bs_bs_banner

International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 15, 66–85 (2013)

DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00335.x

A Review of Antecedents of International

Strategic Alliance Performance:
Synthesized Evidence and New Directions
for Core Constructs ijmr_335 66..85

Jeppe Christoffersen
Department of Accounting and Auditing, Copenhagen Business School, Solbjerg Plads 3,
DK-2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
Email: jc.acc@cbs.dk

This paper provides a systematic review of 165 empirical studies on the antecedents of
performance in international strategic alliances. It provides the most detailed display
of definitions, rationales, measures and findings currently available. Hence, this state-
of-the art literature review creates an accessible pool of knowledge that is highly relevant
for future research on international strategic alliances. Further, it draws on this know-
ledge pool to build a model which highlights the quite different rationales advanced
by researchers to explain associations between the antecedents and performance. The
model makes the different rationales explicit and will aid researchers in identifying tests
that can be performed to examine the links between antecedents and performance as
well as the mechanisms through which such associations operate. Finally, the synthesized
evidence is used to suggest that researchers should give increased attention to achieving
congruence between measures of antecedents and performance.

Introduction shifted their focus to include non-equity alliances,

As strategic alliances in general – and international
strategic alliances (ISAs) in particular – have prolif-
erated over the past half century, so research has
increased knowledge about causes and consequences
of this organizational design. The earliest studies
include Friedmann and Kalmanoff (1961), Tomlin-
son (1970) and Franko (1971), and research in alli-
ances and particularly ISAs has subsequently
expanded dramatically, initially focusing primarily
on broad aspects (such as motivation for collaborat-
ing), on joint ventures (JVs) and on their popularity
as a mode of entry into new countries (e.g. Janger
1980; Killing 1983). Sparked to an extent by studies
by Harrigan (1988) and by Kogut (1988b) in a
Management International Review special issue on
co-operative ventures, later studies increasingly
and towards performance and its antecedents.
The large number of empirical articles has been
matched by a fair number of literature reviews,
the earlier of which – including Beamish (1985),
Geringer and Hébert (1989), Kogut (1988a) and
Parkhe (1993a) – reflected the content of the early
studies, considering primarily the extent of and
motives for JV formation. Where performance and
its antecedents were considered, the performance
measures generally used were stability and manage-
rial satisfaction, and the antecedents suggested were
mainly numbers of partners (two vs. more than two),
JV location (developed vs. developing countries) and
control (dominant vs. shared). As Parkhe (1993a,
p. 230) noted, the focus was on constructs reflected
by data made available through ‘ “hard” data sources
[which] are unlikely to capture the soft core

