, and Li () on how the experience gained via the network of relationships of the firm supports its cross‐border mergers and acquisition; and the study by Ellis, Lamont, Holmes, Ro, Faifman, DeGhetto, and Parola (2018) on the role that distances in informal and formal institutions between home and host play on mergers and acquisitions. We then jump to the study of cross‐border alliances with the analysis by Pesch and Bouncken () on international alliances and how cultural intelligence facilitates them. The last two articles by Brandl, Jensen, and Lind () and Choi, Ju, Kotabe, Trigeorgis, and Zhang () highlight the importance of offshore outsourcing as a method for managing cross‐border relationships that is closer to the use of market relationships.…”

Entrepreneurship of an institutional field: the emergence of coworking spaces for digital business models

“…Institutional theory has started to look on how relationships to institutions influence young firms and their institutional logics (Pahnke et al 2015). Coworking spaces have several external ties and alliances with other organizations (Bouncken et al 2016c;Pesch and Bouncken 2018). Coworking space form relationships to incumbent firms to offer them their creativity and innovation facilities by renting out their space or by running projects of incumbents in their space.…”

Shared digital identity and rich knowledge ties in global 3D printing—A drizzle in the clouds?

“…Using, leveraging, and stretching digital solutions and knowledge is not without social and local contextualization, for example, of physical technology, of operating software, of available input material, and of human or organizational practices. Richer social relations can make better use of the global diversity of knowledge, resources, and users (Bouncken & Winkler, 2010; Pesch & Bouncken, 2018; Tallman & Pedersen, 2015). Hence, we contribute that digital exchanges allow but also need to transport more richer components than mere explicit knowledge.…”

“…Tacit knowledge, especially the operationally embedded components (Carlile, 2002), largely demands personal experiences, and it is non‐verbalized and intuitive making it hard to express and transfer (Polanyi, 1967). The transfer of tacit knowledge requires direct personal interaction, typically by co‐location of individuals and becomes more difficult when international and inter‐cultural differences exist so that spatial influences persists (Bouncken & Winkler, 2010; Kumar & Nti, 1998; Mudambi et al, 2018; Pesch & Bouncken, 2018). An overestimation of potentials becomes prospective when (a) digital technologies need localized knowledge, (b) they integrate physical technology, and/or (c) using and advancing digital technology demands co‐located knowledge transfers including tacit knowledge.…”