Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Alliance orientation: Conceptualization, measurement, and impact on market performance

  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Interfirm collaborations have inspired a rich literature in marketing and strategy during the past two decades. Building on this extant work, the authors developed a new construct, alliance orientation, and explored its influence on firms’ alliance network performance and market performance. The authors drew on data collected from 182 U.S. firms with extensive experience informing, developing, and managing strategic alliances in marketing, new product development, distribution, technology, and manufacturing projects. Using structural equations modeling, the authors demonstrate that alliance orientation significantly affects alliance network performance, which in turn enhances market performance. The findings also suggest that market turbulence exerts a significant moderating influence on the relationship between alliance orientation and alliance network performance, whereas the moderating role of technological turbulence on that relationship does not appear to be significant. The study provides evidence that firms’ alliance orientations positively affect their performance in strengthening their alliance network relationships and in managing conflicts with their alliance partners.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anand, Bharat N. and Tarun Khanna. 2000. “Do Firms Learn to Create Value? The Case of Alliances.”Strategic Management Journal 21 (3): 295–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, James C. and D. W. Gerbing. 1988. “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach.”Psychological Bulletin 103 (3): 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ——, Hakan Hakansson, and Jan Johanson. 1994. “Dyadic Business Relationships Within a Business Network Context.”Journal of Marketing 58 (4): 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —— and James A. Narus. 1990. “A Model of Distributor Firm and Manufacturer Firm Working Partnerships.”Journal of Marketing 54 (1): 42–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, J. Scott and Terry S. Overton. 1977. “Estimating Non-Response Bias in Mail Surveys.”Journal of Marketing Research 14 (3): 396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aulakh, Preet S., Masaaki Kotabe, and Arvind Sahay. 1996. “Trust and Performance in Cross-Border Marketing Partnerships: A Behavioral Approach.”Journal of International Business Studies 27 (5): 1005–1032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, Richard P., Youjae Yi, and Lynn W. Phillips. 1991. “Assessing Construct Validity in Organizational Research.”Administrative Science Quarterly 36 (September): 421–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, Jay. 1991. “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage.”Journal of Management 17 (1): 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny. 1986. “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (6): 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, Peter M. 1995.EQS Structural Equations Program Manual. Los Angeles: Multivariate Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohrnstedt, G. W. and G. Marwell. 1978. “The Reliability of Products of Two Random Variables.” InSociological Methodology. Ed. K. F. Schuessler. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 254–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, Kenneth A. 1989.Structural Equations With Latent Variables. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • — and Richard Lennox. 1991. “Conventional Wisdom on Measurement: A Structural Equation Perspective.”Psychological Bulletin 110 (2): 305–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucklin, Louis P. and Sanjit Sengupta. 1993. “Organizing Successful Co-Marketing Alliances.”Journal of Marketing 57 (April): 32–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busemeyer, J. R. and L. E. Jones. 1983. “Analysis of Multiplicative Combination Rules When the Causal Variables Measured With Error.”Psychological Bulletin 93:549–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, Seungwha, Harbir Singh, and Kyungmook Lee. 2000. “Complementarity, Status Similarity and Social Capital as Drivers of Alliance Formation.”Strategic Management Journal 21 (1): 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr. 1979. “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs.”Journal of Marketing Research 16 (1): 64–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlstrom, Robert, Kevin M. McNeilly, and Thomas W. Speh. 1996. “Buyer-Seller Relationships in the Procurement of Logistical Services.”Journalof the Academy of Marketing Science 24 (2): 110–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, George S. 1994. “The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations.”Journal of Marketing 58 (4): 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1995. “Advantageous Alliances.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 23 (4): 297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — and David B. Montgomery. 1999. “Charting New Directions for Marketing.”Journal of Marketing 63:3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, Adamantios and Heidi M. Winklhofer. 2001. “Index Construction With Formative Indicators: An Alternative to Scale Development.”Journal of Marketing Research 38 (2): 269–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doz, Yves L. 1996. “The Evolution of Cooperation in Strategic Alliances: Initial Conditions or Learning Processes?”Strategic Management Journal 17:55–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, F. Robert, Paul H. Schurr, and Sejo Oh. 1987. “Developing Buyer-Seller Relationships.”Journal of Marketing 51 (2): 11–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. and Jeffrey A. Martin. 2000. “Dynamic Capabilities: What Are They?”Strategic Management Journal 21 (10/11): 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation Models With Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error.”Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1): 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerbing, David W. and James C. Anderson. 1988. “An Updated Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating Unidimensionality and Its Assessment.”Journal of Marketing Research 25 (2): 186–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geringer, J. Michael. 1991. “Strategic Determinants of Partner Selection Criteria in International Joint Ventures.”Journal of International Business Studies 22 (1): 41–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Germain, Richard, Cornelia Droge, and Patricia Daugherty. 1994. “The Effect of Just-in-Time Selling on Organizational Structure: An Empirical Investigation.”Journal of Marketing Research 31 (4): 471–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, Ranjay. 1998. “Alliances and Networks.”Strategic Management Journal 19 (4): 293–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1999. “Network Location and Learning: The Influence of Network Resources and Firm Capabilities on Alliance Formation.”Strategic Management Journal 20 (5): 397–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —, Nitin Nohria, and Akbar Zaheer. 2000. “Strategic Networks.”Strategic Management Journal 21 (3): 203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gundlach, Greg T. and Ernest R. Cadotte. 1994. “Exchange Interdependence and Interfirm Interaction: Research in a Simulated Channel Setting.”Journal of Marketing Research 31 (November): 516–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, Anil K. and V. Govindarajan. 1984. “Business Unit Strategy, Managerial Characteristics, and Business Unit Effectiveness at Strategy Implementation.”Academy of Management Journal 27 (1): 25–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heide, Jan B. and George John. 1990. “Alliances in Industrial Purchasing: The Determinants of Joint Action in Buyer-Supplier Relationships.”Journal of Marketing Research 27 (1): 24–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hite, Julie M. and William S. Hesterly. 2001. “The Evolution of Firm Networks: From Emergence to Early Growth of the Firm.”Strategic Management Journal 22 (3): 275–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, Li-tze and Peter Bentler 1999. “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives.”Structural Equation Modeling 6(1): 1–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, George P. 1991. “Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures.”Organization Science 2 (1): 88–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jap, Sandy D. 1999. “Pie-Expansion Efforts: Collaboration Processes in Buyer-Supplier Relationships.”Journal of Marketing Research 36 (4): 461–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — and Shankar Ganesan. 