© 2012 The Author

International Journal of Management Reviews © 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA
02148, USA
Antecedents of ISA Performance
concepts’ – such as trust, forbearance, reciprocity
and opportunism – which Parkhe argued were central
to understanding inter-firm co-operation. As the
number of articles studying alliance performance
grew through the 1990s, so did the focus of more
literature reviews, so that Robson et al. (2002) were
able to provide a very informative vote-count review
of 91 studies focusing on factors influencing interna-
tional joint venture (IJV) performance. Their main
conclusion was that there were confused findings for
most hypothesized performance drivers, but behav-
ioural factors such as trust, commitment and conflict
had significant effects. These findings were sup-
ported by Reus and Ritchie (2004), whose compre-
hensive review of 194 empirical and conceptual IJV
articles focused both on performance and on IJV
research in general. In 2006, Robson et al. (2006)
provided support for Robson et al.’s (2002) claims
about the key role played by behavioural factors, in
their vote-count analysis of 41 ISA articles focusing
on five behavioural constructs – trust, commitment,
co-operation, communication and conflict/conflict
resolution – and finding general support for hypoth-
eses relating them to ISA performance.
More recently, five very different but complemen-
tary reviews have appeared. Culpan (2009), writing
in the inaugural issue of the International Journal of
Strategic Business Alliances, presents a narrative
review which focuses on a wide range of research
topics and paradigms. Nippa et al. (2007) present a
narrative review based on 41 articles that synthesizes
existing concepts into a framework of IJV success
factors under five broad headings: parent attributes,
parent fit, relationship management, IJV governance
and external environment. Beamish and Lupton
(2009) provide a narrative review of the 74 most
cited JV performance articles published in the previ-
ous 25 years, which focuses on identifying promi-
nent academic discussions and outlining practical
implications for managing JVs. Finally, while the
other recent reviews tend to be relatively general and
discuss groups of constructs under broad headings,
the reviews by Reus and Rottig (2009) and Ren et al.
(2009) focus on individual constructs. provide a
meta-analytical review based on 61 IJV performance
articles and provide a path model in which conflict
mediates the association between cultural distance,
hierarchical control and commitment on the one
hand and performance on the other. While they find
overall support for this model, they note ‘only 19
percent of the variance in IJV performance is
accounted for, indicating a need to explore other
© 2012 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
67
underexplored variables’ (Reus and Rottig 2009,
p. 607). That is exactly what Ren et al. (2009) do,
by exploring a larger number of potential perfor-
mance antecedents: bargaining power, commitment,
control, trust, conflict, co-operation, cultural dis-
tance, justice, goal compatibility and conflict resolu-
tion mechanisms. However, given the greater number
of constructs spread out over a relatively modest
sample size (54 articles), the empirical backing for
each construct is considerably lower than is the case
in those considered by Reus and Rottig (2009).
This paper, which provides a review of empirical
research pertaining to antecedents of ISA perform-
ance, builds on these recent reviews and particularly
the two last-quoted: specifically, it also reviews par-
ticular constructs (rather than broader concepts and
issues) and finally presents them in a model that
proposes links between individual constructs, rather
than a framework suggesting relations between the
broader issues, thus combining the fairly broad scope
of constructs found in Ren et al. 2009 with the sub-
stantial empirical backing found in Reus and Rottig
(2009). I draw a sample of 165 cross-sectional studies
– not only of JVs but also of non-equity alliances – to
identify the antecedents of ISA performance.
I do not present more antecedents than Ren
et al. (2009), but whereas their model includes (for
instance) conflict resolution mechanisms and bar-
gaining power, which are only considered (respec-
tively) in one and three of their sample articles, the
antecedents suggested in my model are all consid-
ered in five or more articles, which I believe allows
me to claim that they are core constructs in the lit-
erature, and to identify which rationales linking con-
structs to performance can be considered dominant
and which alternative. Finally, this greater sample
provides a more extensive pool of findings, which
gives me greater security in assessing empirical
support for theoretical arguments. Compared with
Reus and Rottig (2009), I do not present more
empirical backing for each antecedent included in
my model. However, while they focus on four ante-
cedents for which they are able to find large quanti-
ties of empirical evidence – which is necessary for
their meta-analytical approach – I suggest many
more antecedents, responding to their suggestion that
future models should include more antecedents.
Considering these differences, the first contribution
of this review is to provide a comprehensive refer-
ence list of core constructs in the ISA literature,
supported by definitions, the dominant rationales
used in linking them to ISA performance, the ways in
68
which they have been measured and, finally, the find-
ings: this level of detail is unprecedented in previous
reviews.
The detailed review of dominant rationales linking
constructs to performance reveals that, in most cases,
researchers suggest several mechanisms through
which they affect performance, even in some cases
showing how mechanisms may produce opposing
effects (e.g. arguing that national cultural distance
affects performance positively (via complementary
resources) against the more common argument of
a negative effect associated with less trust and
co-operation and greater conflict). My second con-
tribution is to bring attention to the different roles
which researchers suggest constructs play, elaborat-
ing on individual constructs as they are reviewed and
then integrating them into a model. This model is
thus the first to demonstrate explicitly that the roles
which researchers presume core constructs play
are often very different: using it may enable future
research to enhance knowledge about whether a
given construct can predict performance, and also via
which mechanism(s).
Sample selection
The first step in preparing this paper consisted of
identifying the relevant literature. As IJMR publishes
authoritative literature reviews in the field of ‘busi-
ness and management’ (Armstrong and Wilkinson
2007, p. 81), I first identified journals from the ‘busi-
ness’ and ‘management’ subject categories of the
Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) (also used by
Armstrong and Wilkinson 2007). For the 25 journals
with the highest one-year impact factor, I calculated
the proportion of journal issues in the last 20 years
for which there were bibliographic records in the
EBSCO article database and found the percentage
was 98%, and 95% over the last 30 years: this strong
level of coverage of the relevant domains allowed me
to choose it as the primary database for my literature
search. I made searches of the titles, abstracts, key-
words and subject terms of all articles that appeared
in all peer-reviewed scholarly journals for which
EBSCO had bibliographic records, identifying all
those which included at least one ISA keyword and
one performance keyword.1 I identified relevant top
1
Relevant keywords were identified by going through every
issue of 20 years of research in Academy of Management
Journal, Journal of International Business Studies and
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
J. Christoffersen
journals through SSCI listings and the work of Pisani
(2009) and DuBois and Reeb (2000), and for these
top journals supplemented my EBSCO searches with
searches in other databases for journal volumes not
covered by EBSCO. After sorting the articles thus
identified based first on titles and abstracts and sub-
sequently on their full text, I arrived at a total of 156
articles that met all inclusion criteria (see below):
while almost all were identified through EBSCO,
many had to be obtained via other databases or from
the relevant journal’s hard copies.
To assess whether my search process missed a
substantial number or sector of relevant articles, I
cross-checked with earlier reviews and with the
content of the selected articles. I found only nine
additional articles to be included, and so considered
that, while a few relevant studies may have been
missed, my search process had been sufficiently com-
prehensive to provide a fairly representative sample
of the literature. (Appendix S1 (available in elec-
tronic version only) lists all articles in the sample.)
All 165 articles in the final sample met the follow-
ing inclusion criteria: each was empirical and had
been published in a peer-reviewed journal; each
clearly hypothesized and statistically tested relation-
ships between at least one antecedent variable and at
least one performance measure as dependent vari-
able. Those hypotheses (and the samples used to test
them) only considered ISAs. This means that I
excluded articles which only tested hypotheses on
mixed samples (e.g. of wholly owned subsidiaries as
well as ISAs), which made it impossible to determine
relationships for the sub-sample of ISAs. However,
this criterion also meant that I did include articles
which, at some point, tested relationships for the ISA
sub-sample of a sample containing a mix of ISAs
and wholly owned subsidiaries.
In a recent review, Culpan (2009) defines alliances
as ‘[c]ollaboration[s] of multiple firms (at least two)
Strategic Management Journal, where (as expected) many
relevant articles were found. The keywords used for alliance
searches were: joint venture, joint ventures, JV, JVs, JV’s,
IJV, IJVs, IJV’s, alliance, alliances, SA, SAs, SA’s, ISA,
ISAs, ISA’s, and those for performance were performance,
perform, performs, outcome, outcomes, efficiency, efficient,
productivity, productive, profitability, profitable, profits,
profit, competitiveness, competitive, termination, terminate,
dissolution, dissolves, mortality, mortal, longevity, stability,
stable, duration, endure, endures, result, result, value,
satisfaction, satisfied, fulfill, fulfills, fulfillment, achieve,
achieves, achievement, goal, goals, objective, objectives,
payoff, pay off, payoffs, pays off, benefit, benefits, success,
succeed, fail, failure, effect, effects, CAR, return.
© 2012 The Author
Antecedents of ISA Performance
involving their long-term commitment of resources
to relationships that would serve strategic goals
of partners’ (Culpan 2009, p. 7). Where alliance
partners are based in different locations, or where
their alliance operates in a different country from
their headquarters, the alliance can be considered
international. This paper therefore defines ISAs as
‘collaborations involving the long-term commit-
ment of resources to relationships that serve the
strategic goals of two or more partners based in
different countries, or whose collaborative opera-
tions take place in a different country to their
headquarters’.
In terms of relevance to the inclusion criteria, the
most challenging consideration was how to deter-
mine which measures were measures of alliance
performance and which were not. To guide this deter-
mination, I defined alliance performance as the net
present value that partners obtain from participating
in the alliance. While no measure exactly reflects this
construct, some are clearly better than others – and
some can be specifically ruled out. For instance, fol-
lowing studies that have discussed measuring strate-
gic alliance performance (e.g. Ariño 2003; Geringer
and Hébert 1991; Hatfield et al. 1998), I focused
only on measures that are seldom used as antecedent
variables, as such variables are presumably far from
reflecting all benefits and costs. I therefore excluded
articles that only used measures reflecting relational
aspects – such as the extent of co-operation between
partners (e.g. Robson and Katsikeas 2005) – or
related to knowledge acquisition or transfer (e.g.
Kim and Inkpen 2005; Simonin 2004). Furthermore,
articles were only included which used general per-
formance measures applicable to virtually all indus-
tries: thus, those using only specific measures such as
patent performance were excluded (e.g. Nooteboom
et al. 2007).
Findings: ISA performance measures
and antecedents
This section first presents five types of performance
measures used by researchers, and then brings in
constructs that five or more studies have suggested as
being direct antecedents of alliance performance (i.e.
not moderated or moderating). Definitions, research-
ers’ rationales for linking the constructs to perform-
ance, the ways in which the constructs have been
measured and, finally, the findings of the sample
studies are presented. As the review proceeds, these
© 2012 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
69
rationales and findings are used to develop a model
that will organize the constructs that it considers.
Knowledge acquisition is often used as a measure
of performance (even to the extent that Ren et al.
(2009) treat it as such in their review), so I make one
deviation from the rule that all constructs suggested
as antecedents in five or more studies are included,
and leave knowledge acquisition in a ‘grey zone’ – in
that it neither clearly constitutes performance nor
clearly constitutes an antecedent to performance –
which reflects its position in the literature. (For an
excellent review of research on knowledge in the
context of strategic alliances, see Meier (2011).)
Performance measures
This sub-section presents five types of performance
measures used in the alliance literature, defines them,
explains how they are obtained and what they reflect,
and finally assesses their appropriateness under dif-
ferent circumstances.
Subjective measures. The sample contains 102
studies employing subjective performance measures,
obtained by soliciting assessments from alliance or
partner firm managers. In their work on differences
and similarities between performance measures,
Ariño (2003) and Geringer and Hébert (1991)
divide subjective measures into measures of overall
satisfaction and of achievement of partner goals/
objectives. However, a review of the subjective per-
formance measures in this sample reveals that, while
these categories predominate, many subjective per-
formance measures cannot be assigned to them.
Some measures contain several items and thus
combine items from both categories (e.g. Krishnan
et al. 2006); some reflect satisfaction not only with
overall performance, but also with very specific
aspects such as sales, market share, technology
development, customer service and reputation (e.g.
Luo et al. 2001). Thus, since subjective measures
cannot all be assigned to one of the two categories
(overall satisfaction and goal achievement), I do not
make that distinction at all, but assign all such per-
formance measures to the same category, labelled
‘subjective’.
Subjective measures have been widely discussed
in the literature, with their proponents arguing
that they are appropriate because they reflect all
the advantages that firms seek when partnering
(Anderson 1990). But, of course, the results are
sensitive to the questions asked – for example Ariño
70
(2003) argue that goal fulfilment only measures
performance compared with initial goals, whereas
satisfaction with overall performance also takes
emergent goals into consideration. Subjective per-
formance measures also vary with the individuals
assessing them, and this can be particularly problem-
atic if antecedents are also measured via subjective
measures, since antecedent and performance meas-
ures may vary concurrently merely as a consequence
of same-source variance, which may potentially
affect findings (Podsakoff and Organ 1986).
Stability. Thirty-one studies employ stability
measures based on event history analyses of such
events as exits from given markets, changes in equity
distribution between JV parents, contract changes,
parent takeover, third-party takeover and alliance dis-
solutions – some reflecting alliance mortality and
others less drastic changes. Many researchers saw
such events (or short alliance duration before their
occurrence) as indicators of poor performance, on
the assumption that curtailing/closing down an alli-
ance’s operation indicated that parents/partners no
longer saw it as the most appropriate organization
mode (Lu and Beamish 2006).
Measures of this type (labelled ‘stability’) reflect
decisions taken by the alliance partners and thus their
assessment of how the alliance is performing. As
with assessments gained via subjective measures,
these implicit assessments (based on managers’
actions) may encompass not just financial goals, but
any goals that the partner companies might have.
Compared with the subjective measures – which
reflect performance in specific aspects suggested by
the researcher – stability measures encompass the
partners’ own goals, rather than those assumed by the
researcher. And, unlike subjective measures, stability
measures never involve concerns about same-source
variance.
Many researchers doubt, however, whether stabil-
ity measures really reflect poor performance. For
instance, partners selling an alliance do not necessar-
ily do so because they think it is performing poorly –
quite the opposite may be true, as a well-performing
alliance may be an attractive acquisition target.
In fact, alliances may have been intended from the
outset as temporary organizations providing future
options, so their sale does not imply they can be seen
as failures (Bowman and Hurry 1993; Kogut 1991).
Accounting measures. Twenty-one of the sample’s
studies employ accounting measures, that is, per-
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
J. Christoffersen
formance measures based on financial data which are
used to compute growth percentages and financial
ratios so as to gauge performance in the financial
domain (e.g. Luo 2002a). Measures of this type
(which I label ‘Accounting’) have been criticized as
being unable to reflect performance in non-financial
domains (e.g. Gong et al. 2005; Pangarkar and Klein
2004; Pothukuchi et al. 2002). This concern dates
back to the early days of alliance research, and led
Anderson (1990) to suggest subjective measures as
more appropriate, since partner goals are not always
financial. However, accounting measures have the
clear advantage over subjective measures of not
giving rise to concerns about same-source variance,
and they can also be interpreted with more confi-
dence than stability measures (Beamish and Lupton
2009). For example, comparatively high profitability
can always be considered an indication of compara-
tively good performance, while the sale of a IJV can
reflect either good or poor performance, depending
on the circumstances.
Cumulative abnormal return (labelled CAR).
Eighteen studies employ cumulative abnormal
returns (CAR) as performance measures, which
reflect how shareholders and potential shareholders
in the participating partners react to alliance
formation (e.g. Merchant and Schendel 2000). The
assumption is that stock markets react at the time of
announcement in a way that reflects shareholders’
assessment of the extent to which the alliance will
create or destroy shareholder value (and thus of
its contribution to overall performance) for a given
partner. Koh and Venkatraman (1991) have examined
the association between CAR and management
assessments of achievement of five key objectives
and find ‘support for the construct validity and, espe-
cially, the convergent validity of the market-based
measures’ (p. 881). However, Pearce and Hatfield
(2002) argue that strategy research is hampered by
the fact that the CAR measure actually represents
an assessment of partners’ strategy choice rather
than of actual performance, which relates to the
hypothesis – supported by Madhavan and Prescott’s
(1995) empirical findings – that investors cannot
always predict performance impacts.
External evaluation. Finally, three studies used
evaluations made by parties outside the alliances. Li
et al. (2008) use a non-profit organization’s objective
ranking of the import achievements of various alli-
ances, and Griffith et al. (1998) and Hu and Chen
© 2012 The Author
Antecedents of ISA Performance
(1996) use whether JVs have been honoured by
the China Association of Enterprises with Foreign
Investment. I label such measures ‘External’2 – as
they have only very limited use, I do not discuss them
further in this paper.
Antecedents of performance
This sub-section presents definitions, researchers’
rationales for linking constructs to performance, the
ways in which the constructs are measured and,
finally, the findings for each construct. Table 1
presents a summary of these findings3 and Figure 1 a
synthesizing model, which integrates the theoretical
arguments as well the empirical findings of the rel-
evant articles, and which is developed as the study
proceeds, as the constructs are presented.4
Behavioural attributes. The first building block of
the model is the group of behavioural constructs –
trust, commitment, co-operation and conflict, which
are central in this model for two reasons. First, the
development of hypotheses involving other con-
structs often also invokes behavioural arguments,
suggesting that researchers (at least implicitly) con-
sider these behavioural constructs as mediating the
association with performance. Second, the empirical
evidence associated with behavioural constructs sup-
ports their relevance, making them candidates for a
solid core around which a model can be built, align-
ing with earlier reviews (particularly by Robson
et al. (2002)) which found that behavioural con-
structs showed great promise and warranted attention
in future model-building efforts. Their centrality to
my model is illustrated by their grey shading in the
model depiction in Figure 1.
Commitment. Eleven articles in the sample address
the performance implications of commitment, gener-
ally referring to the partners’ intention to stay in the
2
The number of studies employing the different types
of performance measures total 175, as a few of the 165
employed more than one type. Examples are Lu and Xu
(2006), who employ both sales growth (accounting) and
survival (stability), and Luo (2001), who uses managers’
assessment of satisfaction on ten different domains (subjec-
tive) in combination with return on investment (accounting).
3
See Appendix S2 (available in electronic version only) for a
detailed presentation of findings.
4
The size of the boxes varies, allowing the use of only
vertical and horizontal lines, but reducing the visual com-
plexity: as a result their relative sizes do not necessarily
reflect the relative importance of the constructs.
© 2012 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
71
relationship. Dimensions of commitment include cal-
culative commitment, involving reasoning about the
relative costs and benefits of the alliance, and affective
commitment, involving partners’ identification with
the alliance and the other partner (Geyskens et al.
1996; Voss et al. 2006). While (in this sample) only
Voss et al. (2006) specifically account for this distinc-
tion, most authors implicitly draw on one or both
dimension when developing their hypotheses. When
calculative commitment exists, it is argued that
partners weigh the costs and benefits of leaving, and
when the latter are more than outweighed, partners
become more determined to work to make the alliance
work. Where affective commitment is at play, while
the effort exerted to make the alliance work is
expected to give rise to a positive effect, the original
motivation for exerting that effort is seen as arising
from feelings of affection towards the partner, rather
than from a cost/benefit assessment (Voss et al. 2006).
The motivation to make the alliance work also entails
sacrificing individual opportunities in pursuit of
the common goals that can be achieved through
co-operation (Kwon 2008).
The variation in measures used is extensive. The
majority of researchers using the calculative commit-
ment argument use measures consisting of partners’
assessments of the extent of relation-specific invest-
ments that they have made, which indicate higher
costs of switching and thus of the intention to stay in
the relationship (Parkhe 1993b). Where the argu-
ments are based on affective commitment, the meas-
ures reflect the partners’ assessment of their sense of
belonging and emotional attachment to both alliance
and partner(s) (Voss et al. 2006). No matter which
measures are used, the results are fairly consistent in
suggesting a positive relationship, and this seems to
be true regardless of whether commitment is meas-
ured from the point of view of one or both partners.
Trust. Sixteen articles address the performance
implications of trust, which has been defined as
the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the
actions of another party based on the expectation
that the other will perform a particular action
important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to
monitor or control that other party. (Mayer et al.
1995, p. 712)
Different dimensions of trust have been proposed,
but are discussed explicitly in only one paper –
Muthusamy et al. (2007) – where the authors inves-
tigate the effect of ability-based, benevolence-based
 72

