The antecedents of response strategies in strategic alliances

Abstract

Purpose -Strategic alliances involve uncertainty, interdependence, and vulnerability, which often create adverse situations. This paper seeks to understand how alliance managers respond to these adverse situations by examining the influence of four exchange variables on response strategies. Design/methodology/approach -A scenario-based experiment provides empirical support for a typology consisting of seven conceptually and empirically distinct response strategies: exit, opportunism, aggressive voice, creative voice, considerate voice, patience, and neglect. Findings -The results indicate that economic satisfaction, social satisfaction, alliance-specific investments, and the availability of attractive alternatives differentially and interactively affect response strategies. Research limitations/implications -The study offers two main contributions to alliance literature. First, the seven response strategies accurately represent reactions that alliance managers use to deal with adverse situations. Second, the study findings validate and extend previous alliance research by highlighting that a comprehensive response strategy typology is necessary to disentangle the effects of the four exchange conditions on response strategy use, which fosters theory development and managers' ability to manage their alliances effectively. Originality/value -The study contributes to the process perspective on strategic alliances by highlighting the various response strategies that alliance managers use to deal with adverse situations and their antecedents.

Response strategies in an international strategic alliance experimental context: Cross-country differences

“…Opportunism also joins the typology as an active-destructive strategy (Ping, 1993). Thus, seven response strategies appear in previous literature: exit, opportunism, aggressive voice, creative voice, considerate voice, patience, and neglect (Tjemkes and Furrer, 2010).…”

“…Over time, their investment model has been tested empirically in several contexts, including job satisfaction (Rusbult and Farrell, 1983;Rusbult et al, 1988), romantic relationships (Rusbult and Zembrodt, 1983), channel relationships (Geyskens and Steenkamp, 2000;Ping, 1993), and strategic alliances (Tjemkes and Furrer, 2010). Among these studies those focusing on alliances identified four exchange variables that influence preferences for response strategies: economic satisfaction, social satisfaction, alternative attractiveness, and alliance-specific investments.…”

“…Opportunism represents an active-destructive response (Wathne and Heide, 2000), because it is an active attempt to increase benefits from the alliance in ways that are explicitly or implicitly prohibited (Ping, 1993). Three types of voice represent three additional strategies: aggressive, creative, and considerate (Hagedoorn et al, 1999;Tjemkes and Furrer, 2010;Zhou and George, 2001). Considerate voice is constructive and slightly active and represents an attempt to change, rather than escape from, the adverse situation by communicating in a relationship-preserving manner and cooperatively discussing problems (Hagedoorn et al, 1999;Ping, 1993).…”

“…Extant response strategy literature has focused on the effect of relationship-level exchange variables (i.e., distinct types of adversity), such as partners' satisfaction and exit barriers, on preferences for response strategies (Geyskens and Steenkamp, 2000;Hibbard et al, 2001;Ping, 1993;Tjemkes and Furrer, 2010;Zhou and George, 2001). However, these studies usually implicitly assume that in a given situation, people from any country respond the same way (Boyacigiller and Adler, 1991).…”

“…To address this concern, we draw on response strategy literature in which response strategies refer to the unique sets of responses that one party in a relationship uses to deal with adverse situations (Hagedoorn et al, 1999;Ping, 1993;Tjemkes and Furrer, 2010). Extant response strategy literature has focused on the effect of relationship-level exchange variables (i.e., distinct types of adversity), such as partners' satisfaction and exit barriers, on preferences for response strategies (Geyskens and Steenkamp, 2000;Hibbard et al, 2001;Ping, 1993;Tjemkes and Furrer, 2010;Zhou and George, 2001).…”