jibs_header
Journal
  Home
  Editorial policy
  Advance online publication
  Current issue
  JIBS archive
  Search content
  For authors
  Editorial team
  Special issues
  Information for contributors
  Copyright agreements
  Indexed in
  Services
  AIB membership
  Prices
  Subscribe
  My account
  E-Alerts
  Register for access
  Order print sample copy
  Request permissions
  For advertisers
  Adopt a library
  Library recommendation form
  Contact Us

July 2004, Volume 35, Number 4, Pages 306-319

Table of contents | Previous| Full text| Next| PDF

Article

A model of cultural differences and international alliance performance

David G Sirmon1 and Peter J Lane2

1Management Department, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA

2Management Department, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA

Correspondence to: DG Sirmon, Management Department, Clemson University, Sirrine Hall, Clemson, SC 29634-1305, USA. Tel: +1 864 656 6773; Fax: +1 864 656 2015; E-mail: dsirmon@clemson.edu

Abstract

We propose a model of cultural differences and international alliance performance to explain the ambiguous findings regarding the influence of national culture differences on alliance performance. Building on research on national, organizational, and professional cultures, we argue that the closer the domain of a social group is to the value-creating activities of an alliance, the more disruptive cultural differences between the partners' members of that social group will be. Organizational culture differences will tend to be more disruptive than national culture differences, and differences in the professional culture most relevant to alliance value creation typically will be the most disruptive. Implications for research and managerial practice are discussed, and the model's relevance for international R&D alliances is highlighted.

Journal of International Business Studies (2004) 35, 306-319. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400089
Published online 1 July 2004

Keywords

cultural differences; alliance performance; professional culture

Received: 2 June 2003; revised: 3 August 2003; accepted: 3 August 2003


Table of contents | Previous| Full text| Next| PDF