IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v31y2020i6p1385-1407.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Meso-Foundations of Interorganizational Relationships: How Team Power Structures Shape Partner Novelty

Author

Listed:
  • Trevor Young-Hyman

    (Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260)

  • Adam M. Kleinbaum

    (Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755)

Abstract

Novel external partnerships are valuable but risky, and scholars have examined the organization- and individual-level determinants of firms’ decisions to pursue these new relationships. Yet, in organizations performing complex and knowledge-intensive work, decisions about interorganizational relationships are often made within teams. We characterize these decisions as a two-stage process in which a team member proposes a partner and other team members respond, supporting or challenging the proposal. As novel partnerships are risky, and power is a key determinant of risk-taking propensity, we argue that the power of team members—both those who initiate proposals and those who respond—will shape the likelihood that the team will pursue a novel external partnership. Using personnel data from project teams in an automated equipment design and build firm, we find that the effect of power on the likelihood of novel partner adoption depends on both the type of power and the role of the person in the decision process. Novel partner selection is more likely when those initiating proposals hold formal structural power but less likely when initiators hold informal power. Both the formal and informal power of the initiator’s teammates attenuate the effect of initiator power, such that the more power one’s teammates have, the less one’s own power will affect the likelihood of novel external partner selection. Finally, we provide evidence that these effects on likelihood of novel partner adoption are as materially consequential for project outcomes as other strategic choices available to project teams. These findings have implications for the intraorganizational determinants of interorganizational networks.