Table 1. Summary of findings

Construct No. of articles Measurement of antecedenta Measurement of dependent variable Hypotheses Results

+ 0 - + 0 -

Behavioural attributes
Commitment 11 Subjective (19), Objective (2) Subjective (14), Accounting (5), External (2) 21 0 0 16 5 0
Trust 16 Subjective (19) Subjective (18), Accounting (1) 19 0 0 14 5 0
Co-operation 5 Subjective (7) Subjective (6), Accounting (1) 7 0 0 5 2 0
Conflict 12 Subjective (12) Subjective (10), Stability (2) 0 0 12 0 4 8
Dissimilarities
Size dissimilaritiesb 9 Objective (10) Subjective (3), Stability (5), CAR (2) 3 0 9 0 10 0
National cultural distance
Index of differences on cultural dimensions 12 Objective (13) Subjective (5), Stability (5), CAR (2), External (1) 1 0 12 4 5 4
Differences on individual cultural dimensions 4 Objective (16) Subjective (6), Stability (10) 0 3 13 0 13 3
Country/region comparisons 6 Objective (17) Subjective (7), Stability (2), Accounting (1), CAR (7) 0 0 17 4 3 10
Organizational cultural distance 11 Subjective (13) Subjective (11), Stability (1), Accounting (1) 0 0 13 0 8 5
Relatedness 8 Subjective (2), Objective (11) Subjective (2), Stability (5), Accounting (3), CAR (3) 13 0 0 8 5 0
Experience
Alliance experience 9 Objective (13) Subjective (3), Stability (7), Accounting (1), CAR (2) 13 0 0 8 5 0
International experience 9 Objective (14) Subjective (3), Stability (8), Accounting (1), CAR (2) 11 0 3 4 8 2
International alliance experience 10 Subjective (1), Objective (12) Subjective (3), Stability (3), Accounting (1), CAR (6) 13 0 0 3 10 0
Prior relationships 8 Subjective (1), Objective (8) Subjective (3), Stability (4), Accounting (1), CAR (1) 9 0 0 3 5 1
Control
Dominant partner control 6 Subjective (2), Objective (5) Subjective (3), Stability (2), CAR (1), External (1) 2 3 2 2 2 3
Dominant control by foreign partnerc 7 Subjective (4), Objective (5) Subjective (5), Stability (1), Accounting (2), External (1) 8 0 1 3 5 0
Dominant control by focal partner 8 Subjective (10), Objective (4) Subjective (12), CAR (2) 13 1 0 6 6 2

The table presents the constructs of interest, the number of articles hypothesizing and testing a direct linear relationship with performance, how the antecedent has been measured, how the
dependent variable has been measured, the hypothesized influence, and the empirical findings. Many articles present results for numerous tests of the same hypotheses, owing to e.g. different
specifications including different control variables. Therefore, one unit increase in the numbers in all columns but the ‘No. of studies’ column represents a summary of coefficients from tests
using exactly identical antecedent measures in combination with dependent variables falling within the same of the five types for performance measures presented above. Thus there is an
increase for even minor measurement differences in the antecedents, whereas differences in the performance measures only imply increases in these numbers if the difference is large enough
for the measures to belong to different types. If all tests within a summary are positive (negative) and significant, a 10% significance level one unit is added to the column indicated by ‘+’
(‘-’). If not, one unit is added to the column indicated by ‘0’.
a
Subjective measures of antecedents are those subjectively assessed by a representative of the alliance or partner companies, whereas objective measures of antecedents are those based on
archival information, but also antecedents based on survey information in those cases where the survey information does not consist of subjective assessments, but rather fairly objective
ones.
b
The number of hypotheses exceeds the number of results because Beamish and Jung (2005) use the same results to test hypotheses with opposite signs.
c
The number of hypotheses exceeds the number of results because Hu and Chen (1996) use the same results to test hypotheses with opposite signs.
J. Christoffersen

