The Compensatory Relationship between Technological Relatedness, Social Interaction, and Knowledge Flow between Firms

Abstract

Knowledge flow between two firms has been found to be enhanced by both technological relatedness and social interaction. We build on work in education psychology and consider how cognitive and social aspects of learning may be compensatory. Using a sample of 61 alliances involving Eli Lilly and its partners, we find the importance of social interaction between Lilly and its partner to partner learning decreased as their technological relatedness increased. Likewise, the importance of technological relatedness to partner learning decreased as social interaction increased. This study provides nuance on the criticality of technological relatedness and social interaction for learning. Copyright © 2012 Strategic Management Society.

Leveraging Organizational Learning and Alliances in Complex and Changing Business Environments

“…In addition, our studies include some longitudinal aspects, particularly in our early studies in Eastern Europe. We find that previous knowledge sharing, particularly when there are common technologies between the partners, is easier and may not require much social interaction (Dhanaraj et al, 2004;Steensma, Howard, Lyles, & Dhanaraj, 2012). From these studies we find that knowledge transfer is an evolving process and understanding the dynamics over time is important.…”

An Empirical Test of the Relational View in the Context of Corporate Venture Capital

“…Second, we also expect knowledge‐sharing routines between the CVC investor and the PC to partially mediate the relationship between complementary resources/capabilities and relational rent generation. Complementarities provide incentives for the parties to engage in knowledge‐sharing routines (Steensma et al ., ). However, for knowledge‐sharing routines to be successful, a certain degree of overlapping knowledge is needed (van Wijk et al ., ).…”

When “trust” becomes more or less salient for alliance performance? Contextual effects of mutual influence, international scope, and coopetition

“…While formal contracts can hardly spell out every contingency in advance, the interfirm trust can provide a stable base for conflict resolution. By cultivating the climate of trust, an alliance can evolve steadily without resorting to legal or institutional arbitration (Steensma et al, 2012). The necessity for a trusting climate is, in fact, the consequence of the inability of legal means to lower the alliance risk and uncertainty.…”

“…A stream of research has examined the relationship between interfirm trust and alliance performance (Inkpen and Curall, 1998; Mohr and Puck, 2013; Zaheer et al, 1998) and this literature implies that the influence of trust in an alliance relationship varies due to several contingent factors such as power dynamics, national/cultural diversity of partners, and the possible business rivalry between partners (Luo, 2002a, 2002b; Steensma et al, 2012). When there is a tug-of-war between alliance partners due to size/resource asymmetry triggering conflicts, the effects of “trust” shall become less salient; or the trust by itself won’t be sufficient enough to overcome the cultural or institutional barriers.…”