Extending the Attention-based View (ABV) to firms’ alliances, this study examines the relationship between the degree of attention to a focal alliance by alliance members and its success. We also examine how two contextual factors of collaboration, relational embeddedness and concentration of governance, affect this relationship in the context of U.S. venture capital syndicates. We find that attention increases the chances of syndicate success, that relational embeddedness of partners enhances the positive effect of attention, and that concentrated syndicate governance negatively moderates the effect of attention. This study joins the nascent stream of literature that emphasizes the importance of organizational factors in outcomes of inter-firm alliances and contributes to the integration of insights from the ABV and alliance research traditions to build a more comprehensive understanding of alliance success factors.
AhmadjianCOxleyJ (2013) Vertical relationships, hostages, and supplier performance: evidence from the Japanese automotive industry. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization29(3): 485–512.
2.
BanataoDFongK (2000) The valley of deals: how venture capital helped shape the region. The silicon valley edge: a habitat for innovation and entrepreneurship1: 295–313.
3.
BelsleyDKuhEWelschR (2005) Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
4.
BouquetCBirkinshawJ (2008) Weight versus voice: how foreign subsidiaries gain attention from corporate headquarters. Academy of Management Journal51(3): 577–601.
5.
BurtR (2007) Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital. OUP Oxford.
6.
CarrollGHannanM (2000) The Demography of Corporations and Industries. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
7.
CattaniGFerrianiSNegroG, et al. (2008) The structure of consensus: network ties, legitimation, and exit rates of US feature film producer organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly53(1): 145–182.
8.
ChoTHambrickD (2006) Attention as the mediator between top management team characteristics and strategic change: the case of airline deregulation. Organization Science17(4): 453–469.
9.
CohenMMarchJOlsenJ (1972) A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly17(1): 1–25.
10.
DasTTengB (2000a) Instabilities of strategic alliances: an internal tensions perspective. Organization Science11(1): 77–101.
11.
DhanarajCLylesMSteensmaH, et al. (2004) Managing tacit and explicit knowledge transfer in IJVs: the role of relational embeddedness and the impact on performance. Journal of International Business Studies35: 428–442.
12.
DussaugePGarretteBMitchellW (2000) Learning from competing partners: outcomes and durations of scale and link alliances in Europe, North America and Asia. Strategic Management Journal21(2): 99–126.
13.
DyerJSinghH (1998) The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review23(4): 660–679.
14.
EbersMMaurerI (2014) Connections count: how relational embeddedness and relational empowerment foster absorptive capacity. Research Policy43(2): 318–332.
15.
EisenhardtKSchoonhovenC (1996) Resource-based view of strategic alliance formation: strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science7(2): 136–150.
16.
FeldBMendelsonJ (2011) Venture Deals: Be Smarter than Your Lawyer and Venture Capitalist. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
17.
GompersPLernerJ (1999) What Drives Venture Capital Fundraising? (No. W6906). Cambridge, MA: National bureau of economic research.
18.
GompersPLernerJ (2001) The venture capital revolution. The Journal of Economic Perspectives15(2): 145–168.
19.
GompersPLernerJ (2004) The Venture Capital Cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
GranovetterM (1985) Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology91(3): 481–510.
21.
GreveH (2003) Organizational Learning from Performance Feedback: A Behavioral Perspective on Innovation and Change. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
22.
GulatiR (1995) Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal38(1): 85–112.
23.
GulatiR (1998) Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal19(4): 293–317.
24.
GulatiR (2007) Managing Network Resources: Alliances, Affiliations, and Other Relational Assets. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press on Demand.
25.
GulatiRLavieDSinghH (2009) The nature of partnering experience and the gains from alliances. Strategic Management Journal30(11): 1213–1233.
26.
GulerI (2007) Throwing good money after bad? Political and institutional influences on sequential decision making in the venture capital industry. Administrative Science Quarterly52(2): 248–285.
27.
HamelGDozYPrahaladC (1989) Collaborate with your competitors and win. Harvard Business Review67(1): 133–139.
28.
HochbergYLjungqvistALuY (2007) Whom you know matters: venture capital networks and investment performance. The Journal of Finance62(1): 251–301.
29.
JosephJOcasioW (2012) Architecture, attention, and adaptation in the multibusiness firm: general Electric from 1951 to 2001. Strategic Management Journal33(6): 633–660.
30.
LarsonA (1992) Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: a study of the governance of exchange relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly37(1): 76–104.
31.
Laureiro-MartinezD (2014) Cognitive control capabilities, routinization propensity, and decision-making performance. Organization Science25(4): 1111–1133.
