Dina Preston-OrtizUniversity of Phoenix

THE EFFECTS OF TRUST IN VIRTUAL STRATEGIC-ALLIANCE PERFORMANCE

OUTCOMES

2

Continued Growth of Strategic Alliance◦ Global economy growth◦ Technology forces

competitive efficiencies High Failure Rate

◦ 70-75% Partners are competitors outside alliance

Trust role in creating value

Background to the Problem

3

General Problem◦ The general problem addressed in the Delphi Study

is the 70-75% failure rate of strategic alliances (“Create Successful International Mergers and

Alliances,” 2006; Taylor, 2005; Zineldin & Dodourova, 2005).

Specific Problem◦ Trust influence on resource sharing, use of

administrative controls and management flexibility critical to the development of successful partnerships

(Das & Teng, 1998; Schumacher, 2006; Rowlings, Cheung, Simons & Rafferty, 2006).

Problem Statement

4

The purpose of this qualitative Delphi study is to formulate a consensus from experts who have knowledge of the influence of trust on virtual alliance performance for the development of successful alliance.

Nature of Study

5

A qualitative Delphi technique was applied to understand the influence of trust on virtual alliance performance

(Creswell, 2005; Gonzalez et al., 2006; Grisham, 2009 Skulmoski, Hartman & Krahn, 2007)

◦ Convenience and snowball sampling ◦ 15 panelist ◦ 3 qualitative survey rounds

Open-ended questions Likert-type scale survey Ranking agreement/disagreement

◦ Outcome assessment◦ 5 best practices

Description of Study

6

The study explored the research question of how trust among virtual strategic-alliance members influences business operations and the performance of individual alliance members (see Figure 1).

 

Figure 1. Research Question Model

Research Question

Trust

Influence

Performance Indicators•Management control•Resource sharing•Network flexibility

7

Relevant Research

Systems Perspective Transactional Perspective

Social Science Perspective

General System Theory(“Chapter XVI General Systems Theory,” 1964; Katz & Kahn, 1978; von Bertalanffy, 2008)

Agency Theory(Bergen et al., 1992; Jensen & Meckling, 1976)

Social Exchange Theory (Bignoux, 2006; Lambe, Wittmann, & Spekman, 2001; Voss et al., 2006; Young-Ybarra & Wiersma,1999)

Open system Theory(Morrison, 2004; Yasin, Bayes & Czuchry,2005)

Transaction Cost Theory(De Jong & Woolthuis, 2009; Goo et al., 2009 ;Judge & Dooley, 2006; Young-Ybarra, & Wiersma, 1999).

Commitment Trust Theory (Bignoux, 2006; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; The commitment-trust theory, 1994; Voss et al., 2006)

Strategic Alliance Foundational Research(Das, & Teng, 1998; Das, & Teng, 2001a; Das, & Teng, 2001b; Kearney, 2006)

 

Value Chain Theory(Jonk, Handschuh, & Niewiem, 2008; Stewart & Fenn, 2006; Weber, 2008

8

Population: Meeting Planners International Sample: Arizona Sunbelt Chapter, MPI Sample Criteria

A. Business owner or employee in an organization with at least 1 year membership in AZ Sunbelt Chapter

B. Provide a service or products using the Internet or other types of technology information systems.

C. Experience using the Internet or other types of technology information systems to contract/coordinate.

Participant Criteria

9

Research Question

Qualitative Delphi Study Design

1) Three Survey Rounds 2) Survey Instruments

R1: Open-Ended Question Survey R2: Likert-Scale Survey R3: Ranking of Agreement

Pilot Studies

Delphi R1: Survey & Analysis

2) Open-Ended Question Survey 3) Survey Analysis

Thematic coding (nominal data) Likert-type scale survey

questions developed

Delphi R2: Survey & Analysis

1) Likert-Type Scale Survey 2) Survey Analysis

Measure central tendency (median/ordinal data) for each question

Ranking index developed

Delphi R2: Survey Design

1) Likert-Type Scale Survey

Attitude scale from 1 (Agree Completely) to 5 (Disagree Completely).