© 2012 The Author

International Journal of Management Reviews © 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Antecedents of ISA Performance
LEGEND: Alliance experience
Suggested positive impa ct:
Suggested negative impa ct: International experience
Prior relationships
Relatedness
Size dissimilarities
Organizational cultural distance
National cultural distance
Figure 1. Model of ISA performance
and integrity-based trust, which refer, respectively,
to each partners’ trust that the other has the required
abilities, will act benevolently towards the trustor,
and adheres to the moral and principles that the
trustor finds acceptable (Mayer et al. 1995; Muth-
usamy et al. 2007). All the researchers who investi-
gate the direct impact of inter-partner trust on
performance suggest a positive relationship, most
relying on the arguments that trust reduces the risk of
opportunistic behaviour and supplements or replaces
rigid control mechanisms, so reducing transactions
costs (Robson et al. 2008; Sarkar et al. 2001). Spe-
cifically, these positive effects are the consequences
of the behaviours that trust engenders, which are
characterized by little conflict (Krishnan et al. 2006)
and much co-operation (Nielsen 2007). The overall
results are convincing (since almost all studies show
a positive relationship), and it is worth noting that
these findings are based on a range of different sub-
jective measures of trust, from direct questions about
the extent of inter-partner trust (Sarkar et al. 2001) to
multi-item measures designed to uncover each of the
dimensions separately (Muthusamy et al. 2007).
Co-operation. Five articles address the perform-
ance implications of co-operation – that is, the acting
together of people or groups in a co-ordinated
manner to pursue shared or complementary goals
(Argyle 1991). Heide and Miner (1992) suggest
that the dimensions of this construct are flexibility,
information exchange, shared problem-solving and
© 2012 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
73
Commitment
Co-operation
Performance
Trust
Conflict
Dominant control
Dominant control by foreign partner
restraint in the use of power. All articles in the
sample posit positive effects, as co-operating reduces
hazards of opportunism and lessens managerial and
agency problems via more open information sharing,
which reduces information asymmetry (Luo and
Park 2004). This intuitively attractive notion receives
considerable support. Luo (2002b) shows that the
positive effects of co-operation are unabated even at
high values. In contrast to those applied to commit-
ment and trust, the measures used for co-operation
are well aligned with each other and with the overall
definition of co-operation, and reflect alliance and
partner representatives’ assessments of the degree to
which partners make joint decisions on different
aspects of the JV, including strategic objectives and
goals (Luo 2002b).
Conflict. Twelve articles address issues of conflict,
which the team conflict literature defines as ‘an
awareness of the parties involved of discrepancies,
incompatible wishes, or irreconcilable desires’ (Jehn
and Mannix 2001, p. 238). While this definition
refers to intra-organizational conflict, it aligns with
understandings about partner conflicts in the articles
included in my sample. Jehn and Mannix (2001)
further distinguish between task conflict, process
conflict and relationship conflict, which refer, respec-
tively, to disagreements over which activities and
tasks should be performed, over who should perform
given tasks, and tension and emotional conflict
between leading representatives. While none of the
74
studies distinguishes explicitly between these differ-
ent dimensions, they all implicitly refer to task and
process conflicts by referring to disagreements over
functional areas (Ding 1997), and to relationship
conflict by referring to negative feedback loops
between conflict and trust (Steensma and Lyles
2000). Authors generally argue that conflicts affect
performance negatively, as they are likely to lead to
misunderstandings, distrust and anxiety and so result
in less than efficient integration of activities, while
the effort required to unravel them may take up time
needed for important decisions (Steensma and Lyles
2000). The measures used to reflect conflict include
JV and partner representatives’ assessments, and
generally fall into two types, one mainly related to
task and process conflict – through items reflecting
the frequency of disagreement in various functional
areas – and the other to relationship conflicts,
through items reflecting the extent of cultural misun-
derstandings, inter-partner distrust, conflicting goals
and personality conflicts. Regardless of the measures
used, the results consistently suggest that conflict has
a negative influence on performance.
Implications for the model. In line with research-
ers’ dominant rationales reflected above, one ‘posi-
tive impact’ arrow in Figure 1 points directly from
commitment to performance, which represents the
increased effort the parties are willing to make to
ensure that the alliance works (Voss et al. 2006). A
positive arrow points to co-operation, reflecting the
pursuit of common rather than individual benefits
(Kwon 2008), and (for the same reason) another
positive arrow points from trust to co-operation
(Nielsen 2007), which is supplemented by a ‘nega-
tive impact’ arrow, suggesting (as proposed above)
that trust reduces conflict (Krishnan et al. 2006).
The notion illustrated – that co-operation and conflict
mediate (in part) the effects of trust and commitment
– is in line both with the arguments presented above,
and also with Robson et al.’s (2002) review of the
strategic alliance literature on the behavioural ante-
cedents of performance, which argued that trust
and commitment are the fundamental ties that bind
partners, and that co-operation and conflict relate
to behaviours that may vary as a consequence of
varying degrees of trust and commitment.
Given that the evidence for the behavioural con-
structs is fairly conclusive, the main opportunities
for enhancing knowledge through future research lie
not in testing whether and why – on average – these
constructs affect performance, but rather in testing
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
J. Christoffersen
whether these effects are independent of other con-
ditions. Researchers of trust who have started such
work have found that (for example) the effect of
trust on performance is moderated positively by risk
commensuration, commitment (Luo 2002a), inter-
dependence (Krishnan et al. 2006; Luo 2002a) and
economic integration, but is moderated negatively
by alliance age, market uncertainty (Luo 2002a),
alliance size (Robson et al. 2008) and legalism as a
conflict resolution strategy (Lin and Wang 2008).
While such moderation of trust’s effects has received
attention from a fairly wide range of researchers,
only Luo and Park have tested the moderation of
co-operation’s effects, finding that the effect of
co-operation on performance is moderated positively
by contingency adaptability, term specificity (Luo
2002b) market uncertainty (Luo and Park 2004) and
equity in the alliance (Luo 2008). None of the studies
consider moderation of the effects of commitment
and conflict, which is somewhat surprising, at least in
the case of conflict, given that the team conflict lite-
rature has long demonstrated that the effects of con-
flict may be less clearly negative than suggested – for
instance, Jehn (1995) finds that, while task conflict
may be detrimental to groups that perform routine
tasks, it may in fact be beneficial to those performing
non-routine tasks. Following up these findings – and
numerous others – from the team conflict literature
can inform future alliance conflict research, which
has so far focused mainly on providing depth by
researching the efficacy of different conflict resolu-
tion strategies (e.g. Lin and Germain 1998; Lin and
Wang 2008; Lu 2006).
Dissimilarities. Many researchers have focused
on identifying the characteristics of a good ‘fit’
between partners, some suggesting that dissimilari-
ties between partners – and others that similarities –
may play important roles. While the literature has
suggested many other examples of both – including
dissimilarities in alliance experience, age, strategic
scope, strategic content, goals, ownership type and
reputation (Lowen and Pope 2008; McCutchen et al.
2008; Park and Ungson 1997; Saxton 1997; Yeheskel
et al. 2001) – only size and cultural dissimilarities (at
both national and organizational levels) and related-
ness have been suggested in a sufficient number of
the sample studies to be included in the review.
Size dissimilarities. A construct considered par-
ticularly in early studies is size dissimilarity, where
size relates to the complexity, structures and styles of
© 2012 The Author
Antecedents of ISA Performance
organizations (Park and Ungson 1997). The con-
struct is considered in nine articles: most researchers
suggest that size dissimilarities between partners
damage alliance performance, arguing that they give
rise to a host of other dissimilarities which also harm
performance. For instance, Park and Ungson (1997,
p. 287) quote Doz’s (1988) finding that ‘JVs between
large and small firms experience difficulties because
of idiosyncratic incentives for partners, cultural vari-
ation, and asymmetric policies in information distri-
bution’, while Merchant and Schendel (2000, p. 727)
argue that partners’ relative firm size influences their
JVs’ performance through the ensuing dissimilarities
in their administrative protocols (systems and proce-
dures). Beamish and Jung (2005) argue that this
leads to difficulties in partners’ mutual understand-
ing, increasing the risk of opportunistic behaviour
replacing co-operative behaviour. However, they
present two hypotheses with opposite signs, as they
also suggest the possibility of a positive relationship
where dissimilarities give rise to complementary
abilities which can fuel better performance: Yeheskel
et al. (2001) advance the same argument in only
finding a positive effect of dissimilar size on per-
formance. Different studies use numerous measures
for size dissimilarities, including differences, ratios
and standard deviations in sales, assets, employee
numbers and equity market values. In spite of this –
and of using different measures for performance
(including subjective measures, CAR and stability) –
their results are fairly consistent in only being
insignificant.
National cultural distance. One construct for which
the findings diverge more than for any others is
national cultural distance – and at the same time it is
one that receives the most attention, being addressed
in 22 articles. While there are different definitions
of cultural distance, they generally refer to dissimila-
rities in beliefs, values, practices and behaviours
shared by members of a nation (Hofstede 1980). The
general agreement is that cultural distance is nega-
tively related to performance, most often supported
by the argument that it increases the risks of mistrust,
misunderstandings, miscommunication and manage-
rial conflicts, so hampering efficient alliance
management (Glaister and Buckley 1999; Kim and
Parkhe 2009; Makino et al. 2007). Only Beamish
and Kachra (2004) hypothesize that there may be a
positive relationship, following Yeheskel et al.’s
(2001) reasoning in suggesting a positive effect of
size dissimilarities, that dissimilar cultures may also
© 2012 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
75
give rise to complementarities and thus synergies and
innovation.
While most researchers (with this notable excep-
tion) agree with the general hypothesis, there is less
agreement with respect to measurement: in fact
national cultural distance is measured in three
different ways – which even require separate expla-
nations – as is reflected by the three separate sub-
entries (in italics) in Table 1. Most studies use an
index of several dimensions of cultural distance
between the local and foreign partners’ home coun-
tries. In all but one study (which used Globe’s nine
dimensions (see House et al. 2004), the index used
was based on Hofstede’s four (later updated to five)
dimensions of national cultural distance: but their
results for these indices were almost as mixed as
they could be, nearly equally distributed between
positive, negative and insignificant results. A small
group of researchers examined the possibility that
some cultural distance dimensions may be harmful,
while others are not. While three studies which
follow this line do not directly suggest different
effects of individual dimensions, Barkema and Ver-
meulen (1997) argue (and find some support for the
idea) that only differences in ‘uncertainty avoid-
ance’ and in ‘long-term orientation’ should have a
negative impact on performance. However, across
the studies in general, there is no overwhelming
support for a difference between the effects of
individual dimensions, as almost all the remaining
results are insignificant. Finally, a third group of
researchers use dummy variables or other compari-
sons of the performance of groups of alliances that
represent supposedly varying extents of cultural dis-
tance based on partner’s nationalities or regional
locations. Chiao et al. (2009), Hanvanich et al.
(2003) and Makino and Beamish (1998) offer the
most refined approach, which distinguishes between
the cultural distance between partners and that
between the country of location and the partners
when none is local. In this way, they divide the
concept of cultural distance into two categories –
which could be termed ‘location cultural distance’
and ‘partner cultural distance’ – which are in effect
intertwined in traditional settings where one of the
partners is local (Hanvanich et al. 2003). While the
studies that apply the simplest country or region
dummies mainly provide insignificant results, this
latter approach provides results which support the
assumption that cultural distance both between part-
ners and between partners and local actors may have
negative effects.
76
Organizational cultural distance. A construct
closely related to national cultural distance is organ-
izational cultural distance (addressed in 11 articles).
Researchers explicitly framing this construct as dis-
tinct from national cultural distance suggest that,
whereas the latter can only exist between firms from
different countries and typically relates to values,
the organizational construct can exist between firms
from the same country and typically relates to prac-
tices (Pothukuchi et al. 2002). As only few studies
explicitly distinguish between the two, I categorize
them pragmatically, based on whether researchers
ask partners about any perceived cultural distance
between them. Rationales for suggesting a negative
influence on performance remain largely the same as
those for national cultural distance: organizational
cultural distance can also make it difficult to estab-
lish common expectations and impedes co-operation
(Kim and Parkhe 2009; Lin and Germain 1998).
The measures employed are subjective and based on
stakeholders’ assessments of dissimilarities between
the partners on different aspects, ranging from mani-
festations of different national cultures (Park et al.
2008) to variations between same-country partners
(Pothukuchi et al. 2002). The results are less diver-
gent than in the case of national cultural distance:
generally negative relationships with performance
are found, as well as some that are insignificant. No
positive relationships are found.
Relatedness. The final construct in this group
(which is addressed in eight articles) refers rather to
similarities – of the business activities, products and
industries of the organizations involved (Lu and Xu
2006; Luo 1997; Merchant and Schendel 2000).
Most authors have focused on the performance
impact of relatedness between a JV and one or more
of its partners, typically invoking one or both of the
following arguments for JV/partner relatedness
having a positive influence on performance: the
potential for economies of scale, and for facilitating
the transfer of knowledge and resources (Lu and Xu
2006; Merchant and Schendel 2000). When partner
relatedness is the focus, such arguments are supple-
mented by the notion that related partners will be
better able to detect and thus deter opportunistic
behaviour (Luo 1997; Merchant and Schendel 2000).
In most cases, relatedness is assessed through match-
ing SIC codes, but researcher or stakeholder assess-
ments have also been applied. The proposed positive
relationship is supported – fairly consistently –
across a number of different relatedness and per-
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
J. Christoffersen
formance measures, including subjective, stability,
CAR and accounting measures.
Implications for the model. In line with the
researchers’ rationales reflected above, Figure 1
shows that size dissimilarities reduce co-operation,
as suggested indirectly by most researchers and
explicitly by Beamish and Jung (2005). Figure 1 also
shows a positive arrow from size dissimilarities
towards performance, which directly reflects the
arguments by Beamish and Jung (2005) and Yeheskel
et al. (2001) that size dissimilarities may give rise
to complementarity of abilities to the benefit of
performance. These arguments suggest opposing