Suggested Citation

  • Trevor Young-Hyman & Adam M. Kleinbaum, 2020. "Meso-Foundations of Interorganizational Relationships: How Team Power Structures Shape Partner Novelty," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 1385-1407, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:31:y:2020:i:6:p:1385-1407
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2020.1356
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2020.1356
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.2020.1356?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bruce Kogut, 1988. "Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(4), pages 319-332, July.
    2. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    3. Scott F. Turner & Richard A. Bettis & Richard M. Burton, 2002. "Exploring Depth Versus Breadth in Knowledge Management Strategies," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 49-73, May.
    4. A. Colin Cameron & Jonah B. Gelbach & Douglas L. Miller, 2011. "Robust Inference With Multiway Clustering," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 238-249, April.
    5. Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2009. "Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 8769.
    6. Henrik Bresman & Mary Zellmer-Bruhn, 2013. "The Structural Context of Team Learning: Effects of Organizational and Team Structure on Internal and External Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 1120-1139, August.
    7. Greene, William, 2010. "Testing hypotheses about interaction terms in nonlinear models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 291-296, May.
    8. Adam M. Kleinbaum & Toby E. Stuart & Michael L. Tushman, 2013. "Discretion Within Constraint: Homophily and Structure in a Formal Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(5), pages 1316-1336, October.
    9. Ray Reagans, 2005. "Preferences, Identity, and Competition: Predicting Tie Strength from Demographic Data," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(9), pages 1374-1383, September.
    10. Sah, Raaj Kumar & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1988. "Committees, Hierarchies and Polyarchies," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 98(391), pages 451-470, June.
    11. Boris Groysberg & Jeffrey T. Polzer & Hillary Anger Elfenbein, 2011. "Too Many Cooks Spoil the Broth: How High-Status Individuals Decrease Group Effectiveness," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 722-737, June.
    12. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    13. J. Stuart Bunderson & Ray E. Reagans, 2011. "Power, Status, and Learning in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1182-1194, October.
    14. J. Stuart Bunderson & Peter Boumgarden, 2010. "Structure and Learning in Self-Managed Teams: Why “Bureaucratic” Teams Can Be Better Learners," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 609-624, June.
    15. Christine M. Beckman & Pamela R. Haunschild & Damon J. Phillips, 2004. "Friends or Strangers? Firm-Specific Uncertainty, Market Uncertainty, and Network Partner Selection," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 259-275, June.
    16. King, Gary & Zeng, Langche, 2001. "Logistic Regression in Rare Events Data," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 137-163, January.
    17. Jody Hoffer Gittell & Rob Seidner & Julian Wimbush, 2010. "A Relational Model of How High-Performance Work Systems Work," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(2), pages 490-506, April.
    18. Rodrigo Canales, 2014. "Weaving Straw into Gold: Managing Organizational Tensions Between Standardization and Flexibility in Microfinance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 1-28, February.
    19. Jasjit Singh & Morten T. Hansen & Joel M. Podolny, 2010. "The World Is Not Small for Everyone: Inequity in Searching for Knowledge in Organizations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(9), pages 1415-1438, September.
    20. Ai, Chunrong & Norton, Edward C., 2003. "Interaction terms in logit and probit models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 123-129, July.
    21. Michelle Rogan & Marie Louise Mors, 2014. "A Network Perspective on Individual-Level Ambidexterity in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 1860-1877, December.
    22. Melissa A. Valentine & Amy C. Edmondson, 2015. "Team Scaffolds: How Mesolevel Structures Enable Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Groups," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 405-422, April.
    23. Daniel A. Levinthal & Maciej Workiewicz, 2018. "When Two Bosses Are Better Than One: Nearly Decomposable Systems and Organizational Adaptation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 207-224, April.
    24. Greer, Lindred L. & Caruso, Heather M. & Jehn, Karen A., 2011. "The bigger they are, the harder they fall: Linking team power, team conflict, and performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 116-128, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Henning Piezunka & Thorsten Grohsjean, 2023. "Collaborations that hurt firm performance but help employees’ careers," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(3), pages 778-811, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Linda Argote & Sunkee Lee & Jisoo Park, 2021. "Organizational Learning Processes and Outcomes: Major Findings and Future Research Directions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5399-5429, September.
    2. Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis & Robert Slonim, 2014. "Rewarding Volunteers: A Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(5), pages 1107-1129, May.
    3. Adam M. Kleinbaum, 2018. "Reorganization and Tie Decay Choices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 2219-2237, May.
    4. Francois Collet & Déborah Philippe, 2014. "From Hot Cakes to Cold Feet: A Contingent Perspective on the Relationship between Market Uncertainty and Status Homophily in the Formation of Alliances," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(3), pages 406-432, May.
    5. Wagner, Stefan & Goossen, Martin C., 2018. "Knowing me, knowing you: inventor mobility and the formation of technology-oriented alliances," IRTG 1792 Discussion Papers 2018-007, Humboldt University of Berlin, International Research Training Group 1792 "High Dimensional Nonstationary Time Series".
    6. Adam M. Kleinbaum & Toby E. Stuart & Michael L. Tushman, 2013. "Discretion Within Constraint: Homophily and Structure in a Formal Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(5), pages 1316-1336, October.
    7. Felipe A. Csaszar, 2013. "An Efficient Frontier in Organization Design: Organizational Structure as a Determinant of Exploration and Exploitation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 1083-1101, August.
    8. Carolina Rojas-Córdova & Amanda J. Williamson & Julio A. Pertuze & Gustavo Calvo, 2023. "Why one strategy does not fit all: a systematic review on exploration–exploitation in different organizational archetypes," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(7), pages 2251-2295, October.
    9. Button, Patrick & Walker, Brigham, 2020. "Employment discrimination against Indigenous Peoples in the United States: Evidence from a field experiment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    10. Stefan Grimm & Martin G. Kocher & Michal Krawczyk & Fabrice Lec, 2021. "Sharing or gambling? On risk attitudes in social contexts," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(4), pages 1075-1104, December.
    11. Aleksandra Kacperczyk & Matt Marx, 2016. "Revisiting the Small-Firm Effect on Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Firm Dissolutions," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 893-910, August.
    12. Rajat Khanna & Isin Guler, 2022. "Degree assortativity in collaboration networks and invention performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(7), pages 1402-1430, July.
    13. Lin, Hsing-Er & Hsu, I-Chieh & Hsu, Audrey Wenhsin & Chung, Hsi-Mei, 2020. "Creating competitive advantages: Interactions between ambidextrous diversification strategy and contextual factors from a dynamic capability perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    14. de Vaan, Mathijs, 2014. "Interfirm networks in periods of technological turbulence and stability," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1666-1680.
    15. Cuong Viet Nguyen & Finn Tarp, 2023. "Cash Transfers and Labor Supply: New Evidence on Impacts and Mechanisms," DERG working paper series 23-18, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. Development Economics Research Group (DERG).
    16. Sommer, Stephan & Mattauch, Linus & Pahle, Michael, 2022. "Supporting carbon taxes: The role of fairness," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    17. Sanoran, Kanyarat (Lek), 2018. "Auditors’ going concern reporting accuracy during and after the global financial crisis," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 164-178.
    18. Markku Maula & Wouter Stam, 2020. "Enhancing Rigor in Quantitative Entrepreneurship Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 44(6), pages 1059-1090, November.
    19. Ribuga Kang & Akbar Zaheer, 2018. "Determinants of alliance partner choice: Network distance, managerial incentives, and board monitoring," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(10), pages 2745-2769, October.
    20. Vibha Gaba & Ann Terlaak, 2013. "Decomposing Uncertainty and Its Effects on Imitation in Firm Exit Decisions," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(6), pages 1847-1869, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:31:y:2020:i:6:p:1385-1407. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.