Complementarity, status similarity and social capital as drivers of alliance formation

By S. Chung, Harbir Singh, Kyungmook Lee. 2000

1,023 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Finance, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5da7a1d3d1b7513e20c79cd2824f767cd49503ac

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

In Finance

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Dancing with Strangers: Aspiration Performance and the Search for Underwriting Syndicate Partners (2005, positive): “Familiarity and mutual understanding in turn facilitate trust building and the development of cooperative norms of exchange based on the expectation of future interaction (Axelrod, 1984; Larson, 1992; Gulati, 1995; Chung, Singh, and Lee, 2000).”
Understanding the cross-level embeddedness of inter-firm partnership formation. (2006, background): “Also, the familiarity of companies with each other is important for the stability and duration of existing relationships (Chung et al., 2000; Gulati, 1995b; Heide & Miner, 1992; Khanna, 1998; Kogut, 1989; Levinthal & Fichman, 1988; Nooteboom, Berger, & Noorderhaven, 1997; Zaheer, McEvily, & Perrone,”
Alliance Capabilities (2015, background): “…companies has an inverted-U impact on their further alliance formation (Chung, Singh, & Lee, 2000; Gulati, 1995b) because repeated partnerships lead to diminishing marginal returns (Rothaermel, 2001) and firms want to balance the amount of embedded ties and weak ties (Capaldo, 2007; Chung et al.).”
Swimming with Sharks: Technology Ventures, Defense Mechanisms and Corporate Relationships (2008, background): “Network scholars implicitly address potential misappropriation by arguing that firms are more likely to form ties with embedded partners whom they already know and whose reliability is confirmed (Gulati, 1995b; Chung, Singh, and Lee, 2000).”
Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance: a study on technology‐based ventures (2001, background): “Social relations in which exchange between actors are not reciprocal for a long time are likely to be broken, since one actor unilaterally sacrifices itself for the other for a long time (Chung et al., 2000; Gouldner, 1960; Levi-Strauss, 1957).”
Dynamics of Social Capital and Their Performance Implications: Lessons from Biotechnology Start-ups (2006, background): “Social capital and its effects have been studied at different levels of analysis: the individual (Burt, 1997), group (Burt, Hogarth, and Michaud, 2000), organizational (Pennings and Lee, 1999), and interorganizational levels (Chung, Singh, and Lee, 2000).”
Critical success factors through the Mergers and Acquisitions process:revealing pre- and post- M&A connections for improved performance (2013, background): “…of the key success factor, choice, and evaluation of a strategic partner (Pre1), in terms of strategic and organizational fit, can be significantly improved by considering target company size characteristics (Pre3), in terms of resource complementarity and status similarity (Chung et al., 2000).”
Alliance partners and firm performance: resource complementarity and status association (2009, background): “However, these perceptual measures are affected by different characteristics of managers and their positions in organizations.”