2000. “Control Mechanisms and the Relationship Life Cycle: Implications for Safeguarding Specific Investments and Developing Commitment.”Journal of Marketing Research 37 (2): 227–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, Cheryl Burke, Scott B. Mackenzie, and Philip M. Podsakoff. 2003. “A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research.”Journal of Consumer Research 30 (2): 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, Bernard J. and Ajay K. Kohli. 1993. “Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences.”Journal of Marketing 57 (3): 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joreskog, Karl G. and Dag Sorbom. 1989.LISREL VII: User’s Reference Guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, Tarun. 1998. “The Scope of Alliances.”Organization Science 9 (3): 340–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, Ajay K. and Bernard J. Jaworski. 1990. “Market Orientation: The Construct, Research Propositions, and Managerial Implications.”Journal of Marketing 54 (2): 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korsgaard, M. Audrey and Loriann Roberson. 1995. “Procedural Justice in Performance Evaluation’The Role of Instrumental and Noninstrumental Voice in Performance-Appraisal Discussions.”Journal of Management 21:657–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, Nirmalya, Lisa K. Scheer, and J.B.E.M. Steenkamp. 1995. “The Effects of Perceived Interdependence on Dealer Attitudes.”Journal of Marketing Research 32 (August): 348–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambe, Jay C, Robert E. Spekman, and Shelby D. Hunt. 2002. “Alliance Competence, Resources, and Alliance Success: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Initial Test.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 30 (2): 141–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —, C. Michael Wittmann, and Robert E. Spekman. 2001. “Social Exchange Theory and Research on Business-to-Business Relational Exchange.”Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing 8 (3): 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, Andrea. 1992. “Network Dyads in Entrepreneurial Settings: A Study of the Governance of Exchange Relationships.”Administrative Science Quarterly 37 (1): 76–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, Dorothy. 1992. “Core Capabilities and Core Rigidities: A Paradox in Managing New Product Development.”Strategic Management Journal 13 (8): 111–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Tiger and Roger J. Calantone. 1998. “The Impact of Market Knowledge Competence on New Product Advantage: Conceptualization and Empirical Examination.”Journal of Marketing 62 (4): 13–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lippman, S. A. and R. P. Rumelt. 1982. “Uncertain Imitability: An Analysis of Interfirm Differences in Efficiency Under Competition.”Bell Journal of Economics 13 (2): 418–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzoni, Gianni and Andrea Lipparini 1999. “The Leveraging of Interfirm Relationships as a Distinctive Organizational Capability: A Longitudinal Study.”Strategic Management Journal 20 (4): 317–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyles, Marjorie A. 1988. “Learning Among Joint Venture Sophisticated Firms.”Management International Review 28 (4): 85–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu, John E., Scott I. Tannenbaum, and Eduardo Salas. 1992. “Influences of Individual and Situational Characteristics on Measures Training Effectiveness.”Academy of Management Journal 35:828–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, Robert M. and Shelby D. Hunt. 1994. “The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing.”Journal of Marketing 58 (July): 20–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mossholder, Kevin W., Nathan Bennett, Edward R. Kemery, and Mark A. Wesolowski. 1998. “Relationships Between Bases of Power and Work Reactions: The Mediational Role of Procedural Justice.”Journal of Organizational Behavior 16:127–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narayandas, Das and Kasturi Rangan. 2004. “Building and Sustaining Buyer-Seller Relationships in Mature Industrial Markets.”Journal of Marketing 68 (July): 63–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narver, John C. and Stanley F. Slater. 1990. “The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability.”Journal of Marketing 54 (4): 20–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, Richard R. and Sidney G. Winter. 1982.An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noda, Tomo and David J. Collis. 2001. “The Evolution of Intraindustry Firm Heterogeneity: Insights From a Process Study.”Academy of Management Journal 44 (4): 897–926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, Jum C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and Nathan P. Podsakoff. 2003. “Common Method Bias in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies.”Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5): 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K. and Gary Hamel. 1990. “The Core Competence of the Corporation.”Harvard Business Review 68 (3): 79–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rindfleisch, Aric and Christine Moorman. 2001. “The Acquisition and Utilization of Information in New Product Alliances: A Strength-of-Ties Perspective.”Journal of Marketing 65 (April): 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar, M. B., Raj Echambadi, S. Tamer Cavusgil, and Preet S. Aulakh. 2001. “The Influence of Complementarity, Compatibility, and Relationship Capital on Alliance Performance.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 29 (4): 358–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonin, Bernard L. 1997. “The Importance of Collaborative Know-How: An Empirical Test of the Learning Organization.”Academy of Management Journal 40 (5): 1150–1174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinkula, James M. 1994. “Market Information Processing and Organizational Learning.”Journal of Marketing 58 (1): 35–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sivadas, Eugene and F. Robert Dwyer 2000. “An Examination of Organizational Factors Influencing New Product Success in Internal and Alliance-Based Processes.”Journal of Marketing 64 (January): 31–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, Stanley F. and John C. Narver. 1994. “Does Competitive Environment Moderate the Market Orientation-Performance Relationship?”Journal of Marketing 58 (1): 46–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, Michael, Cornelia Droge, Sangphet Hanvanich, and Roger J. Calantone. 2005. “Marketing and Technology Resource Complementality: An Analysis of Their Interaction Effect in Two Environmental Contexts.”Strategic Management Journal 26 (3): 259–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, David J., Gary Pisano, and Amy Shuen. 1997. “Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management.”Strategic Management Journal 18 (7): 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, Wenpin. 2000. “Social Capital, Strategic Relatedness and the Formation of Intraorganizational Linkages.”Strategic Management Journal 21 (9): 925–939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uzzi, Brian. 1996. “The Sources and Consequences of Embeddedness for the Economic Performance of Organizations: The Network Effect.”American Sociological Review 61 (4): 674–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varadarajan, P. Rajan and Margaret H. Cunningham. 1995. “Strategic Alliances: A Synthesis of Conceptual Foundations.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 23 (4): 282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman, N. and Vasudevan Ramanujam. 1986. “Measurement of Business Performance in Strategy Research: A Comparison of Approaches.”Academy of Management Review 11 (4): 801–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, Frederick E., Jr. 1992. “The Changing Role of Marketing in the Corporation.”Journal of Marketing 56 (4): 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weitz, Barton A. and Sandy D. Jap. 1995. “Relationship Marketing and Distribution Channels.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 23 (4): 305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wind, Jerry and Vijay Mahajan. 1997. “Issues and Opportunities in New Product Development: An Introduction to the Special Issue.”Journal of Marketing Research 34 (1): 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zollo, Maurizio and Sidney G. Winter. 2002. “Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities.”Organization Science 13 (3): 339–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bilkent University, Turkey