effects, which may explain the fact that all results
were insignificant. The opposing arguments are in
line with Parkhe’s (1991) line that, while dissimilari-
ties provide reciprocal strengths, and complementary
resources are the very reason for the formation of
alliances, they may also inhibit co-operation and
increase transaction costs.
Similarly, Figure 1 illustrates the opposing effects
of national cultural distance: on the one hand, it
shows a positive arrow towards performance
(directly reflecting Beamish and Kachra’s (2004)
argument that dissimilarities create complementa-
rity); while on the other, a negative arrow reflects
a negative effect on performance through trust,
co-operation and conflict, in line with Glaister and
Buckley (1999), Kim and Parkhe (2009) and Makino
et al. (2007). In fact, suggesting opposing effects
for national cultural distance aligns both with the
literature’s theoretical arguments and with the almost
equal distribution between positive, negative and
insignificant results found in the sample.
While Figure 1 also reflects the negative effects of
organizational cultural distance on co-operation as
suggested by the researchers who considered this
construct (Kim and Parkhe 2009; Lin and Germain
1998), it depicts no links to trust or to conflict,
reflecting the fact that they are rarely suggested by
researchers. Their absence is in line with the notion
that organizational cultural distance concerns differ-
ences in practices and behaviours – potentially
causing practical co-ordination and co-operation
problems – rather than distrust and conflict arising
from differences in the deeply rooted values and
beliefs more typical of national culture. Again (as
researchers have not suggested one) Figure 1 shows
no positive arrow towards performance: this may be
because operational differences (the typical manifes-
tations of organizational cultural distance) do not
© 2012 The Author
Antecedents of ISA Performance
create synergies in the same manner as national cul-
tural distances, and so cannot contribute different
viewpoints (Kim and Park 2002). So the figure only
suggests that organizational cultural distance has
negative effects on performance, which is in line
with the sample studies’ empirical findings.
Figure 1 also reflects the arguments and findings
supporting the positive effect of relatedness on per-
formance, an effect that is suggested to operate not
through behavioural constructs, but via the increased
potential for economies of scale and the relatively
easier transfer of knowledge and resources (Lu and
Xu 2006; Merchant and Schendel 2000).
Experience. Another group of constructs relates to
the pre-alliance experience partners have of relevant
business aspects: four constructs – alliance experi-
ence, international experience, international alliance
experience and prior partner relationships – were
suggested in a sufficient number of articles to be
included in this review.
Alliance experience. Experience relates to the part-
ners’ learning opportunities provided by earlier
events and processes similar to those in question –
one type is alliance experience, which was addressed
in nine articles. Researchers agree in suggesting that
alliance experience affects performance positively,
motivated mainly by arguments based on organiza-
tional learning concepts: relevant alliance experience
helps partners to reduce mistakes and make the right
decisions, both initially and in responding to chal-
lenges that may arise (McCutchen et al. 2008;
Merchant and Schendel 2000). Most studies measure
experience as the number of prior alliances a partner
has engaged in, and most present results support-
ing the hypothesis of a positive association with
performance.
International experience. A similar learning oppor-
tunity provided by earlier experiences concerns the
level of partners’ previous participation in inter-
national business (here ‘international experience’),
which was addressed in nine articles. International
experience – as well as more specific experience in
the focal host country or region – is also generally
suggested as being positively related to performance,
by enabling partners to develop skills and capabili-
ties that allow them to tune into foreign conditions
more successfully (Barkema et al. 1997). Interna-
tional experience can also facilitate communication
and reduce the risk of misunderstandings (Luo
© 2012 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
77
1997), and thus the liability of foreignness (Lu
and Beamish 2006). While these arguments suggest
a positive path from experience to performance,
Lowen and Pope (2008) and Lu and Beamish (2006)
suggest that a negative path is also possible if per-
formance is measured in terms of stability. They
argue that the more a foreign partner has learned
about the business setting, the more likely it is that it
will opt for a wholly owned subsidiary instead of an
alliance. There is great diversity in the measurement
of international and host country experience, but
most researchers measure it as the number of years of
such involvement, the number of prior or current
wholly owned subsidiaries, or as sales percentages in
international settings or in a given country/region.
Results are also mixed: with stability as the perform-
ance measure, some find a positive influence, others
find a negative influence, while the majority find no
influence; in studies using other performance meas-
ures, results are either positive or insignificant.
International alliance experience. Some research-
ers have investigated the double learning opportunity
arising not just from having participated in alliances
or doing business in an international context, but in
fact doing both in one setting – thus gaining ‘inter-
national alliance experience’ (addressed in ten arti-
cles). Arguments in the articles studied suggest the
beneficial effects of alliance experience and of inter-
national experience are combined, and so propose a
positive relationship between international alliance
experience and performance (Barkema et al. 1997;
Meschi 2004). While the measures of experience are
again fairly mixed and similar to those mentioned
above, the findings are fairly consistent in suggesting
that relationships are either positive or insignificant.
Prior relationships. A final experience construct
qualifying for this review is prior relationships,
which refers to the learning opportunity provided by
partners’ prior business relationships with each
other. This construct was addressed in eight articles:
two looked specifically at prior alliances between the
partners, while the remaining eight took a broader
outlook to also encompass other types of prior rela-
tionships between the partners. Two main arguments
are advanced to support a positive effect on perform-
ance – one relates to the knowledge that partners
have gained about each other, which is expected to be
useful for understanding, for instance, resources and
capabilities (Nielsen 2007; Saxton 1997); the other
relates to prior relationships creating social relations
78
which provide the basis for trust and mutual under-
standing in a later JV (Glaister and Buckley 1999;
Greve et al. 2010). Again, the measures used to
reflect experience and performance are diverse, as
are the results – there are a few positive and negative
results, but most are insignificant.
Implications for the model. In line with the findings
and the rationales presented above, Figure 1 shows
that alliance experience directly affects performance
positively, reflecting the argument that alliance
experience enables partners to avoid mistakes and
increases the likelihood of them making the right
decisions (McCutchen et al. 2008; Merchant and
Schendel 2000). Similarly, skills and capabilities
accumulated through international experience allow
firms to tune into foreign conditions, as suggested
above and reflected by the direct positive arrow from
international experience to performance (Barkema
et al. 1997). The figure also reflects the argument that
international experience moderates the damaging
effects of cultural distance by reducing the liability
of foreignness (Lu and Beamish 2006). Although the
findings show negative associations between inter-
national experience and stability – in line with the
theoretical arguments that firms with more inter-
national experience would be more inclined to go it
alone (Lowen and Pope 2008; Lu and Beamish 2006)
– there is no negative arrow pointing towards per-
formance, as the effect on stability does not reflect an
effect on performance – rather it reflects an improve-
ment in that alternative. To avoid making Figure 1
overly complex, I do not illustrate international alli-
ance experience explicitly – the suggested effects of
that construct only combine those of alliance expe-
rience and international experience – so the model’s
only remaining experience construct is prior relation-
ships. Two arrows emanate from this construct, both
positive: one points directly towards performance –
which reflects the argument that partners with prior
relationships understand each others’ resources and
capabilities and thus are better able to exploit them
effectively and efficiently (Nielsen 2007; Saxton
1997) – and the other towards trust, reflecting the
argument that prior relationships create social rela-
tions which enhance trust and mutual understanding
(Glaister and Buckley 1999; Greve et al. 2010).
Control. In common with previous recent reviews
(e.g. Nippa et al. 2007; Ren et al. 2009), I find that
control issues have received consistent attention
from the earliest literature up to now. A number of
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
J. Christoffersen
different issues have been considered, including for
example the autonomy of a JV (Newburry and Zeira
1999) or the effects of different types of control
(output, process or social (Aulakh et al. 1996) and
strategic, operational or structural aspects (Yan and
Gray 2001)); however, this review only considers
three control issues – dominant (vs. shared) control,
dominant control by the foreign partner and domi-
nant control by the focal partner – as the only con-
structs addressed in five or more sample articles.
Dominant partner control. Control refers to the
decision-making power exercised by the partners
(Killing 1983), and much research has considered
whether evenly distributed control or dominance by
one partner is the better structure for an alliance
relationship. Dominant partner control (which was
addressed in six articles) represents the situation
where one partner manages the alliance virtually as if
they were a wholly owned subsidiary (Killing 1983,
p. 16), and is generally viewed as being beneficial in
reducing managerial complexity and alleviating
challenges of co-ordination and thus the potential
for conflicts between partners (Merchant 2002).
However, a completely opposite argument is also
valid – that such dominance can lead the partner
involved to exploit the power of its position, frustrat-
ing the other partner and thus potentially leading
to conflict (Hébert 1996; Pangarkar and Lee 2001).
Using equity distributions as their main measures of
control, researchers report mixed results, supporting
positive, negative and insignificant relationships
almost equally, and thus providing little evidence that
removes conceptual ambiguity for this construct.
Dominant control by foreign partner. When alli-
ances involve partners from developed and develop-
ing countries, foreign partners worried about the
risks involved in doing business in local countries
often seek to exercise more decision-making power
than the local partner, thus creating an alliance char-
acterized by dominant control by the foreign partner
(Calantone and Zhao 2001; Ding 1997), a construct
addressed in seven articles. In addition to the general
argument suggesting the positive effects of dominant
control – reductions in managerial complexity,
co-ordination challenges and inter-partner conflict –
some researchers have argued that foreign partners
from developed countries will have more advanced
managerial skills and technology than the local
developing country partner, so that foreign partner
dominance will be positively related to performance
© 2012 The Author
Antecedents of ISA Performance
(Calantone and Zhao 2001; Ding 1997). Given these
additional arguments for a positive relationship,
one would expect that results would provide more
conclusive support for a positive connection between
dominant control and performance. Empirical tests
using both equity distribution and stakeholder
assessment measurements of dominant control
support that expectation to some extent, as no nega-
tive results appear – but a fairly large proportion of
insignificant results are still evident.
Dominant control by focal partner. Some research-
ers suggest that asymmetrical control may have
asymmetrical effects on performance as perceived by
the partners, necessitating distinguishing between
focal and non-focal partners. They examine the
importance of what I define as dominant control by
the focal partner (a construct addressed in eight arti-
cles) and most commonly suggest that the positive
consequences of dominant control will be greater
for the partner exercising that control. The most
common arguments advanced concern the dominant
partner’s ability to control strategic resources (Mjoen
and Tallman 1997), to curb the other partner’s oppor-
tunistic behaviour and thus to gain the lion’s share of
benefits from the partnership (Yan and Gray 2001). A
number of these studies bring extra detail to their
analysis by investigating the effects of different
types of control – specific vs. overall (Luo et al.
2001; Mjoen and Tallman 1997) or strategic vs.
operational vs. structural (Yan and Gray 2001).
However, only Luo et al. (2001) suggest these differ-
ent types of control produce different effects, finding
that Chinese partners may not perceive having domi-
nant overall control as beneficial, but may gain
advantages from dominant specific control. Using
measures mainly originating from JV or partner rep-
resentatives’ assessments of relative control, most
empirical tests support the positive influence of focal
partner dominant control; however, insignificant
findings are also numerous, and two studies present
negative results.
Implications for the model. As the rationales
related to dominant control by the focal partner differ
from those of dominant control only in terms of the
suggested effects on the distribution of performance
improvements rather than their creation, Figure 1
only depicts the dominant control and dominant
control by foreign partner constructs. The negative
arrow from dominant control towards conflict repre-
sents the most common assertion – that dominant
© 2012 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
79
control by one partner will reduce managerial
complexity and thus also the potential for conflicts
(Merchant 2002). The less common and opposing
argument is that control by one partner may frustrate
the other and thus increase conflict (Hébert 1996;
Pangarkar and Lee 2001): recognizing this alterna-
tive (and the diverging empirical findings), I also
include a positive arrow towards conflict: which of
them prevails is likely to depend on conditioning
factors (such as, for instance, goal congruence or
culture). Turning to dominant control by the foreign
partner, the model includes the same two arrows
towards conflict, but also a positive direct arrow
towards performance, which reflects the argument
that dominant foreign partners from developed coun-
tries will possess advanced managerial skills and
technology, so that their dominance should enhance
performance (Calantone and Zhao 2001; Ding 1997).
A note on measurement
While the model I have built up considers compo-
nents at the construct level, it is clear that measure-
ment issues may influence empirical research
findings. In particular, the review of the performance
measures used indicated that they should be chosen
with care. One concern was the use of stability meas-
ures as performance measures, particularly when
considering antecedents that could be imagined to
affect stability through other mechanisms than by
affecting performance negatively. Another concern
was the simultaneous use of subjective measures of
both an antecedent construct and of performance,
which may give rise to same-source variance that
could bias the findings. Such concerns suggest
greater attention needs to be paid to the combination
of measures of performance and measures of ante-
cedents in empirical research in this area.
Table 2 brings support to this suggestion by sum-
marizing the test coefficients on which Table 1 is
based. The numbers in bold indicate how many
statistical tests employed subjective vs. objective
measures of antecedents in combination with each of
the five types of performance measures presented.5
Most importantly, these numbers show that, in 200
5
Subjective measures of antecedents are those subjectively
assessed by a representative of the alliance or partner com-
panies, whereas objective measures of antecedents are those
based on archival information, as well as independent vari-
ables based on survey information, where such survey infor-
mation itself does not consist of subjective assessments, but
rather of (fairly) objective information (e.g. age of alliance).
80 J. Christoffersen