32.
LernerJ (1994) The syndication of venture capital investments. Financial Management16–27.
33.
LevyO (2005) The influence of top management team attention patterns on global strategic posture of firms. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior26(7): 797–819.
34.
MaDRheeMYangD (2013) Power source mismatch and the effectiveness of interorganizational relations: the case of venture capital syndication. Academy of Management Journal56(3): 711–734.
35.
MacaulayS (1963) Non-contractual relations in business: a preliminary study. American Sociological Review28: 55–67.
36.
MakarevichA (2018) Performance feedback as a cooperation “switch”: a behavioral perspective on the success of venture capital syndicates among competitors. Strategic Management Journal39(12): 3247–3272.
37.
MarchJOlsenJ (1979) Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
38.
MatusikSFitzaM (2012) Diversification in the venture capital industry: leveraging knowledge under uncertainty. Strategic Management Journal33(4): 407–426.
39.
MeulemanMLockettAManigartS, et al. (2010) Partner selection decisions in interfirm collaborations: the paradox of relational embeddedness. Journal of Management Studies47(6): 995–1019.
40.
OcasioW (1997) Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal18(1): 187–206.
41.
OcasioW (2011) Attention to attention. Organization Science22(5): 1286–1296.
42.
OcasioWJosephJ (2005) An attention-based theory of strategy formulation: linking micro-and macroperspectives in strategy processes. Advances in Strategic Management22(18): 39–61.
43.
OcasioWLaamanenTVaaraE (2018) Communication and attention dynamics: an attention‐based view of strategic change. Strategic Management Journal,39(1): 155–167.
44.
OxleyJ (1997) Appropriability hazards and governance in strategic alliances: a transaction cost approach. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization13(2): 387–409.
45.
ParkSRussoM (1996) When competition eclipses cooperation: an event history analysis of joint venture failure. Management Science42(6): 875–890.
46.
ParkSUngsonG (2001) Interfirm rivalry and managerial complexity: a conceptual framework of alliance failure. Organization Science12(1): 37–53.
47.
ParkheA (1993) Strategic alliance structuring: a game theoretic and transaction cost examination of interfirm cooperation. Academy of Management Journal36(4): 794–829.
48.
PfarrerMPollockTRindovaV (2010) A tale of two assets: the effects of firm reputation and celebrity on earnings surprises and investors' reactions. Academy of Management Journal53(5): 1131–1152.
49.
PollockTGulatiR (2007) Standing out from the crowd: the visibility-enhancing effects of IPO-related signals on alliance formation by entrepreneurial firms. Strategic Organization5(4): 339–372.
50.
PowellWKoputKSmith-DoerrL (1996) Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly41(1): 116–145.
RheeLLeonardiPM (2018) Which pathway to good ideas? An attention-based view of innovation in social networks. Strategic Management Journal39(4): 1188–1215.
54.
RowleyTBehrensDKrackhardtD (2000) Redundant governance structures: an analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management Journal21(3): 369–386.
55.
ShipilovALiS (2008) Can you have your cake and eat it too? Structural holes’ influence on status accumulation and market performance in collaborative networks. Administrative Science Quarterly53(1): 73–108.
56.
ShipilovALiSGreveH (2011) The prince and the pauper: search and brokerage in the initiation of status-heterophilous ties. Organization Science22(6): 1418–1434.
57.
SimonH (2013) Administrative Behavior. New York: Simon & Schuster, [1947].
SorensonOStuartT (2008) Bringing the context back in: settings and the search for syndicate partners in venture capital investment networks. Administrative Science Quarterly53(2): 266–294.
60.
ThomasHRamanathanKSethA (1997) Exploring joint ventures: alternative theoretical perspectives. Cooperative Strategies. North American Perspectives. Research Collection Lee Kong Chian School of Business, 51, 51–89.
61.
TuggleCSirmonDReutzelC, et al. (2010) Commanding board of director attention: investigating how organizational performance and CEO duality affect board members’ attention to monitoring. Strategic Management Journal31(9): 946–968.
62.
UzziB (1996) The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: the network effects. American Sociological Review61(4): 674–698.
63.
UzziB (1997) Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly42(1): 35–67.
64.
WrightMLockettA (2003) The structure and management of alliances: syndication in the venture capital industry. Journal of Management Studies40(8): 2073–2102.
65.
ZhouLChenZPengM (2022) The role of relational embeddedness in enhancing absorptive capacity and relational performance of internationalized SMEs: evidence from Mainland China. Frontiers in Psychology13: 89652.