Delphi R3: Survey Design

1) Ranking of Agreement

Rank index (agreement/disagreement) for each item presented in index

Delphi: Research Documentation

Analysis of Findings

Interpretations

Conclusion

Best Practices Recommendation

Delphi R3: Survey & Analysis

3) Ranking of Agreement 4) Ranking Analysis

Assess according to agreement/disagreement

Develop best practices

Methodology

10

Analysis

Pilot Round: Open-ended survey Round 1: Open-ended survey

◦ Six Central Themes identified (see Table K1) Data reduction: Coding of nominal data Development of R2: Likert-type scale survey

Round 2: Likert-type scale survey ◦ 20 statements developed (See Table K2)

Data reduction: Ordinal data median Histogram: Gauge response differences between the trust and leadership

questions. Development R3: Ranking agreement/disagreement survey

Round 3: Ranking agreement/disagreement◦ 18 statements developed (See Table K4)

Data reduction: Number of responses to each statement Five statements (100% agreement)

11

Trust Statements Leadership Statements

The most important influences of trust include (a) creating a platform of respect (b) increased partner cooperation and (c) understanding between stakeholders

Leaders must have a vision, inspire possibilities in partners, and increase innovation through learning to build successful virtual alliances

Leaders must provide clear and dependable communication to build trust in virtual strategic alliances

To create trust in virtual alliances leaders need to be consistent, able to clarify boundaries, roles and partner expectations

To build trust among virtual alliance partners, leaders must be accessible

R3:Best Practices Identified from Highest Ranking

*Based on the rankings above, these five statements received 100% agreement response rate from participants representing 25% of the final statements developed for Round Three

12

The Central Contributions Leadership based practices had a greater

influence on virtual alliance performance compared to trust based practices Exception: creating a platform of

respect Cooperative resource exchanges Long-term relationships

Contingency approach to leadership

Conclusion of Data

13

Additional Data

1. Trust did not appear to reduce management controls

2. Trust supports flexibility through partner comfort and cooperation

3. Trust contributes to partner's individual goals

Conclusion of Data

14

Addressed trust’s influence on management controls such as contracts, resource sharing, and underlying factors that lead to network flexibility in specific industries (Ang, 2007; Das & Teng, 1998; Schumacher, 2006; Vianna Villas & Aduard de Macedo-Soares, 2007; Young- Ybarra & Wiers,1999)

Addressed the underlying influences of a virtual network structure on an alliance’s communication and culture. (Kearney, 2006)

Gaps in past research included the ability to generalize the influence of trust on performance at it extends to other industries (McEvily & Marcus, 2005)

Knowledge Gaps Knowledge Gaps

15

External validity ◦ Small sample size and homogeneity of the 15

participants ◦ Participant expertise◦ Participants willingness to share information

Limitations/Delimitations

16

Recommendations Leadership Based Practices

◦ consistent behavior◦ accessibility◦ innovation through learning ◦ utilize clear and dependable communications◦ encourage partner cooperation

Trust Based Practices◦ create a platform of respect

Cooperation/communication

17

THE AFFECTS OF TRUST IN VIRTUAL STRATEGIC-ALLIANCE PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES.

Questions?

18

Avolio, B. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building. American Psychologist, 62(1), 25-33. Retrieved from Ebscohost database.

Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112-116. Retrieved from Proquest database.

Bergen, M., Dutta, S., & Walker, O. (1992). Agency relationships in marketing: A review of the implications and applications of agency and related theories. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 1–5, Retrieved from Proquest database.

Bignoux, S. (2006). Short-term strategic alliances: A social exchange perspective. Management Decision. 44(5), 615-627. Retrieved from Emerald database.

Bligh, M., Pearce, C., & Kohles, J. (2006). The importance of self- and shared leadership in team based knowledge work: A meso-level model of leadership dynamics. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 296-318. Retrieved from Proquest database.

Burns, J. (2003). Transforming leadership. New York: Atlantic Monthly.

Carte, T., Chidambaram, L., & Becker, A. (2006). Emergent leadership in self-managed virtual teams: A longitudinal study of concentrated and shared leadership behaviors. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 323-343. Retrieved from Proquest database.

Chapter XVI general systems theory. (1964). The American Behavioral Scientist (pre-1986), 7(7), 137-139. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global database.

Create successful international mergers and alliances. (2006). Strategic Direction, 22(1), 25-28. Retrieved from Proquest database.

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Das, T., & Teng, B. (1998). Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliance. Academy of Management Review, 23, 491-499. Retrieved from Proquest database.

Das, T., & Teng, B. (2001a). Relational risk and its personal correlates in strategic alliances. Journal of Business & Psychology, 15, 449-465. Retrieved from Proquest database.

Das, T., & Teng, B. (2001b). Trust, control and risk in strategic alliances: An integrated framework. Organizational Studies, 22(2), 251-263. Retrieved from Proquest database.

References

19

De Jong, G., & Woolthuis, R. (2009). The content and role of formal contracts in high-tech alliances. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 11(1), 44-59. Retrieved from Ebscohost database.

Gonzalez, R., Gasco, J., & Llopis, J. (2006). Information systems managers' view about outsourcing in Spain.  Information Management & Computer Security, 14, 312-326. Retrieved from Proquest database.

