Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Dina Preston-Ortiz University of Phoenix.  Continued Growth of Strategic Alliance ◦ Global economy growth ◦ Technology forces  competitive efficiencies.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Dina Preston-Ortiz University of Phoenix.  Continued Growth of Strategic Alliance ◦ Global economy growth ◦ Technology forces  competitive efficiencies."— Presentation transcript:

1 Dina Preston-Ortiz University of Phoenix

2  Continued Growth of Strategic Alliance ◦ Global economy growth ◦ Technology forces  competitive efficiencies  High Failure Rate ◦ 70-75%  Partners are competitors outside alliance  Trust role in creating value 2

3  General Problem ◦ The general problem addressed in the Delphi Study is the 70-75% failure rate of strategic alliances (“Create Successful International Mergers and Alliances,” 2006; Taylor, 2005; Zineldin & Dodourova, 2005).  Specific Problem ◦ Trust influence on resource sharing, use of administrative controls and management flexibility critical to the development of successful partnerships (Das & Teng, 1998; Schumacher, 2006; Rowlings, Cheung, Simons & Rafferty, 2006). 3

4  The purpose of this qualitative Delphi study is to formulate a consensus from experts who have knowledge of the influence of trust on virtual alliance performance for the development of successful alliance. 4

5  A qualitative Delphi technique was applied to understand the influence of trust on virtual alliance performance (Creswell, 2005; Gonzalez et al., 2006; Grisham, 2009 Skulmoski, Hartman & Krahn, 2007) ◦ Convenience and snowball sampling ◦ 15 panelist ◦ 3 qualitative survey rounds  Open-ended questions  Likert-type scale survey  Ranking agreement/disagreement ◦ Outcome assessment ◦ 5 best practices 5

6  The study explored the research question of how trust among virtual strategic-alliance members influences business operations and the performance of individual alliance members (see Figure 1). Figure 1. Research Question Model Trust Influence Performance Indicators Management control Resource sharing Network flexibility 6

7 7 Systems PerspectiveTransactional PerspectiveSocial Science Perspective General System Theory (“Chapter XVI General Systems Theory,” 1964; Katz & Kahn, 1978; von Bertalanffy, 2008) Agency Theory (Bergen et al., 1992; Jensen & Meckling, 1976) Social Exchange Theory (Bignoux, 2006; Lambe, Wittmann, & Spekman, 2001; Voss et al., 2006; Young-Ybarra & Wiersma,1999) Open system Theory (Morrison, 2004; Yasin, Bayes & Czuchry,2005) Transaction Cost Theory (De Jong & Woolthuis, 2009; Goo et al., 2009 ;Judge & Dooley, 2006; Young- Ybarra, & Wiersma, 1999). Commitment Trust Theory (Bignoux, 2006; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; The commitment-trust theory, 1994; Voss et al., 2006) Strategic Alliance Foundational Research (Das, & Teng, 1998; Das, & Teng, 2001a; Das, & Teng, 2001b; Kearney, 2006) Value Chain Theory (Jonk, Handschuh, & Niewiem, 2008; Stewart & Fenn, 2006; Weber, 2008

8  Population: Meeting Planners International  Sample: Arizona Sunbelt Chapter, MPI  Sample Criteria A.Business owner or employee in an organization with at least 1 year membership in AZ Sunbelt Chapter B.Provide a service or products using the Internet or other types of technology information systems. C.Experience using the Internet or other types of technology information systems to contract/coordinate. 8

9 Methodology 9

10 10  Pilot Round: Open-ended survey  Round 1: Open-ended survey ◦ Six Central Themes identified (see Table K1)  Data reduction: Coding of nominal data  Development of R2: Likert-type scale survey  Round 2: Likert-type scale survey ◦ 20 statements developed (See Table K2)  Data reduction: Ordinal data median  Histogram: Gauge response differences between the trust and leadership questions.  Development R3: Ranking agreement/disagreement survey  Round 3: Ranking agreement/disagreement ◦ 18 statements developed (See Table K4)  Data reduction: Number of responses to each statement  Five statements (100% agreement)

