Tipos de Airbag

Participation refers to the extent to which partners actively engage in planning and goal setting. When one partner’s actions influence the ability of the other to effectively compete, the need for participation becomes necessary for defining roles and responsibilities (Anderson et al 1987). Anderson et al (1987) also suggest that decision making and goal formulation are important aspects of participation thât help partnerships to succeed. Mohr and Spekman (1994) found support for the relationship between participation and alliance success for

computer dealers and suppliers within the USA. Using four measures they

planning purposes. Mohr and Spekman (1994) found participation was significant in predicting the success of the partnership in terms of satisfaction with profits and manufacturer support. Similarly, Monckza et al (1998) found evidence to support Mohr and Spekman (1994) finding that participation is an important factor in alliance success. However they examined participation as a combined measure

with information quality. Further evidence, for the relationship between

participation and alliance success has been provided by Olson and Singsuwan

(1997). They showed that not only was participation in decision-making

perceived to be an important factor in contributing to the success of the alliance by both Thai and American Executives, participation correlated with market share and ROI.

2.5.1.2.4 Communication and Success

From the above review of the literature, it is apparent that communication processes underlie most aspects of how strategic alliances function and are thus critical to alliance success. Nonetheless, studies of communication are under­ represented in the empirical research literature, especially research on international alliances. Although many aspects of communication have failed to receive the attention of researchers, the comprehensive review by Mohr and Nevin (1990) concluded that the major omission in this area concerned studies of how communication relates to the overall performance of alliances. Since Mohr and Nevin’s (1990) review, there have been few studies on communication in international strategic alliances. As discussed above various researchers have looked at different facets of communication, and have identified them to be critical for alliance success (Mohr and Spekman 1994; Monckza et al 1998).

In sum, higher levels of communication quality, more information sharing between partners, and more participation in planning and goal setting are positively related to the success of international strategic alliances. The following propositions have been formulated.

Proposition 5: T h e q u a lity o f in fo r m a tio n b e tw e e n p a r tn e r s w ill b e

g r e a t e r f o r s u c c e s s fu l U K in te r n a tio n a l s tr a te g ic a llia n c e s

c o m p a r e d w ith le ss s u c c e s s fu l in te r n a tio n a l s tr a te g ic

a llia n c e s .

Proposition 6: T h e r e w ill b e a g r e a te r le v e l o f in fo r m a tio n s h a r in g

b e tw e e n p a r tn e r s f o r s u c c e s s fu l U K in te r n a tio n a l s tr a te g ic

a llia n c e s c o m p a r e d w ith le s s s u c c e s s f u l in te r n a tio n a l

s tr a te g ic a llia n c e s.

Proposition 7: T h e l e v e l o f p a r tic ip a tio n in p la n n in g a n d g o a l s e ttin g

b e tw e e n p a r tn e r s w ill b e h ig h e r f o r s u c c e s s fu l U K

in te r n a tio n a l s tr a te g ic a llia n c e s , c o m p a r e d w ith le s s

s u c c e s s f u l in te r n a tio n a l s tr a te g ic a llia n c e s .

2.5.1.3 Conflict

Conflict has been regarded as an important feature of international strategic alliances. Conflicts are an inherent characteristic between units within a single organization and, therefore, are more likely to occur in the cooperation between

people from different organizations (Child and Faulkner 1998). Firms that engage in strategic alliances try to maintain their autonomy in an interdependent relationship, which gives rise to conflicts (Van de Ven and Walker 1984). Partners within a strategic alliance relationship have a drive for both autonomy and cooperation, which results in the coexistence of cooperative and conflictual motives within the alliance (Aldrich 1977). There are many ways in which conflicts can arise between partners. Conflicts may arise from differences in cultural values, management styles, operational methods and procedures which may jeopardize the alliance (Jain 1987). In international strategic alliances the presence of two parent firms can lead to differences between them in terms of management style, culture, communication, and operational practices which are conducive to conflict (Killing 1983; Jain 1987; Devlin and Bleackley 1988). Given that a certain amount of conflict is expected, an understanding of how such conflicts can be resolved is also important (Borys and Jemison 1989).

Cummings (1984) reports that strategic alliances are encouraged to engage in joint problem solving, so that they are able to mange the uncertain environment that they are faced with. Joint problem solving allows a mutually satisfactory solution to be reached, thereby enhancing alliance success. Partners very often attempt to persuade each other to adopt particular solutions to the conflict situation, which appear to be more constructive than the use of coercion or domination (Deutsch 1969). Domination or coercion are seen as being counterproductive and are likely to strain the fabric of the strategic alliance. In some strategic alliances conflict resolution is institutionalized, and third party arbitration is recommended

resolution is more likely to lead to long-term success (Assael 1969). Other conflict resolution techniques such as smoothing over or ignoring and avoiding the issue are somewhat at odds with the norms and values advocated in more successful strategic alliances. Such techniques do not fit in with alliances in which the problems of one party become the problems affecting both parties (Mohr and Spekman 1994).