IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v9y1998i3p285-305.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Interorganizational Learning Dilemma: Collective Knowledge Development in Strategic Alliances

Author

Listed:
  • Rikard Larsson

    (Department of Business Administration, School of Economics and Management, Lund University, P.O. Box 7080, S-220 07 Lund, Sweden)

  • Lars Bengtsson

    (Department of Business Administration, School of Economics and Management, Lund University, P.O. Box 7080, S-220 07 Lund, Sweden)

  • Kristina Henriksson

    (Department of Business Administration, School of Economics and Management, Lund University, P.O. Box 7080, S-220 07 Lund, Sweden)

  • Judith Sparks

    (California State University Long Beach, c/o 10205 Seabury Lane, Los Angeles, California 90077)

Abstract

Alliances are volatile key components of many corporations' competitive strategies. They offer fast and flexible means of achieving market access, scale economies, and competence development. However, strategic alliances can encounter difficulties that often lead to disappointing performance. The authors suggest that the way partners manage the collective learning process plays a central role in the success and failure of strategic alliances.Present understanding of interorganizational learning primarily focuses on how the individual organization can be a “good partner” or try to win the internal “race to learn” among the partners. The interorganizational learning dilemma is that (1) being a good partner invites exploitation by partners attempting to maximize their individual appropriation of the joint learning, and (2) such opportunistic learning strategies undercut the collective knowledge development in the strategic alliance.The authors develop a framework for understanding the dilemma through consideration of trade-offs between how collective learning is developed in alliances and how the joint learning outcomes are divided among the partners. They create a typology of five different learning strategies based on how receptive as well as how transparent an organization is in relation to its partners. The strategies are: collaboration (highly receptive and highly transparent); competition (highly receptive and nontransparent); compromise (moderately receptive and transparent); accommodation (nonreceptive and highly transparent); and avoidance (neither receptive nor transparent). Interorganizational learning outcomes are proposed to be the interactive results of the respective partners' type of adopted learning strategy.By synthesizing strategic alliance, organizational learning, collective action, and game theories, the framework contributes to understanding the variety in alliance development, performance, and longevity. Interorganizational learning is likely to be hindered by lack of either motivation or ability to absorb and communicate knowledge between the partner organizations. The dynamics of power, opportunism, suspicion, and asymmetric learning strategies can constitute processual barriers to collective knowledge development. In contrast, prior related interaction between the partners, high learning stakes, trust, and long-term orientation are likely to empower the collective learning process.Comparison of previous case studies and surveys of interorganizational learning provides partial empirical support for the proposed framework. The comparison also indicates several omissions in previous research, such as failure to consider either how receptive or how transparent the partners are, the interaction between their learning strategies, and their dynamic processes over time. Because these omissions are due partly to the methodological limitations of traditional case studies and crosssectional surveys, the authors suggest a bridging case survey design for a more comprehensive test of their interactive, dynamic, and situational framework.