11 Trust StatementsLeadership Statements The most important influences of trust include (a) creating a platform of respect (b) increased partner cooperation and (c) understanding between stakeholders Leaders must have a vision, inspire possibilities in partners, and increase innovation through learning to build successful virtual alliances Leaders must provide clear and dependable communication to build trust in virtual strategic alliances To create trust in virtual alliances leaders need to be consistent, able to clarify boundaries, roles and partner expectations To build trust among virtual alliance partners, leaders must be accessible *Based on the rankings above, these five statements received 100% agreement response rate from participants representing 25% of the final statements developed for Round Three 11

12  The Central Contributions  Leadership based practices had a greater influence on virtual alliance performance compared to trust based practices  Exception: creating a platform of respect  Cooperative resource exchanges  Long-term relationships  Contingency approach to leadership 12

13  Additional Data 1.Trust did not appear to reduce management controls 2.Trust supports flexibility through partner comfort and cooperation 3.Trust contributes to partner's individual goals 13

14  Addressed trust’s influence on management controls such as contracts, resource sharing, and underlying factors that lead to network flexibility in specific industries (Ang, 2007; Das & Teng, 1998; Schumacher, 2006; Vianna Villas & Aduard de Macedo-Soares, 2007; Young- Ybarra & Wiers,1999)  Addressed the underlying influences of a virtual network structure on an alliance’s communication and culture. (Kearney, 2006)  Gaps in past research included the ability to generalize the influence of trust on performance at it extends to other industries (McEvily & Marcus, 2005) 14

15  External validity ◦ Small sample size and homogeneity of the 15 participants ◦ Participant expertise ◦ Participants willingness to share information 15

16  Leadership Based Practices ◦ consistent behavior ◦ accessibility ◦ innovation through learning ◦ utilize clear and dependable communications ◦ encourage partner cooperation  Trust Based Practices ◦ create a platform of respect  Cooperation/communication 16


18 Avolio, B. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building. American Psychologist, 62(1), 25-33. Retrieved from Ebscohost database. Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112-116. Retrieved from Proquest database. Bergen, M., Dutta, S., & Walker, O. (1992). Agency relationships in marketing: A review of the implications and applications of agency and related theories. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 1–5, Retrieved from Proquest database. Bignoux, S. (2006). Short-term strategic alliances: A social exchange perspective. Management Decision. 44(5), 615-627. Retrieved from Emerald database. Bligh, M., Pearce, C., & Kohles, J. (2006). The importance of self- and shared leadership in team based knowledge work: A meso-level model of leadership dynamics. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 296-318. Retrieved from Proquest database. Burns, J. (2003). Transforming leadership. New York: Atlantic Monthly. Carte, T., Chidambaram, L., & Becker, A. (2006). Emergent leadership in self-managed virtual teams: A longitudinal study of concentrated and shared leadership behaviors. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 323-343. Retrieved from Proquest database. Chapter XVI general systems theory. (1964). The American Behavioral Scientist (pre-1986), 7(7), 137-139. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global database. Create successful international mergers and alliances. (2006). Strategic Direction, 22(1), 25-28. Retrieved from Proquest database. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Das, T., & Teng, B. (1998). Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliance. Academy of Management Review, 23, 491-499. Retrieved from Proquest database. Das, T., & Teng, B. (2001a). Relational risk and its personal correlates in strategic alliances. Journal of Business & Psychology, 15, 449-465. Retrieved from Proquest database. Das, T., & Teng, B. (2001b). Trust, control and risk in strategic alliances: An integrated framework. Organizational Studies, 22(2), 251-263. Retrieved from Proquest database. 18