out of the 217 tests in which an antecedent was

Opp.
measured by a subjective measure, the performance

0
1
1
measure was also subjective – in most cases (but not

External

0
2
2
always) the measures were obtained from the same

Sup.
respondent. Turning to the numbers not in bold, we

0
4
4
see that, in 155 of those 200 tests, the coefficients

All
supported the hypothesis, 44 were insignificant, and

0
7
7
one directly opposed what had been hypothesized.
Opp. This relatively high ratio of supportive findings is, of
0
8
8
Accounting

course, likely to be a consequence of associations

0

4
2
6
between the constructs, but in the absence of tests
Sup.

involving objective measures of performance, it

10
17
27
cannot be ruled out that at least some of these find-
All

ings are the consequences of such measurement phe-

14
27
41

nomena as same-source variance. I suggest future

Opp.

research considering such antecedents as trust and

0
9
9

co-operation – which are typically measured subjec-

0
26
26

tively – could benefit if such measures were com-

0
CAR

bined with objective measures of performance to a

Sup.

0
13
13

greater extent than has been the case hitherto.

Another observation is that, for antecedents meas-
All

0
48
48

ured by objective measures, there tends to be poor

support for the hypotheses tested (36% vs. 77% for
Opp.

subjective antecedent measures). Obviously, this may

0
4
4

reflect the true association (or lack thereof) between

0
46
46
Stability

constructs, but again it cannot be ruled out that meas-

urement plays a role, as the lack of support may be a
Sup.

3
41
44

consequence of the objective measures providing

poor reflections of the constructs they are intended to
All

3
91
94

reflect. For instance, it is quite possible that an objec-

Opp.

tive measure such as dominant equity ownership may

1
16
17

not reflect actual dominant control as accurately as

Subjective

subjective measures might have. So future research

44
49
93
0

considering such antecedents as dominant control

Sup.

155
16
171

or different types of experience (which are typically

measured by objective means) might benefit if sub-
200
81
281
All

jective construct measures were combined with

objective measures of performance.
Opp.

1
38
39
48
125
173

Conclusion
0
Total

Sup.

168
91
259

There is no doubt that research enhancing under-

standing of antecedents of ISA performance has
217
254
471

advanced dramatically, especially over the past

All

couple of decades. But this review shows that there

Table 2. Measurement

Subjective antecedent
Objective antecedent

is still much that we could understand better, even

about those antecedents of performance that have
been considered most frequently. Robson et al.
(2002) found the literature on IJVs ‘remains chaotic
and to a large extent ambiguous’, and I echo this
Total

assessment for the broader ISA literature. This paper

© 2012 The Author

International Journal of Management Reviews © 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Antecedents of ISA Performance
contributes to the literature by identifying two poten-
tial sources of ambiguity in previous research on
antecedents of ISA performance, as well as by sug-
gesting how they might be addressed.
One potential source of this ambiguity is the lack
of attention to the measurement of central constructs.
The five types of performance measures I list (sub-
jective, stability, accounting measures, CAR and
external evaluation) are shown to be very different,
and may reflect different constructs, but the subse-
quent detailed review of individual antecedents indi-
cates that hypothesis development rarely takes such
differences into account. A notable exception here is
Lu and Beamish (2006), who suggest that inter-
national experience will be positively related to a
subjective performance measure, but negatively
related to stability, because a foreign partner who has
learned more about the business setting is more
likely to opt for a wholly owned subsidiary instead of
an alliance. The fact that they also find support for
this suggested difference demonstrates the utmost
importance of ensuring congruence between the per-
formance construct assumed in the hypothesis devel-
opment and that reflected by the chosen performance
measure: the preceding section demonstrated that
these efforts can be strengthened considerably. By
discussing the different performance measures used
in studies, and laying out in detail the theoretical
arguments presented in previous research, this paper
provides useful aid in the process of strengthening
these efforts.
The lack of attention to measurement is borne out
in my final note on the issue, which indicates how
rare it is to see combinations of subjective and objec-
tive measurements, suggesting that the choice of
measures too often depends more on convenience
than on methodological considerations such as those
related to construct validity or same-source variance.
This suspicion is amplified when one considers the
detailed review of the individual antecedents (sum-
marized in Table 1, detailed in Appendix S2 (avail-
able in the electronic version only)), which shows
that (for certain types of constructs) the choice of
performance measure often seems to follow the
choice of the antecedent measure – so that (for
instance) objective experience measures are often
combined with stability measures, and subjective
behavioural measures with subjective performance
measures. With the notable exceptions of Sim and Ali
(2000) and Steensma and Lyles (2000), none of the
32 studies involving behavioural constructs uses sta-
bility as a performance measure, despite its general
© 2012 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
81
popularity for this purpose. This paper identifies the
typical combinations of antecedent and performance
measures, and thus also points to the possibilities of
challenging those combinations to assess whether
measurement issues impact findings. The study’s
review of the individual antecedents presents both
measurement choices and results of prior studies
(summarized in Table 1, detailed in Appendix S2
(available in electronic version only)), thus providing
an easily accessible source for comparing the
alternative outcomes of different combinations of
choices.
The second potential source of ambiguity identi-
fied in this review is that different explanations have
been advanced about the mechanisms via which a
number of well-known constructs might affect per-
formance, but without these different explanations
being tested empirically. Thus, while numerous theo-
retical explanations about such causal mechanisms
are available, most of them have little empirical
support, which gives rise to ambiguity in various
areas. For constructs for which research has pro-
duced divergent results, ambiguity about the causal
mechanisms for some constructs is quite obvious.
One example is national cultural distance, where
results are almost equally divided between insignifi-
cant, negative and positive. This paper suggests that
the ambiguity about constructs which yield divergent
results can be reduced considerably by testing the
causal mechanisms already suggested in the litera-
ture. In the case of the example at hand, national
cultural distance, this would entail testing the causal
mechanisms with different impacts on performance
that have been suggested in prior research; a positive
effect arising because of complementary resources
(Beamish and Kachra 2004), and a negative effect
via decreased trust and co-operation and increased
conflict (Glaister and Buckley 1999; Kim and Parkhe
2009; Makino et al. 2007). For other constructs –
where the results all point in the same direction – the
ambiguity about causal mechanisms is less obvious.
In these cases, previous research may indicate a rela-
tionship with performance, but empirical results shed
little light on why it exists. One such example con-
cerns prior relationships between partners. Do they
influence performance positively because the part-
ners know each other’s resources well, which enables
efficient integration of resources (Nielsen 2007;
Saxton 1997), or because partners have already
developed mutual trust (Glaister and Buckley 1999;
Greve et al. 2010)? Only if we know the answers to
these questions will we be able to convincingly
82
suggest to managers whether (for instance) problems
of distrust can be avoided by choosing partners with
whom the company has prior relationships.
So this paper claims that there is still much ambi-
guity about the causal mechanisms suggested in the
literature, both for constructs with diverging and
with converging results, and that much of it could be
resolved via empirical testing which deepens under-
standing of their operation. The model illustrated in
Figure 1 identifies which theoretical explanations
should first be tested by synthesizing the results of
prior research with theoretical explanations of the
casual mechanisms posited by researchers in their
hypothesis development, so my suggestions for
future research are anchored in the collective under-
standing of our field. But the model does not just
present suggestions to be tested to increase know-
ledge regarding the influence of individual con-
structs, but also highlights how the constructs which,
empirically, are often researched separately, are inte-
grated in the theoretical rationales that researchers
posit, even though the theoretical foundations of
the literature vary (Culpan 2009). This paper makes
explicit how, in spite of their varied theoretical foun-
dations, these rationales are often related. In particu-
lar, the model highlights how the rationales related to
behavioural constructs are central to the rationales
behind most other constructs, and thus argues that
this central role should be reflected in empirical tests
of the mediating effects of these constructs.
References
Anderson, E. (1990). Two firms, one frontier: on assessing
joint venture performance. Sloan Management Review,
31, pp. 19–30.
Argyle, M. (1991). Cooperation. The Basis of Sociability.
London: Routledge.
Ariño, A. (2003). Measures of strategic alliance perform-
ance: an analysis of construct validity. Journal of Inter-
national Business Studies, 34, pp. 66–79.
Armstrong, S. and Wilkinson, A. (2007). Processes, proce-
dures and journal development: past, present and future.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 9, pp.
81–93.
Aulakh, P.S., Kotabe, M. and Sahay, A. (1996). Trust and
performance in cross-border marketing partnerships: a
behavioral approach. Journal of International Business
Studies, 27, pp. 1005–1032.
Barkema, H.G. and Vermeulen, F. (1997). What differences
in the cultural backgrounds of partners are detrimental
for international joint ventures? Journal of International
Business Studies, 28, pp. 845–864.
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
J. Christoffersen
Barkema, H.G., Shenkar, O., Vermeulen, F. and Bell, J.H.J.
(1997). Working abroad, working with others: how firms
learn to operate international joint ventures. Academy of
Management Journal, 40, pp. 426–442.
Beamish, P.W. (1985). The characteristics of joint ventures
in developed and developing countries. Columbia Journal
of World Business, 20, pp. 13–19.
Beamish, P.W. and Jung, J.C. (2005). The performance and
survival of joint ventures with parents of asymmetric size.
Management International, 10, pp. 19–30.
Beamish, P.W. and Kachra, A. (2004). Number of partners
and JV performance. Journal of World Business, 39,
pp. 107–120.
Beamish, P.W. and Lupton, N.C. (2009). Managing joint
ventures. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23,
pp. 75–94.
Bowman, E.H. and Hurry, D. (1993). Strategy through the
option lens: an integrated view of resource investments
and the incremental-choice process. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 18, pp. 760–782.
Calantone, R.J. and Zhao, Y.S. (2001). Joint ventures in
China: a comparative study of Japanese, Korean, and U.S.
partners. Journal of International Marketing, 9, pp. 1–23.
Chiao, Y.C., Yu, C.M.J. and Peng, J.T.A. (2009). Partner
nationality, market-focus and IJV performance: a contin-
gent approach. Journal of World Business, 44, pp. 238–
249.
Culpan, R. (2009). A fresh look at strategic alliances:
research issues and future directions. International
Journal of Strategic Business Alliances, 1, pp. 4–23.
Ding, D.Z. (1997). Control, conflict, and performance: a
study of U.S.–Chinese joint ventures. Journal of Inter-
national Marketing, 5, pp. 31–45.
Doz, Y.L. (1988). Technology partnerships between larger
and smaller firms: some critical issues. In Contractor, F.J.
and Lorange, P. (eds), Cooperative Strategies in Inter-
national Business. Lexington, KY: Lexington Books,
pp. 317–328.
DuBois, F.L. and Reeb, D. (2000). Ranking the international
business journals. Journal of International Business
Studies, 31, pp. 689–704.
Franko, L.G. (1971). Joint Venture Survival in Multinational
Corporations. New York, NY: Praeger.
Friedmann, W.G. and Kalmanoff, G. (1961). Joint Inter-
national Business Venture. New York, NY: Columbia
University Press.
Geringer, J.M. and Hébert, L. (1989). Control and perform-
ance of international joint ventures. Journal of Inter-
national Business Studies, 20, pp. 235–254.
Geringer, J.M. and Hébert, L. (1991). Measuring perform-
ance of international joint ventures. Journal of Inter-
national Business Studies, 22, pp. 249–264.
Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.B., Scheer, L.K. and Kumar, N.
(1996). The effects of trust and interdependence on rela-
tionship commitment: a Trans-Atlantic study. Interna-
tional Journal of Research in Marketing, 13, pp. 303–317.
© 2012 The Author
Antecedents of ISA Performance
Glaister, K.W. and Buckley, P.J. (1999). Performance rela-
tionships in UK international alliances. Management
International Review (MIR), 39, pp. 123–147.
Gong, Y., Shenkar, O., Luo, Y. and Nyaw, M.-K. (2005).
Human resources and international joint venture perform-
ance: a system perspective. Journal of International Busi-
ness Studies, 36, pp. 505–518.
Greve, H.R., Baum, J.A.C., Mitsuhashi, H. and Rowley, T.J.
(2010). Built to last but falling apart: cohesion, friction,
and withdrawal from interfirm alliances. Academy of
Management Journal, 53, pp. 302–322.
Griffith, D.A., Hu, M.Y. and White, D.S. (1998). Formation
and performance of multi-partner joint ventures: a Sino-
foreign illustration. International Marketing Review, 15,
pp. 171–187.
Hanvanich, S., Miller, S.R., Richards, M. and Cavusgil, S.T.
(2003). An event study of the effects of partner and loca-
tion cultural differences in joint ventures. International
Business Review, 12, pp. 1–16.
Harrigan, K.R. (1988). Strategic alliances and partner asym-
metries. Management International Review (MIR), 28,
pp. 53–72.
Hatfield, L., Pearce, J.A. II, Sleeth, R.G. and Pitts, M.W.
(1998). Toward validation of partner goal achievement
as a measure of joint venture performance. Journal of
Managerial Issues, 10, pp. 355–372.
Hébert, L. (1996). Does control matter? A path model of the
control–performance relationship in international joint
ventures. Management International, 1, pp. 27–39.
Heide, J.B. and Miner, A.S. (1992). The shadow of the
future: effects of anticipated interaction and frequency of
contact on buy–seller cooperation. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 35, pp. 265–291.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International
Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and
Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, Leadership and Organizations:
