Cited by 2,672Innovation and Knowledge ManagementBusiness Strategy and InnovationEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences

Resource-based View of Strategic Alliance Formation: Strategic and Social Effects in Entrepreneurial Firms

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M., Schoonhoven, Claudia Bird·1996·Organization Science

Abstract

Why do firms form strategic alliances? The traditional theoretical answer has been transaction cost explanations. Yet, these explanations which center on transaction characteristics, static efficiency, and routine situations do not capture the strategic and social factors which propel many firms into alliance formation. In this study, however, we combine these alternative social and strategic explanations for alliance formation. Consistent with these explanations, we find that alliances form when firms are in vulnerable strategic positions either because they are competing in emergent or highly competitive industries or because they are attempting pioneering technical strategies. We also find that alliances form when firms are in strong social positions such that they are led by large, experienced, and well-connected top management teams. The underlying logic of alliance formation is, thus, strategic needs and social opportunities. We develop these findings by extending the resource-based view of the firm to alliance formation and then examining the resulting hypotheses using product development alliances. The study is longitudinal and focuses on entrepreneurial semiconductor firms. Overall, strategic and social explanations of organizational phenomena as well as industry, firm, and top management team factors emerge as central in the paper. This suggests that these factors are relevant for predicting alliance formation, especially in high-velocity industries such as semiconductors. We conclude that failure to include social and strategic explanations creates an impoverished view of alliance formation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/orsc.7.2.136

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The principal benefits of networking identified in the literature include pooling complementary skills.

    “pooling complementary skills (Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1996;Hagedoorn and Duysters, 2002);”

    From Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the evidence (2004) · cites this paper as Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1996

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C. B.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Dartmouth College (US)
Venue
Organization Science
Published
1996-04
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
136-150
ISSN
  • 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5455
OpenAlex
W2025001207
Cited by
2,672
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 73 · 2022: 69 · 2021: 92 · 2020: 105 · 2019: 118 · 2018: 116 · 2017: 111 · 2016: 142 · 2015: 134 · 2014: 159 · 2013: 172 · 2012: 162
FWCI
82.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Organization Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategy and Innovation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Entrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Keywords
resource-based view, entrepreneurial firms, top management teams, social capital, strategic vulnerability, emerging industries, competitive industries, semiconductor industry, transaction cost economics

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