The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Resource-based View of Strategic Alliance Formation: Strategic and Social Effects in Entrepreneurial Firms
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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 citing paper
“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
Citations
Cites
Comparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete Structural Alternatives
Williamson, O. E. (1991) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393356 · Cited by 7,151
A transaction costs theory of equity joint ventures
Hennart, J. (1988) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250090406 · Cited by 1,843
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1998.1255632 · Cited by 12,810
“In other instances potential partners may simply lack the relational capability or the relation-building skills and process skills necessary to employ effective governance mechanisms, make relation-specific investments, or develop knowledge-sharing routines ( Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1996; Larson, 1992).”
BackgroundIs the Resource-Based “View” a Useful Perspective for Strategic Management Research?
Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2001.4011928 · Cited by 4,461
Boards of Directors and Firm Performance: Integrating Agency and Resource Dependence Perspectives
Hillman, A., & Dalziel, T. (2003) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2003.10196729 · Cited by 4,092
Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer
Mowery, D., Oxley, J., & Silverman, B. (1996) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250171108 · Cited by 3,570
“1988; Hagedoorn and Schakenraad, 1990; Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1996 ).”
A Resource-Based Theory of Strategic Alliances
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. (2000) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1016/s0149-2063(99)00037-9 · Cited by 2,876
“The few studies that have applied the resource-based perspective to strategic alliances cover only limited aspects (e.g., Blodgett, 1991; Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1996; Kogut, 1988; Mowery, Oxley, & Silverman, 1998; Rouse & Daellenbach, 1999; Tyler & Steensma, 1995, 1998; Varadarajan & Cunningham,…”
Background
Metadata
- 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