Abstract
Exploration and exploitation constitute two separate, potentially conflicting strategic choices for firms engaged in international strategic alliances. Our empirical study challenges the ambidexterity argument and demonstrates that exploration and exploitation are separate (though not necessarily antithetical) strategies with different antecedents and performance consequences.
Our results show that while competency similarity is conducive to upstream innovative performance, prior experience with the partner is potentially damaging for this type of performance and trust and cultural distance do not play significant roles. When the motive is efficiency and downstream market performance, prior experience with the partner instead is beneficial, as are high levels of trust and low levels of cultural distance. These findings have key implications for literature on strategic fit and alliance performance.
Our results show that while competency similarity is conducive to upstream innovative performance, prior experience with the partner is potentially damaging for this type of performance and trust and cultural distance do not play significant roles. When the motive is efficiency and downstream market performance, prior experience with the partner instead is beneficial, as are high levels of trust and low levels of cultural distance. These findings have key implications for literature on strategic fit and alliance performance.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Journal | International Business Review |
Volume | 21 |
Issue number | 4 |
Pages (from-to) | 558-574 |
Number of pages | 17 |
ISSN | 0969-5931 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2012 |
Keywords
- Alliances
- Trust
- Strategic Fit
- Performance Exploitation
- Ambidexterity
- Exploration