Estudio con extremo cerrado

Summary of the Resource Dependence Perspective

Resource dependency perspective (Jacobs 1974, Pfeffer & Salancik 1978) argues that no organization can survive alone. Resource dependence perspective argues that firms have to enter into interorganizational relationships because they cannot generate all

the necessary resources internally (Aldrich & Pfeffer 1976, Jacobs 1974, Pfeffer &

Salancik 1978).

Resource dependence perspective builds on social exchange theory (Blau 1964, Emerson 1962) and explains dependence on interorganizational relationships (Jacobs 1974, Pfeffer & Salancik 1978). Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) argued that when conditions of exchange and competition are uncertain and problematic, organizations attempt to establish linkages with elements in their environment and use those linkages to access resources, to stabilize outcomes, and to avert environmental control.

However, using external links to gain access to resources makes firms dependent on the environment (Boyd 1990, Pfeffer & Salancik 1978).

Resource dependence perspective assumes that firms avoid environmental uncertainty (Pfeffer & Salancik 1978), seek to reduce dependency on the environment (Pfeffer & Salancik 1978), and anticipate reciprocity in resource exchange relationships (Blau 1964, Emerson 1962, Jacobs 1974, Pfeffer & Salancik 1978)). The resource dependence perspective views the goal of organizations being the reduction of environmental uncertainty through resource sharing, while avoiding excessive dependence on external parties to resource exchange. The main goals of firms in managing interorganizational relationships are minimizing dependence on others, controlling critical resources, and gaining access to critical resources (Pfeffer &

Salancik 1978). Pfeffer (1981) argued that firms could manage their resource-dependence primarily in two ways. First, they can acquire control over resources to reduce their dependence. Second, they can acquire control over resources that make other firms more dependent on them.

Related Applications of the Resource Dependence Perspective

While the central tenet of the resource dependence perspective that organizations are dependent on their environment is widely adopted in research examining the performance and interorganizational relationships of entrepreneurial firms, (Autio 2000, Jarillo 1989), there is relatively little research on entrepreneurial firms really applying and testing the resource exchange model of Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) or developing hypotheses based on the resource dependence perspective.

Among the studies explaining performance and interorganizational relationships of entrepreneurial firms applying the resource dependence perspective is the study by Venkataraman et al. (1990) that analyzed the effects of the liability of newness on the likelihood of failure of 10 U.S. software companies and found that these firms used their existing customer relationships to attract other resource providers. This made the firms highly dependent on a few key relationships, exposing them to failure in turbulent environments. They proposed that a high growth orientation pushes entrepreneurs toward using such a risky strategy.

Larson (1992) examined the governance of exchange relations of seven high-growth entrepreneurial firms. She concluded that high reliance on exchange partners was risky

because changes in competitive conditions and strategic direction caused changes in the terms of relationships and in some cases abruptly terminated the relationships.

Threats to the alliances and their dissolution or decline should be expected. Too heavy reliance on partners made entrepreneurial firms vulnerable when in-house capacities were not cultivated. She noted that the exchange of proprietary information also represented a risk but participants’ concern for preserving the ongoing exchange and protecting reputations appeared to offer strong protection against this risk.

Parhankangas (1999) applied the resource dependence perspective in her analysis of the dependence of 54 Finnish spin-off firms on their parent firms. She found that the more closely related the resource base of the spin-off firm was to the parent corporation, the more closely integrated the spin-off firm was with the parent corporation. Close relationships between spin-off firms and parent corporations made the spin-off firms dependent on the parent corporation. She found support for the hypothesis derived from the resource dependence perspective that vertical complementarities (argued to cause resource dependence) between the spin-off firm and the parent corporation were negatively related to the spin-off firm growth.

Yli-Renko et al. (2001b) examined dependence in key-customer relationships of technology-based new firms in United Kingdom. They examined whether the manner in which a contractual agreements were implemented affected the outcomes of customer relationships of technology-based new firms at high levels of exchange dependence on the key customer. They found that in relationships with a high level of exchange dependence, greater contractual governance flexibility was associated with greater new product development and sales cost advantages. No such benefits were realized for relationships in which exchange partners relied heavily on the contract.

They concluded that technology-based new firms could derive benefits from their key customer relationships by applying more flexible contractual governance. However, in their data, many companies appeared to be relying on strict contractual governance and thus failing to realize the potential benefits of the relationships, such as gaining access to complementary resources and reducing costs.

Bygrave (1987, 1988) applied resource dependence perspective in his analysis of syndication by venture capitalists. In his resource exchange model, he explained the interconnectedness of venture capitalist networks by concentration of venture capitalists in the area, munificence of the environment, and uncertainty of the target ventures, and found support for the model from the data on co-investments of 61 leading U.S. venture capital firms.

Applying resource dependence and resource-based perspectives, Park et al. (2001) analyzed alliances of 171 U.S. semiconductor start-up firms between 1979-1989. They did not find support for the resource dependence perspective based hypothesis that resource scarcity would drive alliance formation. Instead, they found support for the their hypothesis that alliance formation is driven by an attempt to exploit market opportunities.

Critique of the Resource Dependence Perspective

One of the criticisms of resource dependence perspective is that, although it highlights the importance of resource acquisition, it does not really explain how performance results from resources (Lumme 1998, Yli-Renko 1999).

Resource dependence perspective has been criticized for being essentially reactive (Keil 2000). Resource-based theories of strategic management have added a proactive dimension to firm behavior by proposing that firms establish alliances and other interorganizational resources in order to create value through combining complementary resources rather than by being forced to rely on others to survive (Keil 2000, Madhok & Tallman 1998, Park et al. 2001). It has also been argued that resource dependence is not always harmful for organizations when considering value creation in interorganizational relationships (Yli-Renko et al. 2001b).

Resource dependence perspective has also been criticized for focusing on resource needs as a motivation for establishing interorganizational relationships with little attention on the opportunities and factors enabling the creation of successful, value-creating interorganizational relationships (Gulati 1998).