Interorganizational Relationships as Political Battlefields: How Fragmentation within Organizations Shapes Relational Dynamics between Organizations

Brattström, Anna; Faems, Dries

doi:10.5465/amj.2018.0038

Cited by 39 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As Gulati and Singh (1998) note, cooperation may also involve actions engaged in by partners individually in their own organization toward attaining a common goal of the IOR. Partners work within their own organizations has a bearing on relationship dynamics between IOR partners in the pursuit of cooperation—that is, the joint implementation of common goals (Brattström & Faems, 2019).…”

Section: Toward Distinctive Definitions Of Collaboration Coordinatiomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Managers might also abandon a goal or coerce a party toward achieving a goal. Future research on goal abandonment might examine the role of intraorganizational politics IOR in goal abandonment (for an exception, see Brattström & Faems, 2019). Such research will complement the existing literature that has either noted the role of conflict between parties or market factors in goal abandonment decisions (Wolf & Floyd, 2017).…”

Section: Research Agendamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Collaboration, Coordination, and Cooperation Among Organizations: Establishing the Distinctive Meanings of These Terms Through a Systematic Literature Review

Castañer

Oliveira

2020

Journal of Management

230

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collaboration, coordination, and cooperation lie at the core of interorganizational activities. To address the confusion regarding the definitions of these three terms, recent works have proposed redefinitions. Although these proposals address an important concern, we believe that they might be premature because (1) they do not build on a systematic examination of how these terms have been used in the literature and (2) they seem to narrow the focus to a given theory and alliances only, which might unduly restrict the meaning of the terms defined. In this paper, we review the definitions of the three terms as they appear in nine top journals in the general management literature (1948-2017). By studying the definitions, we identify three interactional dimensions that are present to different extents in collaboration, coordination, and cooperation: attitude, behavior, and outcome. Our systematic review confirms the confusion and lack of parsimony in the extant definitions. The overlap in the content of these dimensions across the three terms does not provide a basis for distinctively defining collaboration, coordination, and cooperation. Thus, we further draw on our review to identify two discriminating dimensions that allow us to distinguish these three terms: the temporal stage and the type of goal. Our review contributes to theoretical development by offering a conceptual redefinition of the three terms that renders them distinct and thus facilitates knowledge accumulation and theory development. Moreover, the set of interactional and discriminating dimensions generates a host of managerially relevant research questions about a wide range of interorganizational relationships.

show abstract

Section: Toward Distinctive Definitions Of Collaboration Coordinatiomentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Research Agendamentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaboration, Coordination, and Cooperation Among Organizations: Establishing the Distinctive Meanings of These Terms Through a Systematic Literature Review

Castañer

Oliveira

2020

Journal of Management

230

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Huber et al (2013) Contracts and trust repositories for knowledge and thus tend to become increasingly detailed over time. Likewise, Gulati and Sytch (2008) have shown that interorganizational trust is essentially a time-based phenomenon (see also Schilke and Cook 2013) that develops through the collective accumulation of experience and spans the partnering organizations, but especially specific groups of people (Brattström and Faems 2020). Second, research has explored postformation adjustments of alliance governance.…”

Section: Trust Evolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alliance Governance Mechanisms in the Face of Disruption

Keller

Lumineau

Mellewigt

et al. 2021

Organization Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Existing academic literature has discussed contracts and relational governance as the key mechanisms that help alliance partners address problems of cooperation and coordination. However, when an alliance undergoes disruption, the nature and extent of such problems may change and therefore the value of these mechanisms may change. This study advances a dynamic perspective on alliance governance by examining the impact of disruption and subsequent adjustment on the value of alliance governance mechanisms. To this end, we longitudinally studied a revelatory case of a research and development alliance in the veterinary drug industry that experienced disruption triggered by an internal restructuring at one of the partner companies. We approached the evidence with a fine-grained typology that builds on two dimensions that underlie governance mechanisms: the means to enforce their ruling principles (contractual versus relational) and the level of codification of these principles (formal versus informal). Based on our findings, we (1) show the significance of this revised typology, which suggests that contractual governance is not necessarily formal and relational governance is not necessarily informal; (2) provide a more systematic discussion of the tradeoffs that the various mechanisms entail and how these are altered through disruption and adjustment dynamics; and (3) analyze how the interplay between different types of governance mechanisms evolves following disruption and adjustment. Overall, our study brings the concept of disruption to the dynamic perspective of alliance governance and highlights the contingent value of alliance governance mechanisms.

show abstract

“…Both scholarly and applied research suggests that adopting openness, ranging from closed to multiple levels of openness, is a critical strategic decision for a firm (Alam et al, 2022; Alexy et al, 2018; Almirall & Casadesus‐Masanell, 2010; Arora et al, 2016; Boudreau, 2010; Laursen & Salter, 2014; Ritala & Stefan, 2021; Vanhaverbeke et al, 2017). Furthermore, recent research suggests that adopting open innovation strategy simultaneously changes the innovation ecology from ego‐systems to open innovation ecosystems (Bogers et al 2018; Brattström & Faems, 2020; Chesbrough et al, 2018; Fasnacht, 2018; Xie & Wang, 2020). Although innovation ecosystem literature has made significant progress toward understanding the strategic role of openness, one area in which it remains relatively silent is how firms systematically adopt openness and evolve from ego‐systems to open innovation ecosystems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From ego‐systems to open innovation ecosystems: A process model of inter‐firm openness

Alam

Rooney

Taylor

2022

J of Product Innov Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Existing innovation management literature significantly enhances our knowledge about “What” open innovation is and “Why” it is crucial for innovating superior products. However, very little is known about the process of “How” firms adopt openness. We engage in a qualitative exploratory study using a grounded theory method to understand the process by which firms open and migrate from ego‐systems to open innovation ecosystems. This paper reports on our findings from 3 rounds of 54 interviews with managers in the Macquarie Business Park, Australia. The first two rounds (n = 22 + 22) describe the openness process, define its qualitatively different phases, and detect critical variables that trigger or inhibit phase transition. In the final round (n = 10), member checks verify our interpretive model, revealing that inter‐firm openness occurs in four transitory phases—realization, socialization, strategic alignment, and two‐way openness. Phase transition starts somewhat spontaneously for firms but gets more complex as they proceed from ego‐system to an ecosystem, and the degree of openness increases in each subsequent phase. The study has significant theoretical and practical implications for product innovation management. Interdependence, social exchange, and trust play a significant role in creating open innovation ecosystems. Inter‐firm openness follows four interlocking transitory phases—realization, socialization, strategic alignment, and two‐way openness. Phase transitions start spontaneously but become complex as the degree of openness increases in subsequent phases.

show abstract

Interorganizational Relationships as Political Battlefields: How Fragmentation within Organizations Shapes Relational Dynamics between Organizations

Cited by 39 publications

References 67 publications

Collaboration, Coordination, and Cooperation Among Organizations: Establishing the Distinctive Meanings of These Terms Through a Systematic Literature Review

Collaboration, Coordination, and Cooperation Among Organizations: Establishing the Distinctive Meanings of These Terms Through a Systematic Literature Review

Alliance Governance Mechanisms in the Face of Disruption

From ego‐systems to open innovation ecosystems: A process model of inter‐firm openness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About