Suggested Citation

  • Rikard Larsson & Lars Bengtsson & Kristina Henriksson & Judith Sparks, 1998. "The Interorganizational Learning Dilemma: Collective Knowledge Development in Strategic Alliances," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 285-305, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:9:y:1998:i:3:p:285-305
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.9.3.285
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.3.285
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.9.3.285?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. Ikujiro Nonaka, 1994. "A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 14-37, February.
    2. J. Carlos Jarillo, 1988. "On strategic networks," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(1), pages 31-41, January.
    3. Roth, David, 1996. "A Theory of Partnership Dynamics," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 95-112, January.
    4. Daniel A. Levinthal & James G. March, 1993. "The myopia of learning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 95-112, December.
    5. Africa Ariño & José de la Torre, 1998. "Learning from Failure: Towards an Evolutionary Model of Collaborative Ventures," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 306-325, June.
    6. Bengtsson, Lars & Elg, Ulf & Lind, Jan-Inge, 1997. "Bridging the transatlantic publishing gap: How North American reviewers evaluate European idiographic research," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 473-492, December.
    7. Andrew C. Inkpen & Mary M. Crossan, 1995. "Believing Is Seeing: Joint Ventures and Organization Learning," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(5), pages 595-618, September.
    8. Richard B Peterson & Hermann F Schwind, 1977. "A Comparative Study of Personnel Problems in International Companies and Joint Ventures in Japan," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 8(1), pages 45-56, March.
    9. Rajesh Kumar & Kofi O. Nti, 1998. "Differential Learning and Interaction in Alliance Dynamics: A Process and Outcome Discrepancy Model," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 356-367, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Koen H. Heimeriks & Geert Duysters, 2007. "Alliance Capability as a Mediator Between Experience and Alliance Performance: An Empirical Investigation into the Alliance Capability Development Process," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(1), pages 25-49, January.
    2. Haider, Sajjad & Mariotti, Francesca, 2016. "The orchestration of alliance portfolios: The role of alliance portfolio capability," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 127-141.
    3. Minna Halme, 2001. "Learning for sustainable development in tourism networks," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(2), pages 100-114, March.
    4. Jonathan R. Clark & Robert S. Huckman & Bradley R. Staats, 2013. "Learning from Customers: Individual and Organizational Effects in Outsourced Radiological Services," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(5), pages 1539-1557, October.
    5. Anoop Madhok & Stephen B. Tallman, 1998. "Resources, Transactions and Rents: Managing Value Through Interfirm Collaborative Relationships," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 326-339, June.
    6. Agulles, Remei & Prats, Mª Julia, 2011. "Learning in practice: What organizational and management literature can contribute to professional and occupational development," IESE Research Papers D/938, IESE Business School.
    7. Maurizio Zollo & Jeffrey J. Reuer, 2010. "Experience Spillovers Across Corporate Development Activities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(6), pages 1195-1212, December.
    8. Chris Changwha Chung & Paul W. Beamish, 2010. "The Trap of Continual Ownership Change in International Equity Joint Ventures," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(5), pages 995-1015, October.
    9. Janowicz, M.K. & Noorderhaven, N.G., 2002. "The Role of Trust in Interorganizational Learning in Joint Ventures," Discussion Paper 2002-119, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    10. Mitchell P. Koza & Arie Y. Lewin, 1998. "The Co-Evolution of Strategic Alliances," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 255-264, June.
    11. McCarthy, Killian J & Aalbers, Hendrik Leendert, 2022. "Alliance-to-acquisition transitions: The technological performance implications of acquiring one's alliance partners," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    12. Agulles, Remei & Prats, Maria Julia, 2012. "Change, growth and learning," IESE Research Papers D/955, IESE Business School.
    13. Frans A. J. Van den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda & Michiel de Boer, 1999. "Coevolution of Firm Absorptive Capacity and Knowledge Environment: Organizational Forms and Combinative Capabilities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(5), pages 551-568, October.
    14. Koo, JaSeung & Yamanoi, Junichi & Sakano, Tomoaki, 2020. "Acquisition announcements and stock market valuations of acquiring firms’ alliance partners: A transaction cost perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 129-140.
    15. Janowicz, M.K. & Noorderhaven, N.G., 2002. "The Role of Trust in Interorganizational Learning in Joint Ventures," Other publications TiSEM f10debea-9d7b-47c3-8d4f-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    16. Duniesky Feitó Madrigal & Alejandro Mungaray Lagarda & Michelle Texis Flores, 2016. "Factors associated with learning management in Mexican micro-entrepreneurs," Estudios Gerenciales, Universidad Icesi, vol. 32(141), pages 381-386, December.
    17. Schilling, Melissa A. & Green, Elad, 2011. "Recombinant search and breakthrough idea generation: An analysis of high impact papers in the social sciences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1321-1331.
    18. Ziggers, Gerrit Willem & Tjemkes, Brian, 2010. "Dynamics in Inter‐Firm Collaboration: The Impact of Alliance Capabilities on Performance," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 1(2), pages 1-16.
    19. Reuer, Jeffrey J. & Ariño, Africa, 2003. "Alliance dynamics for entrepreneurial firms," IESE Research Papers D/526, IESE Business School.
    20. Iavor Marangozov, 2005. "From Practice to Theory of the International Joint Ventures," Economic Studies journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 2, pages 44-77.

    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:9:y:1998:i:3:p:285-305. 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.