    Destan Kandemir

  2. Wayne State University, Detroit, USA

    Attila Yaprak

  3. Michigan State University, Michigan, USA

    S. Tamer Cavusgil

Authors
  1. Destan Kandemir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Attila Yaprak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Tamer Cavusgil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Destan Kandemir (kandemir@msn.edu) is a research associate in Center for International Business Education and Research at Michigan State University. She earned her PhD in marketing and international business from Michigan State University. Her articles have appeared in theJournal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Industrial Marketing Management, theJournal of International Marketing, and theJournal of Management. Her research interests include firm resources and capabilities, market-oriented knowledge management, and global alliance management.

Attila Yaprak (attila.yaprak@wayne.edu) is a professor of marketing and international business at Wayne State University. He received his PhD from Georgia State University. His research interests include cross-national consumer behavior, global marketing strategy, and international alliances. His research has appeared in theJournal of International Business Studies, theJournal of International Marketing, theJournal of Business Research, andPolitical Psychology, among others.

S. Tamer Cavusgil (cavusgil@msu.edu) is University Distinguished Faculty and the John W. Byington Endowed Chair in Global Marketing in the Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Eli Broad Graduate School of Management, Michigan State University.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kandemir, D., Yaprak, A. & Cavusgil, S.T. Alliance orientation: Conceptualization, measurement, and impact on market performance. JAMS 34, 324–340 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305285953

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305285953

Keywords

Search

Navigation