Published Online:https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.0038

Whereas extant theorizing on interorganizational relational dynamics has highlighted the importance of between-partner differences, we shift attention to within-partner differences. We explore how internal fragmentation—that is, the existence of multiple coalitions within a partner organization, each with different interests and perspectives—influences the evolution of relational characteristics in interorganizational relationships. Based on a longitudinal case study of a dyadic strategic alliance, we develop a process model, describing how internal fragmentation within one of the partner organizations can lead to a counterintuitive relational pattern—namely, “dual relational dynamics”—where decision makers of both partners continue renewing their formal commitments, while simultaneously experiencing negative trust dynamics. We show that the existence of different belief systems within one partner organization can lead to a politically charged process, wherein different coalitions within this organization frame and act upon interorganizational events in different ways. This politically charged process can fuel both hope and disappointment among decision makers of both partner organizations, leading to dual relational dynamics. Our findings contribute by advocating a political perspective on interorganizational relationships. We also demonstrate the relevance of this political perspective by showing how it challenges the dominant notion of interorganizational relational dynamics as reinforcing spirals.

REFERENCES

  • Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. 2001. How entrepreneurial firms can benefit from alliances with large partners. Academy of Management Perspectives, 15: 139–148.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Ariño, A., & de la Torre, J. 1998. Learning from failure: Towards an evolutionary model of collaborative ventures. Organization Science, 9: 306–325. Google Scholar
  • Bidwell, M. J. 2012. Politics and firm boundaries: How organizational structure, group interests, and resources affect outsourcing. Organization Science, 23: 1622–1642. Google Scholar
  • Bottom, W. P., Gibson, K., Daniels, S. E., & Murnighan, J. K. 2002. When talk is not cheap: Substantive penance and expressions of intent in rebuilding cooperation. Organization Science, 13: 497–513. Google Scholar
  • Brattström, A., Faems, D., & Mähring, M. 2019. From trust convergence to trust divergence: Trust development in conflictual interorganizational relationships. Organization Studies, 40: 1685–1711. Google Scholar
  • Bruyaka, O., Philippe, D., & Castañer, X. 2018. Run away or stick together? The impact of organization-specific adverse events on alliance partner defection. Academy of Management Review, 43: 445–469.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Cornelissen, J. P., & Werner, M. D. 2014. Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature. Academy of Management Annals, 8: 181–235.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar
  • Das, T. K., & Teng, B.-S. 2000. Instabilities of strategic alliances: An internal tensions perspective. Organization Science, 11: 77–101. Google Scholar
  • Das, T. K., & Teng, B.-S. 2001. Trust, control, and risk in strategic alliances: An integrated framework. Organization Studies, 22: 251–283. Google Scholar
  • Doz, Y. L. 1996. The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: Initial conditions or learning processes? Strategic Management Journal, 17: 55–84. Google Scholar
  • Dyer, J. H. 1997. Effective interfirm collaboration: How firms minimize transaction costs and maximize transaction value. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 535–556. Google Scholar
  • Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. 2000. Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 345–367. Google Scholar
  • Dyer, J. H., Singh, H., & Hesterly, W. S. 2018. The relational view revisited: A dynamic perspective on value creation and value capture. Strategic Management Journal, 39: 3140–3162. Google Scholar
  • Elfenbein, D. W., & Zenger, T. R. 2014. What is a relationship worth? Repeated exchange and the development and deployment of relational capital. Organization Science, 25: 222–244. Google Scholar
  • Faems, D., Janssens, M., Madhok, A., & Van Looy, B. 2008. Toward an integrative perspective on alliance governance: Connecting contract design, trust dynamics, and contract application. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 1053–1078.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Farina, C. J., Hearth, A. K., & Popovich, J. M. 1995. Hope and hopelessness: Critical clinical constructs. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Google Scholar
  • Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. 2014. Power in management and organization science. Academy of Management Annals, 8: 237–298.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Geppert, M., Becker-Ritterspach, F., & Mudambi, R. 2016. Politics and power in multinational companies: Integrating the international business and organization studies perspectives. Organization Studies, 37: 1209–1225. Google Scholar
  • Geppert, M., & Dörrenbächer, C. 2014. Politics and power within multinational corporations: Mainstream studies, emerging critical approaches and suggestions for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16: 226–244. Google Scholar
  • Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. 2013. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16: 15–31. Google Scholar
  • Glynn, M. A. 2000. When cymbals become symbols: Conflict over organizational identity within a symphony orchestra. Organization Science, 11: 285–298. Google Scholar
  • Goerzen, A., & Beamish, P. W. 2005. The effect of alliance network diversity on multinational enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26: 333–354. Google Scholar
  • Gouldner, A. W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25: 161–178. Google Scholar
  • Gulati, R. 1995. Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 85–112.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Hambrick, D. C., & Finkelstein, S. 1987. Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes. In B. M. StawL. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 9: 369–406. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Google Scholar
  • Hamel, G. 1991. Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 12(S1): 83–103. Google Scholar
  • Howard-Grenville, J. A. 2007. Developing issue-selling effectiveness over time: Issue selling as resourcing. Organization Science, 18: 560–577. Google Scholar
  • Kaplan, S. 2008. Framing contests: Strategy making under uncertainty. Organization Science, 19: 729–752. Google Scholar
  • Koveshnikov, A., Vaara, E., & Ehrnrooth, M. 2016. Stereotype-based managerial identity work in multinational corporations. Organization Studies, 37: 1353–1379. Google Scholar
