Advertisement

The Challenge of Non-Cooperation

  • Wilma W. Suen

Abstract

If alliances are vital for firms to achieve goals they cannot reach on their own, why is there non-cooperation? Cooperation is not a denial of a firm’s self-interest or its goal of profit maximization. In the international relations sphere, Morgenthau contended that states pursue alliances for expediency’s sake, not principle.1 Applied to the business context, alliances are a means for a firm to achieve a goal more expeditiously, share risk, or access resources it does not possess. This perspective implies that strategic alliances are not meant to be permanent institutions, but rather, are temporary constructs created in response to a particular situation or environment. As such, the marriage analogy used by many observers is not accurate because it implies permanence. Instead, alliances might resemble a game of musical chairs as firms juggle their partners to access the most valuable assets.

Keywords

Switching Cost Strategic Alliance Opportunistic Behaviour Dark Side Relative Gain 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    H. J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: the Struggle for Power and Peace, 5th edn, revised (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978), p. 188.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Ariño, ‘To Do or Not To Do? Noncooperative Behavior by Commission and Omission in Interfirm Ventures’, Group … Organization Management, 26 (2001) 5–9.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. R. Root, ‘Some Taxonomies of International Cooperative Arrangements’, in Cooperative Strategies in International Business, (ed.) F. J. Contractor and P. Lorange (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1988), p. 75.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Child and D. Faulkner, Strategies of Cooperation: Managing Alliances, Networks and Joint Ventures, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 187.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. A. Berle and G. Means, The Modern Corporation and Private Property (New York: Macmillan, 1932).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. M. Grieco, ‘Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism’, in Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge, (ed.) C. W. Kegley, Jr. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995), p. 152.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    W. H. Riker, The Theory of Political Coalitions, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962), p. 20.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. O. Keohane and J. S. Nye, Power and Interdependence, 3td edn (Boston: Longman, 2001), p. 9.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. B. Tucker, Partners and Rivals: A Model of International Collaboration in Advanced Technology’, International Organization, 45 (1991) 88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Y. L. Doz and G. Hamel, Alliance Advantage: The Art of Creating Value Through Partnering (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1998), p. 196.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. E. Porter, Competitive Advantage of Nations (New York: Free Press, 1990), pp. 612–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Hamel et al., ‘Collaborate with Your Competitors — and Win’, Harvard Business Review, 67 (January-February 1989) 133.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. J. Buckley and M. Casson, ‘A Theory of Cooperation in International Business’, in Cooperative Strategies in International Business, (ed.) F. J. Contractor and P. Lorange (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1988), p. 32.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Axelrod and R. O. Keohane, ‘Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions’, World Politics, 38 (1985) 226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Gulati, T. Khanna, and N. Nohria, ‘Unilateral Commitments and the Importance of Process in Alliances’, Sloan Management Review, 35 (1994) 61–9;Google Scholar
  16. D. J. Teece, ‘Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications, Integration, Collaboration, Licensing and Public Policy’, in The Competitive Challenge, (ed.) D. J. Teece (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing, 1987), pp. 185–219.Google Scholar
  17. 16.
    R. Gulati, ‘Does Familiarity Breed Trust? The Implications of Repeated Ties for Contractual Choice in Alliances’, Academy of Management Journal, 38 (1995) 102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    O. E. Williamson, Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications (New York: The Free Press, 1975), p. 255.Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    B. Gomes-Casseres, The Alliance Revolution: The New Shape of Business Rivalry (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996), p. 141.Google Scholar
  20. 24.
    W. B. Arthur, ‘Increasing Returns and the New World of Business’, Harvard Business Review, 74 (July-August 1996) 100–9.Google Scholar
  21. 25.
    T. K. Das and B. Teng, ‘Instabilities of Strategic Alliances: An Internal Tensions Perspective’, Organization Science, 11 (2000) 84–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 26.
    A. O. Hirschman, Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970).Google Scholar
  23. 27.
    D. Spar, ‘Note on Rules’, HBS No. 799-013/Rev. 31 March 1999 (Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing, 1999).Google Scholar
  24. 28.
    P. Hwang and W. P. Burgers ‘The Many Faces of Multi-Firm Alliances: Lessons for Managers’, California Management Review, 39 (Spring 1997) 101–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 29.
    S. Khemani and L. Waverman, ‘Strategic Alliances: A Threat to Competition?’, in Competition Policy in the Global Economy: Modalities for Cooperation, (ed.) L. Waverman, W. S. Comanor, and A. Goto (London: Routledge, 1997).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Wilma W. Suen 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wilma W. Suen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations