Linköping University SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden +46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se Spring 2020 | ISRN-nummer: LIU-IEI-FIL-A--20/03418--SE
What is Hiding in the Dark?
Learning Barriers to Building a Firm-Level
Alliance Management Capability
Julia Gernert
Lorin Schenk
English title:
What Is Hiding in the Dark? –
Learning Barriers to Building a Firm-Level Alliance Management Capability
Authors:
Julia Gernert and Lorin Schenk
Advisor: Hans Andersson
Publication type:
Master’s Thesis in Business Administration
Strategy and Management in International Organizations Advanced level, 30 credits
Spring semester 2020
ISRN-number: LIU-IEI-FIL-A--20/03418--SE
Linköping University
Department of Management and Engineering (IEI)
Acknowledgements
With this, two years have come to an end. Two very intense, but also very rewarding years. These years we will never forget, mostly due to the people who have marked them. For this, we would like to offer our gratitude to those who have shaped these years and made them truly special.
First, we would like to thank our thesis advisor Hans Andersson. Thank you for all the support and valuable input that you have given us throughout the process of creating this final work for our master’s degree. You have always encouraged us in a unique way that enabled us to stay critical with our work and therewith give it our very best. In this regard, we would also like to thank our thesis group that never failed to provide us with constructive feedback and ideas which helped us to make this thesis what it is now. Another thank you goes to all of our friends, who have proofread this thesis.
We would also like to thank our fellow SMIOs. Thank you for all the wonderful experiences we shared in the last two years and all the hard work we have conquered together. You are a very special group of people and made these years extraordinary. You deserve the world; we wish you nothing more but the best for your future plans.
As thesis partners, we are very proud of the teamwork we have put into this. It has been a very enjoyable time purely because of the team we are together - not only through this, but through-out our entire studies.
A very special thank you goes out to our interviewees, without whom this work would not have been possible. Thank you for your honesty and openness that provided us with the valuable insights this thesis is based upon.
We are very proud that finally we, together, have done it all. Hopefully this last work represents everything we have learned throughout this time.
We hope you find our work as interesting and insightful to read, as it was to work on.
“Coming together is a beginning, staying together is progress,
and working together is success.”
Abstract
Title What is Hiding in the Dark? - Learning Barriers to Building a Firm-Level Alliance Management Capability
Authors Julia Gernert and Lorin Schenk Supervisor Hans Andersson
Submission date May 25th, 2020
Background Strategic alliances grant access to rare know-how, inimitable resources and valuable capabilities otherwise out of reach for a single firm. Existing alli-ance management literature focuses on the transfer of technical know-how between alliance partners. The intra-organizational learning process with the aim to build a firm-level alliance management capability to become better at managing strategic alliances has received little attention. Espe-cially striking is the lack of extensive research on the barriers to this pro-cess.
Aim This paper aims to shed light on the existence of learning barriers to the building of a firm-level alliance management capability.
Methodology A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews. Ten individuals with varying degrees of experience in managing strategic alli-ances were interviewed. The ten respective sample firms were spread across seven different countries and six different industries.
Findings The analysis revealed 38 learning barriers existent to the building of a firm-level alliance management capability both confirming common organiza-tional learning barriers and revealing context-specific learning barriers. They originate either in the firm member’s thinking and behavior, the firm’s processes and structures or in the specific learning environment. Categorized in thematical clusters, they show problem areas such as a lack of top management support. Some of the found learning barriers like the tendency of alliance managers to prioritize the relationship to the alliance partner are findings that have not received attention in theory yet. Those contributions can support a deeper understanding of what individual firms and the field of alliance management is missing in building a firm-level alliance management capability.
Keywords Strategic alliances, alliance management capability, learning barriers, in-tra-organizational learning, transfer of know-how, alliance management know-how
Content
Acknowledgements ... I Abstract ... III Table of figures ... VI Table of tables ... VI 1. The darkness around what is holding firms back from becoming better at managing
strategic alliances ... 1
1.1 What needs to be asked to bring light into the darkness ... 2
1.2 What this thesis will shed light on ... 3
1.2.1 Identifying learning barriers ... 3
1.2.2 Providing a starting point to reveal learning barriers in practice ... 3
1.3 How this thesis aims to bring light into the darkness ... 4
2. Theory – What needs to be known before bringing light into the darkness ... 5
2.1 Strategic alliances and their heterogenous performance ... 5
2.2 Alliance success? Firm-level alliance management capability! ... 8
2.3 How a firm-level alliance management capability is built ... 10
2.3.1 Starting off: Individual learning by doing ... 11
2.3.2 Making it firm-level: Deliberate learning mechanisms ... 12
2.4 What could hinder this process? Organizational learning barriers! ... 14
2.4.1 Getting to know the common organizational learning barriers ... 16
2.4.2 Exploring the gap of learning barriers for building a firm-level alliance management capability ... 25
3. Method – How this thesis investigated this gap and shed light ... 28
3.1 A qualitative study to go deep and handle delicacy ... 28
3.2 A road map to this study ... 29
3.2.1 How the theoretical background was built ... 30
3.2.2 Talking with the repositories of alliance management know-how ... 31
3.2.3 A plan on what to ask the repositories and why ... 31
3.2.4 How the repositories were chosen and who was talked with ... 33
3.3 How data was collected from the repositories ... 37
3.4 How the answers of the repositories were analyzed ... 38
3.5 Underpinning the quality of this study ... 41
3.5.1 How this study is reliable ... 41
3.5.2 How this study is valid... 42
3.5.3 How this study is ethically considerate ... 43
4. Analysis – Shedding light on the learning barriers existent to building a firm-level alliance management capability ... 44
4.1 The 38 learning barriers found ... 45
4.1.1 Barriers to the individual’s experiential learning ... 45
4.1.2 Barriers to articulation and sharing ... 48
4.1.3 Barriers to firm-wide implementation ... 52
4.1.4 Barriers to internalization and codification ... 55
4.2 The 3 most urgent thematical clusters of learning barriers ... 61
4.3 The 9 most urgent individual learning barriers ... 63
5. Discussion – A mixture of already known learning barriers and new insights ... 69
5.1 Pre-known learning barriers ... 74
5.1.1 Societal-environmental barriers ... 74
5.1.2 Structural-organizational barriers ... 75
5.1.3 Actional-personal barriers ... 76
5.2 New insights: The deep influence of the context-specific learning barriers on each other ... 77
6. Bringing light into the darkness: What is holding firms back from becoming better at managing strategic alliances ... 85
6.1 The light shed: Learning barriers identified ... 85
6.2 How this light can be brightened ... 86
6.3 How practitioners can lighten the darkness ... 87
References ... 90
Appendix ... i
Interview guide ... i
Table of figures
Figure 1: Thesis structure ... 4
Figure 2: Different configurations of strategic alliances adapted from Kale & Singh (2009) ... 6
Figure 3: Levels of analysis in strategic alliance partnerships ... 8
Figure 4: Conceptualization of a firm-level alliance management capability based on Schreiner et al. (2009) and Castaldi et al. (2015) ... 10
Figure 5: Building a firm-level alliance management capability ... 14
Figure 6: Learning barrier categorization ... 15
Figure 7: Analysis structure ... 44
Figure 8: Key to table 21 ... 69
Figure 9: Discussion structure ... 73
Figure 10: Sphere of influence of different barrier forms in context of building a firm-level alliance management capability ... 82
Table of tables
Table 1: Overview of common learning barriers based on Schilling and Kluge (2009) ... 19Table 2: Theoretical connection and purpose of interview guide parts... 33
Table 3: List of firms ... 35
Table 4: List of interviewees ... 36
Table 5: Societal-environmental learning barriers to experiential learning ... 45
Table 6: Learning barriers of cluster 1 ... 46
Table 7: Learning barriers of cluster 2 ... 47
Table 8: Societal-environmental learning barrier to articulation and sharing ... 48
Table 9: Learning barriers of cluster 4 ... 49
Table 10: Learning barriers of cluster 5 ... 50
Table 11: Learning barriers of cluster 6 ... 51
Table 12: Learning barriers of cluster 8 ... 52
Table 13: Learning barriers of cluster 9 ... 53
Table 14: Learning barriers of cluster 10 ... 54
Table 15: Societal-environmental learning barrier to internalization and codification ... 55
Table 16: Learning barriers of cluster 11 ... 56
Table 17: Learning barriers of cluster 12 ... 58
Table 18: Learning barriers of cluster 13 ... 60
Table 19: Summary of findings regarding most urgent clusters of learning barriers ... 63
Table 20: Summary of findings regarding most urgent individual learning barriers ... 68
Table 21: Overview of learning barriers existent to the building a firm-level alliance management capability ... 72
Table 22: Learning barriers specific to building a firm-level alliance management capability 78 Table 23: List of key articles and their methodologies ... iv
1. The darkness around what is holding firms back from becoming
bet-ter at managing strategic alliances
“Walmart builds global alliances with tech players to battle Amazon”
- Bloomberg News, 07.08.2018 (Bloomberg, 2018) Today, firms face a playing field where competing for survival means to join forces. Retail-giant Walmart has given up fighting as a lonely wolf against major rival Amazon and combined its resources and know-how with big technology firms like Google and Microsoft to become a pack ready for battle (Bloomberg, 2018). This marks a strategic shift for Walmart as they rec-ognize the need to collaborate to innovate and compete (Boyle, 2018). The retailer has therewith become an example for a phenomenon, which will change the business environment and define the firms’ strategy in the future: collaborative agreements in form of strategic alliances (Drucker in Serrat, 2010). Those partnerships grant access to rare know-how, inimitable resources and valuable capabilities that otherwise are out of reach for a single firm.
However, simply forming a strategic alliance does not guarantee that it will be successful. Walmart and Uber’s strategic alliance for grocery deliveries ended in dissatisfaction on all sides after two short years in 2018 (Bose & Somerville, 2018). The media is full of stories about underperforming or discontinued alliances and the rates of failure are estimated to be up to 70 percent (Duysters, Saebi, & De Man, 2011; Whitler, 2014). Given this track record, scholars (Kale, Dyer, & Singh, 2002; Kale & Singh, 2009; Schreiner, Kale, & Corsten, 2009) have made it their mission to discover what ensures alliance success. In doing so, a lot of research (e.g. Inkpen, 2005; Simonin, 2004) has focused on the efficient transfer of technical know-how be-tween firms – in the Walmart-Uber alliance that for example includes the transfer of logistical and retail know-how. Recently however, another important aspect that is hindering alliance success was identified: Strategic alliances often lack a good management by the individual al-liance partners. To manage a strategic alal-liance successfully, each individual firm needs the abil-ity to coordinate, communicate and bond efficiently with their alliance partners (Schreiner et al., 2009). Although this explains how to manage a strategic alliance successfully in theory, a study from McKinsey & Company for example has found that in practice managers see two of the main reasons for alliance failure in a poor communication between partners and poorly de-fined governance mechanisms and processes (De Backer & Rinaudo, 2019). Knowing that, a lack of communication is said to be one of the reasons that led to the break-up of the Walmart-Uber alliance (Bose & Somerville, 2018) – implying that no firm, not even a retail-giant such
as Walmart is excluded from this issue. It appears that firms do not anticipate well what it takes to be a good alliance partner and how to make the most out of a strategic alliance by managing it successfully – they lack a firm-level alliance management capability.
To hold a superior capability to manage strategic alliances that enhances the joint success of the strategic alliance is thus considered by some to be a source of competitive advantage in itself (Kale & Singh, 2009). Today and in the future, having a firm-level alliance management capa-bility can therefore be considered a requisite to develop and maintain fruitful strategic alliances and ultimately stay competitive in the race for the access to rare and inimitable know-how, resources and capabilities. Yet, considering the high alliance failure rate, what holds firms back from building such a firm-level alliance management capability to be more successful?
1.1 What needs to be asked to bring light into the darkness
The facilitators to building a firm-level alliance management capability have received extensive consideration by scholars (e.g. Kale et al., 2002; Schreiner et al., 2009). Overall, a strong focus has been placed on the structural and macro level facets of learning in strategic alliances. Less attention has been paid to individual and social processes involved as Doz points out in 1996 and as Salk and Simonin (2011) confirm. The authors stress for example the relative lack of studies that investigate alliance learning on the smaller levels of analysis such as the intra-or-ganizational, group and individual levels (Salk & Simonin, 2011).
In sum, the intra-organizational learning process with the aim to build a firm-level alliance management capability to become better at managing strategic alliances has received little at-tention. The authors De Man, Nevin, and Roijakkers (2011) especially stress the lack of exten-sive research on the barriers to the process that leads to the firm-level alliance management capability. Considering that Kale and Singh (2007) point out the importance of a deliberate alliance learning process involved in building this firm-level capability, it is surprising how the barriers to this process have remained in the dark and not received any attention. Three works by Simonin (2004), Inkpen (2005) and Pucik (1988) mainly investigate learning barriers related to the technical know-how transfer between strategic alliance partners. Inkpen and Pucik only give a glimpse into the intra-organizational learning barriers that are adjoining their work. With-out a better understanding for the barriers to this learning process, firms will continue to remain in the dark about learning barriers that hold them back from building a firm-level alliance man-agement capability.
To identify and empirically verify these barriers to this specific intra-organizational learning context could foster an overarching understanding of what aspects prevent firms from develop-ing a superior capability for managdevelop-ing strategic alliances successfully. Answerdevelop-ing to the call of the researchers mentioned before, this thesis aims to shed light into this darkness by posing the following research question:
What learning barriers exist to building a firm-level alliance management capability?
1.2 What this thesis will shed light on
1.2.1 Identifying learning barriers
With the emergence of the relational view coined by Dyer and Singh in 1998, where the rela-tionship between two or more firms is seen as a source of competitive advantage, strategic alli-ances are considered to have the potential to cause the greatest change in how business is con-ducted in the future. Firms are moving away from growing through ownership towards thriving through partnership (Drucker in Serrat, 2010). With an increasing number of strategic alliances being formed (Vitasek, 2020), the interest in the capability to manage strategic alliances suc-cessfully has grown strongly over the last two decades. However, underperforming strategic alliances are not uncommon and failure rates are high (Duysters et al., 2011; Whitler, 2014). The scholars’ attention has therefore been turned to research into the alliance learning process, which helps the firm to build a firm-level alliance management capability that ensures success (Kale & Singh, 2007). In this thesis the researchers will investigate what learning barriers to the building of said firm-level alliance management capability exist. With the findings the research-ers will aim to contribute to the existing literature on alliance management and add new insights regarding the learning barriers specific to the context of building a firm-level alliance manage-ment capability and eventually to alliance success.
1.2.2 Providing a starting point to reveal learning barriers in practice
As pointed out, the drivers of alliance success, their link to a firm-level alliance management capability and the importance to facilitate alliance learning has received extensive considera-tion by scholars (e.g. Kale et al., 2002; Schreiner et al., 2009). Yet, isn’t it necessary to reveal what is holding this learning process back in the first place? Exploring the barriers to this intra-organizational learning in more detail, can be a starting point for top management and alliance managers to uncover what is holding their firm back in building such a capability. The insights derived from the investigation of learning barriers existent in this context as well as their reasons and consequences could especially heighten the awareness of top management for the learning
barriers the alliance managers face in transforming their individually held alliance management know-how to a firm-level alliance management capability.
1.3 How this thesis aims to bring light into the darkness
2. Theory – What needs to be known before bringing light into the
darkness
The following chapter will provide the overall context of this study to the reader by presenting the theoretical background of this thesis. First, strategic alliances and alliance success will be outlined before the alliance management capability will be defined as it builds the foundation for the study. From this, the process of building a firm-level alliance management capability will be elaborated on by outlining two connected ways of learning – experiential learning by doing and deliberate learning through organizational mechanisms and routines. Continuing, common learning barriers found in organizational learning literature will be categorized and examined according to a developed theoretical framework as this will further provide means through which the findings will be analyzed and discussed subsequently. Lastly, existing learn-ing barriers in the wider context of strategic alliances are belearn-ing investigated to confirm the research gap.
2.1 Strategic alliances and their heterogenous performance
In the strategic quest for superior performance in an intense competitive globalized market, scholars have investigated many different sources of firms’ competitive advantage. During this long-ranging investigation three prominent views have emerged that all reveal more about what it means to compete superiorly.
Starting off, the industry structure view, mainly associated with Porter (1980) focuses on rents that are gained by the positioning of a firm within an industry with favorable structural charac-teristics, such as the bargaining power or barriers to entry. This view focuses on an industry level of analysis to gain a competitive advantage. With increased worldwide competition, the firm’s heterogeneity has been put into focus of superior performance leading to the emergence of the resource-based and knowledge-based view of the firm. The resource-based view shaped by Barney (1991), pledges to seek and accumulate resources and capabilities that are unique and hard to imitate in order to gain a competitive advantage. In this view one resource stands out: knowledge. In the last two decades knowledge assets and knowledge management played a fundamental role in understanding superior performance. The knowledge-based view, which emerged from the resource-based view, sees the firm’s main role in the integration of special-ized knowledge to repeatedly perform a value-adding task (Grant, 1996). Consequently, the quest for competitive advantage has focused intensely on what lies within the firm boundaries.
With borders opening globally and technical opportunities on the rise, critical resources may, however, lay outside one single firm’s boundaries. The relational view, characterized by Dyer and Singh (1998) is based upon the premise “that firms who combine resources in unique ways may realize an advantage over competing firms who are unable or unwilling to do so.” (p. 661). The focus for gaining a competitive advantage has shifted from inside one single firm to the relationship between firms. The relational view is among others characterized by one concept that increasingly forms today’s business world: strategic alliances. Although the concept exist since the earliest trade agreements, the increased number of strategic alliance formations in the last decade indicates the strong focus this concept has in the business world (Vitasek, 2020). Considering the relevance of strategic alliances for firms today, what exactly is a strategic alli-ance, and how does it help to gain a competitive advantage?
Strategic alliances are defined by Teece (1992) as "agreements characterized by the commit-ment of two or more firms to reach a common goal entailing the pooling of their resources and activities” (p.19). The strategic in front signals the alliance’s strategic importance to the firms involved. This means for example that the alliance is characterized by a longer time frame and that the amount of resources invested into the alliance is significant to the involved firms. A strategic alliance can entail a diversity of configurations of how and what resources and ac-tivities are pooled (Grant & Baden‐Fuller, 2004; Kale & Singh, 2009). It can span over multiple stages of the value chain as well as involve contextual agreements or ownership links. Some exemplary configurations of a strategic alliance are depicted in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Different configurations of strategic alliances adapted from Kale & Singh (2009)
Motives for a strategic alliance formation can be growth, a simplified entry into a new market, a reduction of financial risk through cost sharing or the exploitation of complementarities
be-tween resources and capabilities (Elmuti & Kathawala, 2001; Grant, 2015). The common ob-jective combining all of the mentioned motives is the exchange of knowledge-based resources, a mentioned source of competitive advantage (Grant & Baden‐Fuller, 2004). The exchange takes place through either accessing the partner’s stock of technical know-how or through the generation of technical know-how through collaborative learning facilitated by the alliance part-nership. For the purpose of this thesis, technical know-how refers to any know-how that reflects a knowledge-based resource for which the alliance was formed. This could for example include manufacturing know-how for a manufacturing alliance or specific research know-how for a joint research project alliance.
Besides the type of know-how exchanged, there is another configurational aspect in Teece’s (1992) definition of a strategic alliance that needs to be considered: the number of firms in-volved. As the author states, a strategic alliance can be formed by two or more firms. Subse-quently, when using the term strategic alliance, this thesis focuses solely on dyadic relationships – collaborative agreements that are formed between two firms and not more. Since this study focuses on dyadic relationships, it will therefore investigate only a part of larger relational con-structs such as networks or ecosystems.
After looking into what a strategic alliance is and why it is formed, the question remains if the engagement in such a partnership is worthwhile. It is, if the strategic alliance is successful. But, what is alliance success and how does a firm involved in a strategic alliance ensure its success? Dyer and Singh (1998) characterize the successful outcome of an alliance as a supernormal profit for both alliance partner firms that is created jointly and could not have been created by either firm alone. This also implies that a failed strategic alliance does not generate this profit, by for example discontinuing or underperforming. Yet, although firms increasingly form stra-tegic alliances with the goal to generate such a profit, the actual realization and implementation of mechanisms to make a strategic alliance successful seem to be quite difficult. Research scholars investigating alliance success point out that over time, alliance failure rates have re-portedly varied between 40 and 70 percent among companies (Duysters et al., 2011; Whitler, 2014). In order to understand the heterogeneity in alliance performances, scholars started to investigate what drives alliance success.
When analyzing alliance performance, there are two influential but different layers of analysis to be considered, that are very much intertwined. First, there is the inter-organizational level, which needs to be considered. It entails the dyadic relationship between the alliance partners,
the shared strategic alliance context both partner firms experience (Duysters et al., 2011). Be-sides that, factors within the individual alliance partner firms are to be considered as well. On this intra-organizational level, the individual firm with its capabilities, know-how and firm in-ternal processes influences how well the relationship will work by providing a part of the basis through which the partnership evolves. Figure 3 visualizes the two different levels of analysis within a strategic alliance.
Figure 3: Levels of analysis in strategic alliance partnerships
2.2 Alliance success? Firm-level alliance management capability!
In alliance research, the internal organizational of each individual firm is strongly linked to the term alliance capability. However, Kohtamäki, Rabetino, and Möller (2018) outline that the definitions of alliance capability in literature are immensely manifold and not clearly distin-guished from one another. After a detailed literature review, the three mentioned authors cate-gorize the definitions of alliance capability into three dimensions. According to them an alliance capability includes an alliance management, integration as well as learning capability. None-theless, in their analysis the authors include both inter- as well as intra-organizational levels in these dimensions, which means that in the definition of Kohtamäki et al. (2018) an alliance management capability would include elements focusing on both, the individual internal organ-ization of each alliance partner (intra-organorgan-izational level) as well as on the joint organorgan-ization agreed upon together (inter-organizational level). Despite this often used dual-leveled defini-tion, the inter-organizational level was not able to explain alliance success fully (Duysters et al., 2011). Therefore, further research has devoted more attention to the intra-organizational
level of the alliance management capability, focusing on what each individual alliance partner can do internally to manage the alliance more successfully.
Based on this, the intra-organizational notion of an alliance management capability therefore outlines the importance of establishing collaboration skills and building alliance management know-how within each individual firm first which then positively plays into the shared context of the strategic alliance to ensure alliance success (Duysters et al., 2011; Kale & Singh, 2007). In order to ensure alliance success repeatedly as a firm, this capability needs to be on the firm-level (Kale et al., 2002; Kale & Singh, 2007). But, what does that mean? When speaking of a firm-level alliance management capability, the researchers of this thesis refer to “an organiza-tion wide proficiency in managing alliances as opposed to alliance expertise residing in indi-viduals inside the firm” (Duysters et al., 2011, p. 193). So, an alliance management capability that is on a firm-level means that the firm has this capability independent of any individual firm members’ expertise and possible turnover.
Scholars of the field have shown that having such a capability has a strongly positive effect on the alliance success of a firm (Kale & Singh, 2007, 2009). Considering this while a lot of stra-tegic alliances still fail, such a capability can indeed be considered a competitive advantage on its own (Kale & Singh, 2009). Henceforth, this thesis focuses on the building and developing of a firm-level alliance management capability as a base to ensure alliance success. In this the-sis, based on Kale and Singh (2007) as well as Schreiner et al. (2009), a firm-level alliance management capability is defined as a firm’s ability to effectively manage the coordina-tion, communication and bonding with each individual alliance partner to achieve mutual benefits.
Now that it is clear what each individual alliance partner firm must build and develop in order to make a strategic alliance successful, there remain some questions. What does it mean to have such a capability? What is its practical outcome? And, how is it built in the first place?
Starting off with what it means to have such a capability as a firm, there are three elements constituting it (Schreiner et al., 2009). First, with having a firm-level alliance management ca-pability, a firm has the ability to effectively coordinate the agreed upon goals of the alliance such as the transfer of technical know-how and skills. Second, by having this firm-level alliance management capability, a firm has the ability to communicate and share the accurate knowledge needed for the agreed-upon technical know-how transfer. Third, a firm has the ability to bond with the alliance partner by forming and enhancing the relationship to the partner. This also
includes the bonding act between different firm members involved in the alliance. Although alliance management focuses on the management of a collaborative partnership it is distinct from managing a relationship. An example of relationship management is a buyer-supplier-relationship, where both parties involved want to maintain a positive relationship but pursue no common goal. Within alliance management, firms use communication, coordination and bond-ing to successfully work towards the common goal of the strategic alliance.
With the answer to the question what constitutes a firm-level alliance management capability, there is still the question left of how such a capability is built or developed. As outlined by Castaldi, Turi, Mazzoni, and Paoli (2015), scholars of the field have identified two distinct an-tecedents of the capability in question: previous experience in managing an alliance and delib-erate learning mechanisms that leverage such experiences. Figure 4 summarizes the outlined conceptualization of a firm-level alliance management capability for this thesis.
Figure 4: Conceptualization of a firm-level alliance management capability based on Schreiner et al. (2009) and Castaldi et al. (2015)
2.3 How a firm-level alliance management capability is built
In the quest to make strategic alliances successful, one concept stands out: having a firm-level alliance management capability. Therefore, the process of how such a capability is built will now be outlined in more detail to subsequently understand the consequences that possible learn-ing barriers can have on this process.
Firms can improve the skills necessary to manage any given task by learning and accumulating know-how relevant to that task (Grant, 1996). The author outlines that “integration of specialist know-how to perform a discrete productive task is the essence of organizational capability, defined as a firm's ability to perform repeatedly a productive task […]” (Grant, 1996, p. 377). Building on this, firms learn to build a capability by transforming individual experience and
expertise into firm-wide routines that make up the capability in question. This is also applicable to the context of building a firm-level alliance management capability, as scholars categorize the building of such a capability to be an organizational learning process which rests on two pillars: alliance experience and deliberate learning mechanisms (e.g. Castaldi et al., 2015; Duysters et al., 2011; Kale & Singh, 2009). Since the building of the capability in question is defined as an organizational learning process, it is mainly explained in alliance management theory using organizational learning literature (see e.g. Kale & Singh, 2007) . Therefore, this thesis also makes use of this stream of literature in contrast to other capability building litera-ture.
2.3.1 Starting off: Individual learning by doing
The first building block of a firm-level alliance management capability is alliance experience (e.g. Duysters et al., 2011; Kale & Singh, 2009). By frequently engaging in strategic alliances firms learn what it takes to manage an alliance effectively. In the following, alliance experience is defined as “the expertise on alliances generated through prior alliances” (Duysters et al., 2011, p. 193). Alliance experience as repeated learning from practice over time is a process that can be described as tacit learning by doing (Duysters et al., 2011; Kale & Singh, 2009). Learning by doing through experience is the starting point to any organizational learning as Levitt and March (1988) emphasize. The authors explain the underlying principle as following: “by improving competencies within frequently used procedures, it increases the frequency with which those procedures result in successful outcomes and thereby increases their use” (Levitt & March, 1988, p. 322). Additionally, Argote and Miron-Spektor (2011) emphasize that expe-rience always interacts with the context to create know-how. So, in the context of learning within strategic alliances, the feedback generated through engaging in strategic alliances creates experience that helps to build alliance management know-how (Kale & Singh, 2009).
However, as Simon (1991) points out, a firm learns through the learning of its members. Hence, the process of each organizational learning starts with the individual employee gathering expe-rience. This is no different in the learning context of building a firm-level alliance management capability. Although the experience is jointly created, when looking at how each individual alliance partner internally builds and develops its own alliance management capability, Kale and Singh (2009) state that “individual managers are the primary repository of useful alliance management experience and knowledge gained from prior or current alliance experience” (p. 53).
To sum up, the first step to how a firm-level alliance management capability is built and devel-oped, is through individual alliance managers who are or were engaged in strategic alliances. They gather alliance experience and therewith create alliance management know-how that re-sides within them.
2.3.2 Making it firm-level: Deliberate learning mechanisms
Although organizational learning occurs through individuals, over time a collective firm-wide understanding can emerge that persists the singular understanding of each individual firm mem-ber (Fiol & Lyles, 1985). For this, an ongoing cycle of gathering individual-level experiences and converting those experiences into firm-wide know-how must be undertaken – then organi-zational learning occurs (Argote & Miron-Spektor, 2011). Hence, to make a capability a firm-level one, this transfer of alliance management know-how from the individual employee to the whole firm, is of utmost importance. As Levitt and March (1988) state, unless the lessons cap-tured by experience are transferred from those who experienced them to those who did not, the lessons are most likely lost.
How such a transfer occurs can be described with the knowledge creation process by Nonaka, Toyama, and Konno (2000). The authors outline that knowledge is created tacitly through shared experience; however, tacit knowledge is hard to formulate and capture. It therefore needs to be made explicit for others to understand and use it. Only when made explicit through artic-ulation and combination into routines, tacit knowledge can be transferred from the individual throughout the whole firm and internalized by other firm members. An essential part in building a firm-level capability is therefore to make the tacit know-how of individuals explicit for ex-ample by making them into routines or guidelines in order for other firm members to be able to internalize this know-how and use it.
The same principle remains for the learning context of building a firm-level alliance manage-ment capability, scholars have identified that deliberate learning mechanisms are essential to transform and internalize the tacit alliance experience held by the individual into accessible explicit lessons on how to effectively manage alliances for all firm members (e.g. Castaldi et al., 2015; Duysters et al., 2011; Kale et al., 2002; Kale & Singh, 2007). Deliberate learning mechanisms are purposeful efforts of the firm to help individual alliance managers transfer their individually held alliance management know-how to the firm-level (Kale & Singh, 2009). The alliance learning process is identified by Kale and Singh (2007) as a main mechanism for this.
It is introduced by the authors as a process in which “firms undertake deliberate efforts to artic-ulate, codify, share, and internalize alliance management know-how in firms.” (p. 984). So, what does this process entail?
The starting point of such a process is what has already been described earlier as an essential difficulty in organizational learning – the initial first transfer of tacit know-how within the in-dividual to other firm members. For this, the alliance management know-how needs to be artic-ulated. Alliance managers can articulate their gathered know-how in many forms such as for-mally or inforfor-mally engaging in dialogue with other firm members or writing down their lessons learned.
After articulating tacit know-how, the next step is to codify this know-how. Kale and Singh (2007) define codification in an alliance management learning context as “creating and using knowledge objects or resources such as alliance guidelines, checklists, or manuals to assist ac-tion or decision making in future alliance situaac-tions” (p.985). Codificaac-tion is distinct to articu-lation in terms of that codification provides specific tools for firm members to execute any specific alliance management tasks, while articulation solely helps the individual to grasp what they have experienced. They state however that it is not possible to codify all know-how, since it is tacit and therewith hard to fully articulate for an individual. For this difficulty, `communi-ties of personal interaction’ (Brown & Duguid, 1991) provide a platform through which already articulated or codified alliance management know-how can further be shared throughout the firm and help to uncover even more tacit know-how (Kale & Singh, 2009). Those communities can for example be cross-firm alliance committees, task forces or simple informal casual dis-cussions between alliance managers.
Finally, it is important that all firm members who will be responsible for managing alliances in the future are possessing the relevant know-how created in earlier stages. Therewith the firm creates a firm-level alliance management capability and ensures repeatable alliance success. For this, the alliance management know-how created before needs to be internalized by the firm members. Tools for the internalization can for example be alliance management trainings as well as mentorships or apprenticeships, where new alliance managers are in frequent contact with more experienced ones (Kale & Singh, 2007).
Conclusively, an alliance management capability on the firm-level is built through a learning process that intra-organizationally transfers experiential know-how gained by individual alli-ance managers to the whole firm using deliberate learning mechanisms that articulate, codify,
share and internalize individually held know-how. Collectively, this process is visualized in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Building a firm-level alliance management capability
Summarizing the gained insights so far, this thesis builds its definition on what a firm-level alliance management capability is and how it is built and developed on three fundamental ideas from alliance management and organizational learning literature:
• Firms can build and develop an organizational capability that is responsible for the ef-fective management of each individual strategic alliance and that ensures repeatable al-liance success.
• Having such a capability is a competitive advantage in itself as it ensures alliance suc-cess in a world where strategic alliances are a crucial strategy tool to acsuc-cess and acquire necessary resources and know-how to stay competitive.
• The alliance management capability as a firm-level capability has its roots in an organ-izational learning process which transforms the individual experience into collective al-liance management know-how and best practices.
2.4 What could hinder this process? Organizational learning barriers!
In the question of what impedes the building of a firm-level alliance management capability this thesis will start by introducing the concept of organizational learning barriers. To do so a grasp of the respective terminology is important: What is organizational learning and what is a learning barrier? Organizational learning is defined as a collective learning process, which transfers individual experience(s) into organizational routines, processes and structures to guide
the future learning of firm members (Schilling & Kluge, 2009). Learning barriers to organiza-tional learning are therefore factors that either prevent or impede the practicability of this col-lective process of organizational learning (Schilling & Kluge, 2009).
Within management theory and practice the manner and reasons for firms to fail to learn is at the center of many discussions (e.g. Argyris, 1990; Senge, 1990). Barriers to organizational learning have therefore received extensive attention in literature and different terms like learn-ing barriers, learnlearn-ing obstacles and learnlearn-ing impediments are commonly used to describe them (e.g. Fischbacher-Smith & Fischbacher-Smith, 2012; Smith & Elliott, 2007). In this thesis the researchers refer to all these terms as learning barriers. Along the lines of Schilling and Kluge’s (2009) definition of organizational learning barriers, in the specific learning context of this study, this thesis defines learning barriers as factors that either prevent the learning pro-cess of building a firm-level alliance management capability or impede its practicability. Now that it is defined what learning barriers are, there are still some questions about their origin and different configurations. Learning barriers are often seen as the result of interruptions of the learning processes (March & Olsen, 1975; Schimmel & Muntslag, 2009). Such interruptions can arise on multiple levels within and between firms and involve both individual and group processes and behaviors (Fischbacher-Smith & Fischbacher-Smith, 2012). Learning barriers are commonly categorized indicated in Figure 6 with examples.
Figure 6: Learning barrier categorization
This thesis will subsequently give an overview of which barriers have been identified in organ-izational learning so far. But considering the great number of categorizations available, how is this to be organized? For this study, a framework that builds on the work of Schilling and Kluge (2009) has been developed. This framework categorizes the learning barriers based on the bar-rier form, thematical cluster as well as the affected process step of building a firm-level alliance management capability. Now the question might arise: why is this a framework? The term framework is used, as the researchers see this tool as a frame based on literature which can be
filled with empirical findings of any conducted study to work with the findings i.e. extract in-formation and meaning. Therefore, the developed framework will also serve as means to cate-gorize and analyze the findings of this study. However, first, it is advisable to get an under-standing of the common organizational learning barriers in literature using this framework. This will help to better grasp the use of the framework for the findings of this study later.
2.4.1 Getting to know the common organizational learning barriers
Although there is a large number of learning barriers identified in literature, this thesis focuses on the barriers affecting the accumulation of experience and the transfer of know-how from the individual to the organizational level as this is exactly what the building of the capability in question is. The actional-personal, structural-organizational and societal-environmental barrier forms outlined in the work of Schilling and Kluge (2009) have been identified as suitable for the development of the framework, as they allow to focus on the individual and social processes in intra-organizational learning while taking into account the strategic alliance context of the firm. But what are these different barrier forms exactly?
The environment is interrelated with the firm and influencing its organizational learning through the “flow and processing of information” (Schilling & Kluge, 2009, p. 342) from the “parts of the social and material world that members perceive as relevant for organizational action” (Schilling & Kluge, 2009, p. 342). The societal-environmental barrier form is therefore characterized by the factors of this environment that negatively influence organizational learn-ing. The structural-organizational barrier form is “characterized by existing routines, structures and practices of the organization” (Schilling & Kluge, 2009, p. 341). Structural-organizational barriers originate from the firm’s strategy, technology, culture and formal regulations. In con-trast, the actional-personal barrier form is defined as being “characterized by individual think-ing, attitudes and behaviour” (Schilling & Kluge, 2009, p. 341). Together these barrier forms describe the origin of where the barrier resides or emerges: the learning context and environ-ment, the firm’s structure and processes or the individual’s thinking and behavior.
After clarifying the different barrier forms, a categorization of common learning barriers in organizational learning literature will now be introduced using the developed framework (see Table 1). This overview outlines common learning barriers based on the work collected by Schilling and Kluge (2009). Much of the work collected by them is based on a mix of theoretical considerations and case studies, which can function as a point of departure for further empirical studies as it did for this study.
The framework is setup as following: The three forms of learning barriers are grouped accord-ing to their overarchaccord-ing theme into 13 barrier clusters in the table. Additionally, the barriers and their clusters are attached to the different steps of organizational learning that they are affecting. These include the experiential learning within the individual, the articulation and sharing of know-how, the firm-wide implementation of know-how and the internalization and codification of know-how. Whereas the table contains a detailed insight into what different scholars have done in the field of organizational learning barriers, a more detailed description of the most relevant organization learning barriers found in there will furthermore be given after that.
Steps
Societal-en-vironmental Cluster Structural-organizational Actional-personal Authors
In d iv id u al ´s exp erie n tia l l ear n in g A) Cha ra cteri stic s o f k n o w -h o w B) Un cl ear crit eria fo r su cc es s o f b ra n ch 1. Cognitive re-strictions and mindsets
a) Lack of clear, measurable goals and performance feed-back
b) Competency trap
c) Biases and lack of knowledge on part of firm members d) Superstitious learning
A) Cannon & Edmondson, 2001; Szulanski, 2002; Kuz-netsov & Yakavenka, 2005
B) Edmondson & Moingenon, 1996
a) Cannon & Edmondson, 2001; Van de Ven & Polley, 1992
b) Levitt & March, 1988
c) Huber, 1991; Cannon & Edmondson, 2001 d) Levitt & March, 1988
e) McCracken, 2005 f) Morgan, 1986 g) Elliott et al., 2000 h) Szulanski, 2002
i) Elliott et al., 2000; Tucker et al., 2002 j) Vince & Saleem, 2004
k) Argyris, 1990; Cannon & Edmondson, 2001 l) Argyris, 1990; Beer et al., 2005; Cannon & Edmond-son, 2001; McCracken, 2005
2. Bureaucratic restrictions and roles
e) Strict work rules
f) ‘Not my job’-phenomenon
g) High level of stress h) Lack of motivation due to narrow role
i) Focusing on first-order prob-lem solving, neglecting second-order problem solving
3. Fear of failure
and blame j) Organizational blame culture
k) Restrictive, controlling mgmt. style l) Fear of disadvantages Articu lat ion a n d sha rin g A) Kn o w -h o w co n fli cts w ith ex is tin g mi n d se t 4. Personal feel-ings and skills of learner
a) Organizational silence
b) Fear of loss of ownership and control of know-how
c) Lack of political and social skills of learner and / or sup-porter(s)
A) Hanft, 1996
a) Morrison & Milliken, 2000 b) Sun & Scott, 2005
c) Cannon & Edmondson, 2001 d) Coopey, 1995; Tucker et al., 2002 e) March & Olsen, 1975; Sun & Scott, 2005 f) Szulanski, 2002
g) Friedman et al., 2003 h) Zell, 2001; Sun & Scott, 2005 i) Szulanski, 2002
j) Sun & Scott, 2005
k) Rothman & Friedman, 2003 5. Prestige and
relations within group
d) Status culture
e) Low status, confidence and trustworthiness of learner f) Conflictual relationship be-tween learner and group 6. Goals, tasks
and working con-ditions of group
g) Missing link between know-how and important organiza-tional goals
h) Perceived lack of relative ad-vantage over existing practices i) Lack of absorptive / retentive capacity of group members 7. Collective
identity and group norms
j) Failure-avoidance norms of the group
k) Ego-defences of a strong col-lective identity
Firm -w id e imp le m en ta tio n A) N ew k n o w -h o w co n fl icts w ith `in d u stria l rec ip e s´ 8. Lack of mo-tivation of learning or-ganizational unit
a) Ineffective resource alloca-tion
b) Competition with others c) Inadequate communication between units
d) Fear of disadvantages for team benefit
e) Lack of recognition / fear of punishment
A) Spender, 1989 a) Beer et al., 2005 b) Sun & Scott, 2005 c) Elliott et al., 2000 d) Sun & Scott, 2005 e) Sun & Scott, 2005
f) Duncan & Weiss, 1979; Steiner, 1998 g) Elliott et al., 2000; Steiner, 1998 h) Weick, 1995
i) Popper & Lipshitz, 2000 j) Sun & Scott, 2005 k) Sun & Scott, 2005 l) Zell, 2001
m) Beer & Eisenstat, 2000; Steiner, 1998; Zell, 2001 9. Lack of top
mgmt. support f) Power structures
g) Stiff and outdated core be-liefs, values and assumptions of senior managers
h) Managers’ desire to retain a positive self-image
i) Lack of formal authority of learner and / or supporter(s) 10. Active
re-sistance from other organi-zational de-partments
j) Lack of learning orientated values in firm
k) Misfit between new know-how and existing organizational assumptions and beliefs
l) 'Not invented here'-syn-drome
m) Lack of participation and communication / forced top-down change In tern aliz at ion a n d co d if icatio n A) Dif fi cu ltie s in a d o p tin g a n d comm u n i-cat in g k n o w -h o w fro m a d if fe re n t cu ltu re B) T ech n ical / stru ctu ra l d if fi cu ltie s o f sto rin g im p lic it kn o w -h o w 11. Deficient skills and knowledge for adoption
a) Lack of time and resources b) High employee / mgmt. turn-over and perforated organiza-tional memory
A) Kuznetsov & Yakavenka, 2005
B) Nonaka, 2000
a) McCracken, 2005; Sun & Scott, 2005; Zell, 2001 b) Walsh & Ungson, 1991; Zell, 2001
c) Beeby & Simpson, 1998
d) Beer & Eisenstat, 2000; Steiner, 1998; Zell, 2001 e) Beer & Eisenstat, 2000
f) Sun & Scott, 2005 g) Sun & Scott, 2005
h) McCracken, 2005; Zell, 2001 i) Hanft, 1996
j) Sun & Scott, 2005
k) Dean et al., 1998; Wanous et al., 2000 12. Lack of
mgmt. skills to implement
c) Lack of clear responsibility concerning implementation / storage
d) Inconsistent organizational strategy, systems, policies and practices
e) Inadequate down-the-line leadership skills
f) Past experiences of conflicts during learning transfer g) Low level of acceptance and trust towards employees 13.
Counter-active and op-portunistic be-havior
h) Decentralization with power-ful departmental structures i) Lack of means and measures to control organizational be-havior and performance
j) Low degree of openness to new ideas on part of teams / employees
k) Cynicism towards the organi-zation or changes
Barriers to the individual’s experiential learning
In this step of organizational learning two societal-environmental barriers stand out:
A) First, the characteristics of the know-how itself can hinder the transfer and absorption of know-how. When know-how is tacit and difficult, that means highly ambiguous and not easily coded and taught, it is difficult for it to be moved along from individual to individual (Cannon & Edmondson, 2001; Szulanski, 2002).
B) Second, when a firm’s organizational branch has unclear criteria for success, it can lead to problems in the identification of success and failure and hinder the derivation of necessary adjustments and a clear direction to follow (Edmondson & Moingeon, 1998). Both barriers are contributing to the difficulties for the individual to learn from its experiences. In addition to these societal-environmental barriers, the following clusters with barriers to the individual’s experiential learning are to be considered.
Simon (1991) describes that the start of all learning lies with the individual. With this notion the first cluster is dedicated to the cognitive restrictions and mindsets of the individual firm members. Two structural-organizational barriers stand out:
a) The first is the lack of clear, measurable goals and performance feedback that prevents the individual from learning. As an undesirable outcome cannot be clearly identified without a comparative frame, the derivation of lessons learned is hindered (Cannon & Edmondson, 2001; Van de Ven & Polley, 1992).
b) In addition, organizations that overly focus on further exploiting their existing competences run the risk of falling into the competency trap (Levitt & March, 1988). It usually occurs when the organization is enjoying a long period of success and the decision makers neglect the ex-ploration of new competences in favor of exploiting existing competences. This can pose a barrier to learning as new learning opportunities are underexploited.
c) The actional-personal barrier of this cluster considers that the individual in the firm is subject to biases and bounded rationality (Huber, 1991). This implies that individuals take decisions based on their limited mental capacity and capabilities.
The second cluster includes the avoidance of intensive engagement in novel ideas by the individual, which is rooted in bureaucratic restrictions and roles. The structural-organiza-tional barriers of this cluster are coined by aspects which restrict the individuals’ freedom for “thinking out of the box” and entrap them in their comfort zone.
f) One exemplary learning barrier of such sort would be a too narrow job description and a high degree of division of labor which foster the so-called ‘not my job’-phenomenon (Morgan, 1986). This results in the individual avoiding to take on any learning tasks that are not officially assigned to him or her.
g + h) The actional-personal barriers of this cluster are a high level of stress (Elliott, Smith, & McGuinness, 2000) at work in combination with narrow professional identities and roles. For example, similar to a narrow identity, a narrow professional role of the individual can hinder learning. It diminishes the individual’s motivation to follow an idea that is not part of the role description and therefore not desired by the firm (Szulanski, 2002).
In the third cluster new insights are suppressed by the individual as a result of fear of failure and blame.
j) From a structural-organizational perspective the barrier in this cluster lies in the existence of an organizational culture of blame (Vince & Saleem, 2004), where failures are handled by searching for a scapegoat. This can create a feeling of unsafety, stifle the motivation and free-dom of employees to share their know-how and foster failure avoidance (Schilling & Kluge, 2009).
k) An actional-personal barrier to learning is for example found in a restrictive, controlling management style (Argyris, 1990; Cannon & Edmondson, 2001) which can lead employees to anticipate that top managers are not open to constructive discussions. This can end in the em-ployees not sharing their learnings. The result is a control-oriented instead of learning-oriented behavior of individuals (Schilling & Kluge, 2009).
Barriers to articulation and sharing
In this step of organizational learning one societal-environmental barrier presents itself: A) When new know-how conflicts significantly with the existing mindsets of the firm mem-bers, it can result in these members not accepting the know-how and therewith the know-how is never transferred (Hanft, 1996). In addition to this societal-environmental barrier, the fol-lowing clusters with barriers to articulation and sharing are to be considered.
The fourth cluster addresses the personal feelings and skills of the learner and their ef-fects on organizational learning.
a) Organizational silence (Morrison & Milliken, 2000) is named as the most influential struc-tural-organizational barrier in this cluster. It describes a phenomenon that occurs when firm members withhold information and concerns about problems the firm is facing.
b) Additionally, this firm-level phenomenon is also linked to actional-personal barriers such as the individual learner’s fear to lose ownership and control of their know-how (Sun & Scott, 2005). It manifests in individuals omitting to discuss their ideas and insights with others in the firm. Such a behavior is due to the anxiety that their know-how is deemed to be inadequate by others or the fear that sharing their know-how may cause them to lose ownership of it and diminish their competitive edge over fellow firm members.
Barriers related to the prestige and relations within the learning group are collected in the fifth cluster.
d) In this cluster, especially an organizational culture which is hierarchy and status oriented can pose a structural-organizational barrier to learning as new insights are more likely not to be accepted due to the status of the individual who proposes them instead of their substance (Coopey, 1995; Tucker, Edmondson, & Spear, 2002).
e) From the actional-personal perspective, individuals need to earn status, confidence and trust-worthiness in the group first, before their ideas will be considered (Sun & Scott, 2005; Tucker et al., 2002). A lack of these attributes can hamper the dispersion of new know-how by the individual.
The sixth cluster attends to the barriers resulting from the goals, tasks and working con-ditions of the group.
g) The main structural-organizational barrier identified in this cluster is a missing link between important organizational goals and the newly acquired know-how (Friedman, Lipshitz, & Overmeer, 2003). Schilling and Kluge (2009) describe that without said link it will be prob-lematic to convince other firm members of the benefit the new know-how will bring to the group and firm.
h) This sets the stage for the actional-personal barriers of this cluster. The perceived lack of relative advantage of new practices over existing ones (Sun & Scott, 2005; Zell, 2001) for example leads to firm members to jointly fend off new ideas.
The seventh cluster is addressing learning barriers resulting from an extreme collective identity and from failure-avoidance group norms and focuses on structural-organiza-tional barriers.
j) Group norms which convey the need to avoid failures can hamper learning as they foster the suppression of divergent ideas and the denial of bad news and previous failures (Sun & Scott, 2005).
k) Moreover, when a group or firm has a strong collective identity, its members tend to build up ego-defenses to protect this identity against views and ideas that are strongly conflicting and seen as a potential threat to the group’s core beliefs (Rothman & Friedman, 2003).
Barriers to firm-wide implementation
A) In this step of organizational learning a societal-environmental barrier presents itself when the new know-how conflicts with ‘industrial recipes’ of the firm’s industry resulting in the new know-how being rejected (Spender, 1991). In addition to this societal-environmental barrier, the following clusters with barriers to the firm-wide implementation of know-how are to be considered.
The eighth cluster is concerned with the lack of motivation on part of the learning organ-izational departments and also addresses inter-group processes.
b) One striking structural-organizational barrier of this cluster is a competition for resources between departments, which can create a hostile atmosphere and thereby hinder the sharing of know-how within the firm (Sun & Scott, 2005).
d) This organizational setting gives rise to actional-personal barriers that influence the learning of the organizational departments. The fear of disadvantages for the group benefit may hinder departments to share their know-how, for example departments may decide not to share new insights with other departments to protect their unique selling point when it comes to the allo-cation of resources (Sun & Scott, 2005). Overall, the barriers of this cluster result in learning to end within a single department, failing to reach the firm level.
The ninth cluster attends to barriers related to the lack of top management support for new ideas.
f) A structural-organizational barrier in this cluster is found in cases in which new ideas conflict with the know-how held by the individuals in power or challenge the existing power structure
of the firm (Duncan & Weiss, 1979; Steiner, 1998). These clashes can result in the top man-agement not supporting a new idea and hampering the learning process.
g) In addition, the actional-personal barriers take their part in stifling learning. Stiff and obso-lete core beliefs, values and assumptions of senior management are named as sources of con-flict and inhibitors to change (Elliott et al., 2000).
The tenth cluster of barriers addresses the active resistance from other organizational departments.
j) A structural-organizational barrier identified here is the lack of learning orientated values in the firm (Sun & Scott, 2005). It hampers learning, especially the integration of new ideas, as the firm rather focuses on keeping the status quo stable.
l) An example of the actional-personal barriers of this cluster are the defensive routines of departments that lead to the rejection of ideas stemming from other departments. Those rou-tines are based on the ‘not invented here’-syndrome (Zell, 2001), which causes individuals to despise new ideas should they not stem from their own circles.
Barriers to internalization and codification
B) One societal-environmental barrier to the internalization and codification of know-how highlighted in literature is that tacit know-how often goes hand in hand with technical or struc-tural difficulties to store this know-how due to it being hard to document and organize (Nonaka et al., 2000). In addition to the societal-environmental barrier, the following clusters with bar-riers to internalization and codification are to be considered.
In the eleventh cluster the barriers concerning the deficient skills and know-how to adopt new ideas on part of the employees and groups are compiled.
a) First, a lack of time and resources assigned to learning efforts is one of the most highlighted structural-organizational barriers (McCracken, 2005; Sun & Scott, 2005; Zell, 2001). It be-comes visible for example in insufficient personnel, communication systems or financial sup-port.
b) Second a high employee and management turnover contribute to a perforated organizational memory (Walsh & Ungson, 1991; Zell, 2001), where individuals take their know-how with them when they exit the firm as there are no sufficient mechanism in place to share and store the know-how on an firm level.
The twelfth cluster addresses barriers related to a lack of management skills to provide a consistent and systematic implementation of new know-how.
d) A structural-organizational barrier described by many scholars for this cluster is how incon-sistencies in organizational strategy, systems, policies and practices hamper the implementa-tion of new initiatives (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000; Steiner, 1998; Zell, 2001).
The actional-personal barriers of this cluster are related to the management’s shortcomings: e) For example, inadequate down-the-line leadership skills are identified as blocking the insti-tutionalization of new structures, processes and practices (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000).
g) A low level of acceptance and trust towards other employees or entire departments increases the chances that lessons learned are not transferred throughout the firm (Sun & Scott, 2005). Aspects like the ones mentioned above can decrease the management’s expectation of success and therefore their commitment to the internalization and codification of new know-how. In the thirteenth and last cluster the counter-active and opportunistic behavior of firm members and departments is addressed.
h) From an organizational-structural perspective a high level of decentralization in combination with powerful departmental structures like silos and turfism (McCracken, 2005; Zell, 2001) lead to a competitive atmosphere hindering the exchange of know-how between firm members and departments.
j) The barriers on the actional-personal side are often displayed in a low degree of openness to new ideas on the individual and group-level and contributes to potentially valuable ideas being suppressed due to them being rejected early on (Sun & Scott, 2005).
k) In addition, sometimes this isolation from new ideas converts into cynicism towards change and the firm itself (Dean, Brandes, & Dharwadkar, 1998; Wanous, Reichers, & Austin, 2000).
2.4.2 Exploring the gap of learning barriers for building a firm-level alliance manage-ment capability
Now that an understanding of common learning barriers in literature has been established, the specific context of strategic alliances comes back into play. What learning barriers have been identified here? And, how do they relate to the specific context of building a firm-level alliance management capability?
Until now research has neglected to investigate the learning barriers to the intra-organizational learning that leads to the building of a firm-level alliance management capability. Within the