  • Langley, A. 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24: 691–710.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Lazarus, R. S. 1999. Hope: An emotion and a vital coping resource against despair. Social Research, 66: 653–678. Google Scholar
  • Lumineau, F. 2013, August 13. How contracts influence trust and distrust. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida. Google Scholar
  • Lumineau, F., & Oliveira, N. 2018. A pluralistic perspective to overcome major blind spots in research on interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Annals, 12: 440–465.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Madhok, A. 1995. Revisiting multinational firms’ tolerance for joint ventures: A trust-based approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 26: 117–137. Google Scholar
  • Majchrzak, A., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Bagherzadeh, M. 2015. A review of interorganizational collaboration dynamics. Journal of Management, 41: 1338–1360. Google Scholar
  • March, J. G. 1962. The business firm as a political coalition. Journal of Politics, 24: 662–678. Google Scholar
  • Monin, P., Noorderhaven, N., Vaara, E., & Kroon, D. 2013. Giving sense to and making sense of justice in postmerger integration. Academy of Management Journal, 56: 256–284.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Nickerson, J. A., & Silverman, B. S. 2003. Why firms want to organize efficiently and what keeps them from doing so: Inappropriate governance, performance, and adaptation in a deregulated industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 433–465. Google Scholar
  • Oliver, C. 1990. Determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 15: 241–265.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Pablo, A. L. 1994. Determinants of acquisition integration level: A decision-making perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 803–836.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. 2010. When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35: 455–476.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Perkmann, M., & Schildt, H. 2015. Open data partnerships between firms and universities: The role of boundary organizations. Research Policy, 44: 1133–1143. Google Scholar
  • Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. 2009. Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30: 629–652. Google Scholar
  • Reuer, J. J., & Devarakonda, S. V. 2016. Mechanisms of hybrid governance: Administrative committees in non-equity alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 59: 510–533.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Ring, P. S. 1997. Processes facilitating reliance on trust in interorganizational networks. In M. Ebers (Ed.), The formation of interorganizational networks: 113–145. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  • Ring, P. S., & van de Ven, A. H. 1992. Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 483–498. Google Scholar
  • Ring, P. S., & van de Ven, A. H. 1994. Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19: 90–118.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Salvato, C., Reuer, J., & Battigalli, P. 2017. Cooperation across disciplines: A multilevel perspective on cooperative behavior in governing interfirm relations. Academy of Management Annals, 11: 960–1004.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Schilke, O., & Cook, K. S. 2013. A cross-level process theory of trust development in interorganizational relationships. Strategic Organization, 11: 281–303. Google Scholar
  • Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. L. 1993. Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic “remedies” for trust/distrust. Organization Science, 4: 367–392. Google Scholar
  • Stevenson, W. B., Pearce, J. L., & Porter, L. W. 1985. The concept of “coalition” in organization theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 10: 256–268.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Tolbert, P., & Zucker, L. 1996. The institutionalization of institutional theory. In S. R. CleggC. HardyW. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies: 175–190. London, U.K.: SAGE. Google Scholar
  • Vaara, E. 2003. Post‐acquisition integration as sensemaking: Glimpses of ambiguity, confusion, hypocrisy, and politicization. Journal of Management Studies, 40: 859–894. Google Scholar
  • Vaara, E., & Monin, P. 2010. A recursive perspective on discursive legitimation and organizational action in mergers and acquisitions. Organization Science, 21: 3–22. Google Scholar
  • Vaara, E., & Tienari, J. 2008. A discursive perspective on legitimation strategies in multinational corporations. Academy of Management Review, 33: 985–993.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Vaara, E., Tienari, J., Piekkari, R., & Säntti, R. 2005. Language and the circuits of power in a merging multinational corporation. Journal of Management Studies, 42: 595–623. Google Scholar
  • Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. 1990. Methods for studying innovation development in the Minnesota innovation research program. Organization Science, 1: 313–335. Google Scholar
  • van Maanen, J. 1979. The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 539–550. Google Scholar
  • Vlaar, P. W. L., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. 2007. On the evolution of trust, distrust, and formal coordination and control in interorganizational relationships: Toward an integrative framework. Group & Organization Management, 32: 407–428. Google Scholar
  • Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Google Scholar
  • Whitford, J., & Zirpoli, F. 2016. The network firm as a political coalition. Organization Studies, 37: 1227–1248. Google Scholar
  • Woolthuis, R. K., Hillebrand, B., & Nooteboom, B. 2005. Trust, contract and relationship development. Organization Studies, 26: 813–840. Google Scholar
  • Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. 1998. Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9: 141–159. Google Scholar
  • Zaheer, A., & Venkatraman, N. 1995. Relational governance as an interorganizational strategy: An empirical test of the role of trust in economic exchange. Strategic Management Journal, 16: 373–392. Google Scholar
  • Zeelenberg, M., van Dijk, W. W., Manstead, A. S. R., & van der Pligt, J. 1998. The experience of regret and disappointment. Cognition and Emotion, 12: 221–230. Google Scholar
  • Zeelenberg, M., van Dijk, W. W., Manstead, A. S. R., & van der Pligt, J. 2000. On bad decisions and disconfirmed expectancies: The psychology of regret and disappointment. Cognition and Emotion, 14: 521–541. Google Scholar
  • Zhong, W., Su, C., Peng, J., & Yang, Z. 2017. Trust in interorganizational relationships: A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Management, 43: 1050–1075. Google Scholar
Academy of Management
  Academy of Management
  100 Summit Lake Drive, Suite 110
  Valhalla, NY 10595, USA
  Phone: +1 (914) 326-1800
  Fax: +1 (914) 326-1900