table 4

Chapter Listing | Return to 1997 Topical Index

RESULTS

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.

TABLE 4
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
	0.57946	0.42019	0.09841	-0.28439	-0.19419

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.

“People who make the deals and people who live with the deals aren’t 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 don’t 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 partner’s 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.

Top of page | Chapter Listing | Return to 1997 Topical Index