Goo, J., Kishore, R., Rao, H., & Nam, K. (2009). The role of service level agreements in relational management of information technology outsourcing: An empirical study. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 119-145. Retrieved from Ebscohost database.

Grisham, T. (2009). The Delphi technique: A method for testing complex and multifaceted topics. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2(10), 112-130. Retrieved from Emerald database.

Herold, D., Fedor, D., Caldwell, S., & Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of transformational and change leadership on employees' commitment to a change: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 346-357. Retrieved from Proquest database.

Hoyt, C., & Blascovich, J. (2003). Transformational and transactional leadership in virtual and physical environments. Small Group Research, 34, 678-715. Retrieved from Sage Journal database.

Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305-360. Retrieved from http://venus.unive.it/pelizzon/Jensen&Meckling.pdf

John Adair: Action-centered leadership. (2003, March). Thinkers. Retrieved from General OneFile via Gale: http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=ITOF

Jonk, G., Handschuh, M., & Niewiem, S. (2008). The battle of the value chains: New specialized versus old hybrids. Strategy & Leadership, 36(2), 24-29. Retrieved from Proquest database.

Judge, W., & Dooley, R. (2006). Strategic alliance outcomes: A transaction-cost economics perspective. British Journal of Management, 17(10), 23-37. Retrieved from Ebscohost database.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Kearney, P. (2006). Trust and security in virtual organizations. BT Technology Journal, 24(2), 209. Retrieved from

Proquest database.Konorti, E. (2008). The 3D transformational leadership model. Journal of American Academy of Business,

Cambridge, 14(1), 10-20. Retrieved from Proquest database.Lambe, C., Wittmann, C., & Spekman, R. (2001). Social exchange theory and research on business-to-business relational

exchange. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 8(3), 1. Retrieved from Ebscohost database.

ReferencesReferences

20

Morgan, R., & Hunt, S. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-23. Retrieved from Proquest database.

Rowlings, S., Cheung, F., Simons, R., & Rafferty, A. (2006). Alliancing in Australia-No litigation contracts: A tautology? Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education & Practice, 132(1), 77-81. Retrieved from Ebscohost database.

Schumacher, C. (2006). Trust a source of success in strategic alliances? Schmalenbach Business Review, 58, 259-270. Retrieved from Proquest database.

Skulmoski, G., Hartman, F., & Krahn, J. (2007, January). The Delphi Method for Graduate Research. Journal of Information Technology Education, 6, 1-21. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Scott, L., & Caress, A. (2005). Shared governance and shared leadership: Meeting the challenges of implementation. Journal of Nursing Management, 13(1), 4-12. Retrieved from Proquest database.

Stewart, I., & Fenn, P. (2006). Strategy: The motivation for innovation. Construction Innovation, 6(3), 173-185. Retrieved from Proquest database.

Taylor, A. (2005). An operations perspective on strategic alliance success factors: An exploratory study of alliance managers in the software industry. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 25, 469-490. Retrieved from Proquest database.

von Bertalanffy, L. (2008). An outline of general system theory. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 10(2), 103-123. Retrieved from Ebscohost database.

Voss, K., Johnson, J., Cullen, J., Sakano, T., & Takenouchi, H. (2006). Relational exchange in US-Japanese marketing strategic alliances. International Marketing Review, 23, 610-625. Retrieved from Emerald Journal database.

Weber, A. (2008). Product design for greater profits. Assembly, 51(3), 26-32. Retrieved from Proquest Science Journals database.

Wood, M., & Fields, D. (2007). Exploring the impact of shared leadership on management team member job outcomes. Baltic Journal of Management, 2, 251-255. Retrieved from Proquest database.

ReferencesReferences

21

Yasin, M., Bayes, P., & Czuchry, A. (2005). The changing role of accounting in supporting the quality and customer goals of organizations: an open systems perspective. International Journal of Management, 22, 323-331, 507. Retrieved from Proquest database.

Young-Ybarra, C., & Wiersma, M. (1999). Strategic flexibility in information technology alliances: The influence of transaction cost economies and social exchange theory. Organization Science, 10(4), 439. Retrieved from Proquest database.

Zayani, F. (2008). The impact of transformational leadership on the success of global virtual teams: An investigation based on the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Dissertation Abstracts International, 69 (06), 151A. (UMI No. 3315224)

Zineldin, M., & Dodourova, M. (2005). Motivation, achievements and failure of strategic alliances: The case of Swedish auto-manufacturers in Russia. European Business Review, 17, 460-470. Retrieved from Proquest database.

References