19 De Jong, G., & Woolthuis, R. (2009). The content and role of formal contracts in high-tech alliances. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 11(1), 44-59. Retrieved from Ebscohost database. Gonzalez, R., Gasco, J., & Llopis, J. (2006). Information systems managers' view about outsourcing in Spain. Information Management & Computer Security, 14, 312-326. Retrieved from Proquest database. Goo, J., Kishore, R., Rao, H., & Nam, K. (2009). The role of service level agreements in relational management of information technology outsourcing: An empirical study. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 119-145. Retrieved from Ebscohost database. Grisham, T. (2009). The Delphi technique: A method for testing complex and multifaceted topics. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2(10), 112-130. Retrieved from Emerald database. Herold, D., Fedor, D., Caldwell, S., & Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of transformational and change leadership on employees' commitment to a change: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 346-357. Retrieved from Proquest database. Hoyt, C., & Blascovich, J. (2003). Transformational and transactional leadership in virtual and physical environments. Small Group Research, 34, 678-715. Retrieved from Sage Journal database. Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360. Retrieved from John Adair: Action-centered leadership. (2003, March). Thinkers. Retrieved from General OneFile via Gale: prodId=ITOF Jonk, G., Handschuh, M., & Niewiem, S. (2008). The battle of the value chains: New specialized versus old hybrids. Strategy & Leadership, 36(2), 24-29. Retrieved from Proquest database. Judge, W., & Dooley, R. (2006). Strategic alliance outcomes: A transaction-cost economics perspective. British Journal of Management, 17(10), 23-37. Retrieved from Ebscohost database. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Kearney, P. (2006). Trust and security in virtual organizations. BT Technology Journal, 24(2), 209. Retrieved from Proquest database. Konorti, E. (2008). The 3D transformational leadership model. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 14(1), 10-20. Retrieved from Proquest database. Lambe, C., Wittmann, C., & Spekman, R. (2001). Social exchange theory and research on business-to-business relational exchange. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 8(3), 1. Retrieved from Ebscohost database. 19

20 Morgan, R., & Hunt, S. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-23. Retrieved from Proquest database. Rowlings, S., Cheung, F., Simons, R., & Rafferty, A. (2006). Alliancing in Australia-No litigation contracts: A tautology? Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education & Practice, 132(1), 77-81. Retrieved from Ebscohost database. Schumacher, C. (2006). Trust a source of success in strategic alliances? Schmalenbach Business Review, 58, 259- 270. Retrieved from Proquest database. Skulmoski, G., Hartman, F., & Krahn, J. (2007, January). The Delphi Method for Graduate Research. Journal of Information Technology Education, 6, 1-21. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. Scott, L., & Caress, A. (2005). Shared governance and shared leadership: Meeting the challenges of implementation. Journal of Nursing Management, 13(1), 4-12. Retrieved from Proquest database. Stewart, I., & Fenn, P. (2006). Strategy: The motivation for innovation. Construction Innovation, 6(3), 173-185. Retrieved from Proquest database. Taylor, A. (2005). An operations perspective on strategic alliance success factors: An exploratory study of alliance managers in the software industry. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 25, 469- 490. Retrieved from Proquest database. von Bertalanffy, L. (2008). An outline of general system theory. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 10(2), 103- 123. Retrieved from Ebscohost database. Voss, K., Johnson, J., Cullen, J., Sakano, T., & Takenouchi, H. (2006). Relational exchange in US-Japanese marketing strategic alliances. International Marketing Review, 23, 610-625. Retrieved from Emerald Journal database. Weber, A. (2008). Product design for greater profits. Assembly, 51(3), 26-32. Retrieved from Proquest Science Journals database. Wood, M., & Fields, D. (2007). Exploring the impact of shared leadership on management team member job outcomes. Baltic Journal of Management, 2, 251-255. Retrieved from Proquest database. 20

21 Yasin, M., Bayes, P., & Czuchry, A. (2005). The changing role of accounting in supporting the quality and customer goals of organizations: an open systems perspective. International Journal of Management, 22, 323-331, 507. Retrieved from Proquest database. Young-Ybarra, C., & Wiersma, M. (1999). Strategic flexibility in information technology alliances: The influence of transaction cost economies and social exchange theory. Organization Science, 10(4), 439. Retrieved from Proquest database. Zayani, F. (2008). The impact of transformational leadership on the success of global virtual teams: An investigation based on the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Dissertation Abstracts International, 69 (06), 151A. (UMI No. 3315224) Zineldin, M., & Dodourova, M. (2005). Motivation, achievements and failure of strategic alliances: The case of Swedish auto-manufacturers in Russia. European Business Review, 17, 460-470. Retrieved from Proquest database. 21

Download ppt "Dina Preston-Ortiz University of Phoenix.  Continued Growth of Strategic Alliance ◦ Global economy growth ◦ Technology forces  competitive efficiencies."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google