Interfirm Rivalry and Managerial Complexity: A Conceptual Framework of Alliance Failure
Abstract
Empirical research indicates that more than half of strategic alliances fail, and the outcomes of alliance failure can be devastating. Despite the increased concern about managing strategic alliances, the field still lacks a theoretical framework to describe the conditions and dynamics leading to the failure of strategic alliances. This paper attempts to distill, derive, and integrate theories across different disciplines into a unified framework that offers a better understanding of alliance failure. The conceptual framework focuses on two primary sources of alliance failure: interfirm rivalry and managerial complexity. We propose that strategic alliances fail because of the opportunistic hazards as each partner tries to maximize its own individual interests instead of collaborative interests. Also, strategic alliances fail because of the difficulties in coordinating two independent firms (i.e., coordination costs), and in aligning operations at the alliance level with parent firms’ long-term goals (i.e., agency costs). The paper extends the theoretical framework by looking into a process model of alliance development and failure.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the three outcome-evoking definitions of collaboration, authors refer to dissimilar outcomes such as collaboration quality and stability of the business relationship.
“In the three definitions evoking outcomes (Cheung, Myers, & Mentzer, 2011;Hardy et al., 2005;Park & Ungson, 2001), authors refer to dissimilar outcomes, such as collaboration quality and stability of the business relationship.”
From Collaboration, Coordination, and Cooperation Among Organizations: Establishing the Distinctive Meanings of These Terms Through a Systematic Literature Review (2020) · cites this paper as Park & Ungson, 2001
Cites
The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism
Akerlof, G. A. (1970) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1879431 · Cited by 23,016 · see citing works
Comparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete Structural Alternatives
Williamson, O. E. (1991) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393356 · Cited by 7,151 · see citing works
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1996) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.7.2.136 · Cited by 2,672 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. (2006) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.02.005 · Cited by 1,222 · see citing works
Castañer, X., & Oliveira, N. (2020) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206320901565 · Cited by 525 · see citing works
Sarker, S., Sarker, S., Sahaym, A., & Bjørn-Andersen, N. (2012) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41410419 · Cited by 367 · see citing works
Confident or Competent? How to Avoid Superstitious Learning in Alliance Portfolios
Heimeriks, K. H. (2010) · Long Range Planning · doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2009.10.004 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
- Authors
- Park, S. H., & Ungson, G. R.
- Affiliations
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- University of Oregon (US)
- ORCID
- Park, Seung Ho
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2001-02
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 37-53
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2144123907
- Cited by
- 793
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 52 · 2015: 62 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 51 · 2012: 41
- FWCI
- 26.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Organization Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategy and Innovation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Outsourcing and Supply Chain Management
- Keywords
- strategic alliances, alliance failure, corporate rivalry, managerial complexity, opportunism, coordination costs, agency costs, alliance development, inter-organizational collaboration, conceptual framework
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review