Hypotheses 1a and 1b,
suggesting that trust would be positively associated with
alliance success and would be positively associated with partner
integrity regarding to claimed managerial and technical abilities
were supported. When the factor scores were regressed
against measures of alliance success, trust was significant in
all tests, explaining between 45%
and 52% of the observed variance. H1b, was supported. Trust, and access/respect for partner skills, were significant factors in determining whether the entrepreneur would make any alliance changes. Furthermore, these factors were also significant when asked how easy it was to maintain the alliance.
Factor Analysis Results
|Questions||Factor 1||Factor 2||Factor 3||Factor 4||Factor 5|
|Trust||Partner Skills||Entrepreneur Manag. Skills||Entrepreneur Tech. Skills||Alliance Longevity|
|Q10 Firm managerial skills & alliance success|
|Q11 Partner tech skills & alliance success||-0.01524||0.0351||0.85195||0.14567||-0.01614|
|Q12 Partner managerial skills & alliance success||0.24753||0.60617||0.10837||0.06272||-0.1228|
|Q13 Access to partner tech skills & alliance success||-0.13519||0.73183||-0.14726||0.18782||0.08048|
|Q14 Access to partner managerial skills & alliance success||0.2862||0.70732||-0.08476||-0.06768||0.07057|
|Q7 Firm technical skills & business success||0.05777||0.7959||-0.03286||0.00557||0.12468|
|Q8 Firm technical skills & alliance success||0.14104||-0.01201||0.10827||0.86467||-0.16414|
|Q9 Firm managerial skills & business success||0.15079||0.1144||0.09013||0.8055||0.20963|
|Q40 Alliance years||-0.02139||-0.16522||0.8464||0.09278||-0.00701|
|Q42 Respect for partner||-0.15693||0.01072||-0.03052||-0.01329||0.90832|
|Q43 Partner respect you.||0.34461||0.60723||0.20461||-0.21634||0.09366|
|Q44 Opportunistic behavior of partner||0.48637||0.15595||0.54813||-0.15259||0.07797|
|Q45 Possible retribution||-0.7929||0.01074||-0.08589||-0.11461||0.1411|
|Q46 Alliance forbearance||-0.75943||-0.02886||0.06218||-0.19308||-0.16496|
|Q47 Entrepreneur influence||0.49822||0.18798||0.12171||0.14541||0.47619|
|Q48 Trust your partner||0.36576||-0.50844||0.048||-0.13445||0.18721|
|Q49Enter into another alliance with same partner||0.82172||0.20512||-0.02636||0.16132||-0.14283|
Hypothesis 2, predicting that alliance longevity would be positively associated with alliance success was not supported in any measure. This came as a surprise to the authors as it was expected that this hypothesis would be supported. However, the interviews shed light on this finding. Early negotiations between large and small firms might be conducted by people who may not be responsible for the alliance in later stages. Particularly with respect to the larger firm who might have different people performing different functions. The following quotation from one of the executives interviewed describes this very situation.
make the deals and people who live with the deals arent
always the same people. So if you have
2000 employees, and this is a big part of the problem, the handful of people that put the deal together often dont communicate to the people who are actually going to be carrying the deal forward. People are just sort of thrown into this, they have never been contacted or approached, and their input never obtained. They are just handed this thing and that is a problem.
Hypotheses 3a and 3b, positing that access to a larger partners resources would be positively associated with alliance success and the performance of the entrepreneurial firm, respectively, were both supported. Hypothesis 3a, when the factor scores were regressed against measures of alliance success, was significant in two out of three tests, explaining more than 25% of the observed variance. Hypothesis 3b, when the factor scores were regressed against measures of performance, was significant in all tests, explaining between 20% and 47% of the observed variance in performance.
Results of the regression are displayed in Table Five.
© 1997 Babson College All Rights Reserved
Last Updated 03/23/98