The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Hu, M.V. and Chen, H. (1996). An empirical analysis of
factors explaining foreign joint venture performance in
China. Journal of Business Research, 35, pp. 165–173.
Janger, A.R. (1980). Organization of International Joint
Ventures. New York, NY: Conference Board.
Jehn, K.A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the ben-
efits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 40, pp. 256–282.
Jehn, K.A. and Mannix, E.A. (2001). The dynamic nature of
conflict: a longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and
group performance. Academy of Management Journal,
44, pp. 238–251.
Killing, J.P. (1983). Strategies for Joint Venture Success.
New York, NY: Praeger.
Kim, C.S. and Inkpen, A.C. (2005). Cross-border R&D
alliances, absorptive capacity and technology learning.
© 2012 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
83
Journal of International Management, 11, pp. 313–
329.
Kim, J. and Parkhe, A. (2009). Competing and cooperating
similarity in global strategic alliances: an exploratory
examination. British Journal of Management, 20, pp.
363–376.
Kim, K. and Park, J.-H. (2002). The determinants of value
creation for partner firms in the global alliance context.
Management International Review (MIR), 42, pp. 361–
384.
Kogut, B. (1988a). Joint ventures: theoretical and empirical
perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 9, pp. 319–
332.
Kogut, B. (1988b). A study of the life cycle of joint ventures.
Management International Review (MIR), 28, pp. 39–
52.
Kogut, B. (1991). Joint ventures and the option to expand
and acquire. Management Science, 37, pp. 19–33.
Koh, J. and Venkatraman, N. (1991). Joint venture forma-
tions and stock market reactions: an assessment in the
information technology sector. Academy of Management
Journal, 34, pp. 869–892.
Krishnan, R., Martin, X. and Noorderhaven, N.G. (2006).
When does trust matter to alliance performance?
Academy of Management Journal, 49, pp. 894–917.
Kwon, Y.C. (2008). Antecedents and consequences of
international joint venture partnerships: a social exchange
perspective. International Business Review, 17, pp. 559–
573.
Li, M., Zhang, Y. and Jing, R. (2008). Does ownership and
culture matter to joint venture success? International
Management Review, 4, pp. 90–102.
Lin, X. and Germain, R. (1998). Sustaining satisfactory
joint venture relationships: the role of conflict resolution
strategy. Journal of International Business Studies, 29,
pp. 179–196.
Lin, X. and Wang, C.L. (2008). Enforcement and perform-
ance: the role of ownership, legalism and trust in interna-
tional joint ventures. Journal of World Business, 43, pp.
340–351.
Lowen, A. and Pope, J. (2008). Survival analysis of interna-
tional joint venture relationships. Journal of Business &
Economic Studies, 14, pp. 62–80.
Lu, J.W. and Beamish, P.W. (2006). Partnering strategies
and performance of SMEs’ international joint ventures.
Journal of Business Venturing, 21, pp. 461–486.
Lu, J.W. and Xu, D. (2006). Growth and survival of inter-
national joint ventures: an external–internal legitimacy
perspective. Journal of Management, 32, pp. 426–448.
Lu, L.-T. (2006). Conflict resolution strategy between
foreign and local partners in joint ventures in China.
Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge,
8, pp. 236–240.
Luo, Y. (1997). Partner selection and venturing success: the
case of joint ventures with firms in the people’s republic
of China. Organization Science, 8, pp. 648–662.
84
Luo, Y. (2001). Antecedents and consequences of personal
attachment in cross-cultural cooperative ventures.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, pp. 177–201.
Luo, Y. (2002a). Building trust in cross-cultural collabora-
tions: toward a contingency perspective. Journal of
Management, 28, pp. 669–694.
Luo, Y. (2002b). Contract, cooperation, and performance in
international joint ventures. Strategic Management
Journal, 23, pp. 903–919.
Luo, Y. (2008). Procedural fairness and interfirm coopera-
tion in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal,
29, pp. 27–46.
Luo, Y. and Park, S.H. (2004). Multiparty cooperation
and performance in international equity joint ventures.
Journal of International Business Studies, 35, pp. 142–
160.
Luo, Y., Shenkar, O. and Nyaw, M.K. (2001). A dual parent
perspective on control and performance in international
joint ventures: lessons from a developing economy.
Journal of International Business Studies, 32, pp. 41–58.
Madhavan, R. and Prescott, J.E. (1995). Market value impact
of joint ventures: the effect of industry information-
processing load. Academy of Management Journal, 38,
pp. 900–915.
Makino, S. and Beamish, P.W. (1998). Performance and
survival of joint ventures with non-conventional owner-
ship structures. Journal of International Business Studies,
29, pp. 797–818.
Makino, S., Chan, C.M., Isobe, T. and Beamish, P.W. (2007).
Intended and unintended termination of international
joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 28, pp.
1113–1132.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An
integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of
Management Review, 20, pp. 709–734.
McCutchen, W.W., Swamidass, P.M. and Teng, B.S. (2008).
Strategic alliance termination and performance: the role
of task complexity, nationality, and experience. Journal
of High Technology Management Research, 18, pp. 191–
202.
Meier, M. (2011). Knowledge management in strategic alli-
ances: a review of empirical evidence. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 13, pp. 1–23.
Merchant, H. (2002). Shareholder value creation via inter-
national joint ventures: some additional explanations.
Management International Review (MIR), 42, pp. 49–
69.
Merchant, H. and Schendel, D. (2000). How do international
joint ventures create shareholder value? Strategic
Management Journal, 21, pp. 723–737.
Meschi, P.-X. (2004). Valuation effect of international joint
ventures: does experience matter? International Business
Review, 13, pp. 595–612.
Mjoen, H. and Tallman, S. (1997). Control and performance
in international joint ventures. Organization Science, 8,
pp. 257–274.
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
J. Christoffersen
Muthusamy, S.K., White, M.A. and Carr, A. (2007). An
empirical examination of the role of social exchanges in
alliance performance. Journal of Managerial Issues, 19,
pp. 53–75.
Newburry, W. and Zeira, Y. (1999). Autonomy and effec-
tiveness of equity international joint ventures (EIJV’s): an
analysis based on EIJV’s in Hungary and Britain. Journal
of Management Studies, 36, pp. 263–285.
Nielsen, B.B. (2007). Determining international strategic
alliance performance: a multidimensional approach.
International Business Review, 16, pp. 337–361.
Nippa, M., Beechler, S. and Klossek, A. (2007). Success
factors for managing international joint ventures: a review
and an integrative framework. Management & Organiza-
tion Review, 3, pp. 277–310.
Nooteboom, B., Van Haverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing,
V. and Van Den Oord, A. (2007). Optimal cognitive dis-
tance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 36,
pp. 1016–1034.
Pangarkar, N. and Klein, S. (2004). The impact of control on
international joint venture performance: a contingency
approach. Journal of International Marketing, 12, pp.
86–107.
Pangarkar, N. and Lee, H. (2001). Joint venture strategies
and success: an empirical study of Singapore firms.
Journal of Asian Business, 17, pp. 1–13.
Park, B.I., Giroud, A., Mirza, H. and Whitelock, J. (2008).
Knowledge acquisition and performance: the role of
foreign parents in Korean IJVs. Asian Business &
Management, 7, pp. 11–32.
Park, S.H. and Ungson, G.R. (1997). The effect of national
culture, organizational complementarity, and economic
motivation on joint venture dissolution. Academy of
Management Journal, 40, pp. 279–307.
Parkhe, A. (1991). Interfirm diversity, organizational learn-
ing, and longevity in global strategic alliances. Journal of
International Business Studies, 22, pp. 579–601.
Parkhe, A. (1993a). ‘Messy’ research, methodological
predispositions, and theory development in international
joint ventures. Academy of Management Review, 18,
pp. 227–268.
Parkhe, A. (1993b). Strategic alliance structuring: a game
theoretic and transaction cost examination of interfirm
cooperation. Academy of Management Journal, 36, pp.
794–829.
Pearce, J.A. II and Hatfield, L. (2002). Performance effects
of alternative joint venture resource responsibility struc-
tures. Journal of Business Venturing, 17, pp. 343–364.
Pisani, N. (2009). International management research:
investigating its recent diffusion in top management
journals. Journal of Management, 35, pp. 199–218.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986). Self-reports in
organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal
of Management, 12, pp. 531–544.
Pothukuchi, V., Damanpour, F., Choi, J., Chen, C.C. and
Park, S.H. (2002). National and organizational culture
© 2012 The Author
Antecedents of ISA Performance
differences and international joint venture performance.
Journal of International Business Studies, 33, pp. 243–
265.
Ren, H., Gray, B. and Kim, K. (2009). Performance of
international joint ventures: what factors really make
a difference and how? Journal of Management, 35, pp.
805–832.
Reus, T.H. and Rottig, D. (2009). Meta-analyses of interna-
tional joint venture performance determinants. Manage-
ment International Review (MIR), 49, pp. 607–640.
Reus, T.H. and Ritchie, W.J. III (2004). Interpartner, parent,
and environmental factors influencing the operation of
international joint ventures: 15 years of research. Man-
agement International Review (MIR), 44, pp. 369–395.
Robson, M.J. and Katsikeas, C.S. (2005). International stra-
tegic alliance relationships within the foreign investment
decision process. International Marketing Review, 22,
pp. 399–419.
Robson, M.J., Katsikeas, C.S. and Bello, D.C. (2008).
Drivers and performance outcomes of trust in inter-
national strategic alliances: the role of organizational
complexity. Organization Science, 19, pp. 647–665.
Robson, M.J., Leonidou, L.C. and Katsikeas, C.S. (2002).
Factors influencing international joint venture perform-
ance: theoretical perspectives, assessment, and future
directions. Management International Review (MIR), 42,
pp. 385–418.
Robson, M.J., Skarmeas, D. and Spyropoulou, S. (2006).
Behavioral attributes and performance in international
strategic alliances. International Marketing Review, 23,
pp. 585–609.
Sarkar, M.B., Echambadi, R., Cavusgil, S.T. and Aulakh,
P.S. (2001). The influence of complementarity, compat-
ibility, and relationship capital on alliance performance.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29, pp.
358–373.
Saxton, T. (1997). The effects of partner and relationship
characteristics on alliance outcomes. Academy of
Management Journal, 40, pp. 443–461.
© 2012 The Author
International Journal of Management Reviews © 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
85
Sim, A.B. and Ali, Y. (2000). Determinants of stability in
international joint ventures: evidence from a developing
country. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 17, pp.
373–397.
Simonin, B.L. (2004). An empirical investigation of the
process of knowledge transfer in international strategic
alliances. Journal of International Business Studies, 35,
pp. 407–427.
Steensma, H.K. and Lyles, M.A. (2000). Explaining IJV
survival in a transitional economy through social
exchange and knowledge-based perspectives. Strategic
Management Journal, 21, pp. 831–851.
Tomlinson, J.W.C. (1970). The Joint Venture Process in
International Business: India and Pakistan. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Voss, K.E., Johnson, J.L., Cullen, J.B., Sakano, T. and
Takenouchi, H. (2006). Relational exchange in
US–Japanese marketing strategic alliances. International
Marketing Review, 23, pp. 610–635.
Yan, A. and Gray, B. (2001). Antecedents and effects of
parent control in international joint ventures. Journal of
Management Studies, 38, pp. 393–416.
Yeheskel, O., Zeira, Y., Shenkar, O. and Newburry, W.
(2001). Parent company dissimilarity and equity interna-
tional joint venture effectiveness. Journal of International
Management, 7, pp. 81–104.
Supporting information
Additional supporting information may be found in the
online version of this article at the publisher’s web site:
Appendix S1. Sample (Word document)
Appendix S2. Detailed findings (Word document)
Please note: Wiley-Blackwell are not responsible for the
content or functionality of any supporting materials supplied
by the authors. Any queries (other than missing material)
should be directed to the corresponding author for the
article.