یادگیری سازمانی، تعهد، و ایجاد ارزش مشترک در روابط درون شرکتی

In this study, we underline the importance of distinguishing firm-specific and collaboration-specific benefits in managing interfirm relationships. We propose that strong commitment to collaboration enables firms to transform their idiosyncratic resources into higher rents for the alliance as well as themselves. We extend the organizational learning inquiry into an alliance setting and identify three factors that can facilitate commitment in interfirm relationships. The findings reinforce the importance of organizational commitment in generating higher value in interfirm relationships. We also examine some contingencies in which commitment may affect alliance performance and firm performance distinctively.

The various facets of exchange relations are important topics in the marketing and strategic management literature (e.g., Dwyer et al., 1987 and Gulati, 1998). In view of the growing number of interfirm alliances and the rarity of success stories, the issue of how collaboration can create above-normal returns for the alliance as well as the individual firms has become a fundamental research question (Madhok and Tallman, 1998). The objectives of this paper are several. First, we examine interfirm collaboration in terms of the potential value of an alliance (Madhok and Tallman, 1998). In particular, we focus on the role of organizational commitment in the joint value creation process. Organizational commitment has been defined as “an implicit or explicit pledge of relational continuity between exchange partners” (Dwyer et al., 1987, p. 19). It has been shown to reduce opportunism and conflict in interfirm relationships (e.g., Anderson and Weitz, 1992 and Morgan and Hunt, 1994), yet few researchers have explored its role in value creation. Second, following Khanna (1998) as well as Madhok and Tallman (1998), we make a distinction between private (firm-specific) and common (collaboration-specific) benefits and look at the importance of both types in alliance success. Common benefits, or the value obtained by the alliance as a whole, are not equal to the private benefits, or the value obtained by each participating firm (Khanna, 1998). According to Madhok and Tallman (1998, p. 329), common benefits refer to “interfirm or collaboration-specific quasi-rents that arise from the combination of both transaction-specific and relevant firm-specific resources of both firms into a synergistic bundle that enables a level of accomplishment which the partners are unable to attain in the absence of the collaboration.” Private benefits are “firm-specific quasi-rents that arise from the positive spillover from the collaboration. That is, the firm may gather new knowledge from the collaboration and then, in combination with other idiosyncratic resources, increase its rent-generating capacity beyond the collaboration” (Madhok and Tallman, 1998, p. 329). We propose that through organizational commitment to building a mutually beneficial relationship, firms can transform their idiosyncratic resources into higher rents for the alliance as well as themselves. Third, we extend the market orientation and organizational learning literature to an alliance setting and examine potential antecedents to commitment. Sinkula et al. (1997) identify three core factors in the organizational learning process: organizational values, market information processing behaviors, and organizational actions. Following this work, we identify three key organizational learning factors essential to alliance formation: learning intention, partner sensing, and relationship initiation abilities. We examine the link between these factors and the level of commitment to maintaining the alliance. We propose that organizational commitment serves as a catalyst in transforming the initial learning competency into value for the alliance and the participants. Fourth, we examine whether and when commitment may affect common and private benefits distinctively. In particular, we explore whether environmental uncertainty and firm size affect firm-specific and collaboration-specific rents differently. Our findings suggest that the effect of commitment on common and private benefits differs with levels of market uncertainty, and firm size matters in the decision to pursue commitment as an organizational strategy to achieve more private benefits.

The results of the final structural model are reported in Table 3. These findings suggest that all the structural paths are supported as hypothesized. In particular, learning intention is positively associated with organizational commitment (p < 0.05), as stated in H1. Partner sensing (p < 0.05) and relationship initiation (p < 0.05) are positively associated with organizational commitment. H2 and H3 are supported at the 5% significance level. Moreover, organizational commitment is positively associated with both alliance performance (p < 0.05) and a firm's market performance (p < 0.05). These findings suggest that organizational commitment is a key to aligning common interests with private interests and to generating value for both firms. H4 and H5 are both supported. Finally, the size of the SBU and market uncertainty (control variables) are not significant.To test the mediating effect of organizational commitment, we followed the procedure suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986). The results show that the effect of the three antecedent variables on alliance performance and firm performance is fully mediated by organizational commitment. To test the moderating effects, we included the main effects of the predictor (organizational commitment) and the moderators as well as the mean-centered interaction terms comprising the products of the predictor and moderators to reduce multicollinearity (Aiken and West, 1991). The results of the estimations are discussed below. Market uncertainty positively moderates the relationship between organizational commitment and alliance performance (β for the interaction term = 0.19, p = 0.01). The effect of commitment on firm-specific rents, however, does not seem to be influenced by market uncertainty (β = 0.06, p = 0.45). Our findings suggest that, under high market uncertainty, the effect of commitment is more salient in generating higher rents for the alliance than for the firm. H6a is supported. Technological uncertainty does not seem to have a significant influence on the relationship between organizational commitment and alliance performance (β = − 0.04, p = 0.63) or on firm performance (β = 0.02, p = 0.78). H6b is not supported. The larger the firm size, however, the weaker the effect of commitment in creating firm-specific rents (β = − 0.16, p = 0.04). The effect of commitment on alliance-specific rents is not significantly affected by the size of the firm (β = − 0.04, p = 0.63). Our findings suggest that organizational commitment may not be an effective strategy for large firms in generating firm-specific rents. H7 is supported.